Background
Jerre Psak obtained a First Amended Injunction Against Harassment against Keith Kardash in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (Case No. 1DSS-22-0000381). That injunction was entered on November 1, 2023.
Kardash, representing himself, filed a Notice of Appeal on April 2, 2026 — more than two years after entry of the injunction. Under Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(1), a notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed.
The appellate record contained no indication that Kardash had sought or received an extension of time under HRAP Rule 4(a)(4), nor that the 30-day deadline had been tolled by a timely post-judgment motion under HRAP Rule 4(a)(3).
The Court’s Holding
A three-judge panel of the Intermediate Court of Appeals — Chief Judge Nakasone and Associate Judges Wadsworth and Gluck — dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court found that Kardash’s Notice of Appeal was filed well outside the 30-day deadline imposed by HRAP Rule 4(a)(1), rendering the appeal jurisdictionally defective.
Citing Grattafiori v. State, 79 Hawai’i 10, 13, 897 P.2d 937, 940 (1995), the court reaffirmed that timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement — not a mere procedural formality — meaning the court had no authority to reach the merits of the challenge to the injunction. All pending motions were likewise dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- The 30-day deadline for filing a civil notice of appeal under HRAP Rule 4(a)(1) is jurisdictional; missing it is fatal to the appeal regardless of the merits.
- A self-represented litigant receives no special exception to appellate filing deadlines.
- To preserve appellate rights beyond 30 days, a party must obtain a formal extension under HRAP Rule 4(a)(4) or toll the deadline with a timely post-judgment motion under HRAP Rule 4(a)(3).
Why It Matters
This summary disposition underscores that appellate jurisdiction in Hawaii is strictly time-limited and cannot be conferred by the parties or waived by the court. Practitioners representing respondents in harassment-injunction proceedings — or advising pro se clients — should note that the clock begins running on the date the order is entered, not the date the client becomes aware of its consequences or decides to seek appellate review.
The decision is designated “not for publication” and carries no precedential weight under Hawaii rules, but it serves as a routine reminder that procedural compliance is a threshold requirement before any court will examine the substance of an appeal.