Background
The District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, orally dismissed plaintiff Hye Ja Choi’s case against Wireless City LLC on October 14, 2024, without prejudice. The district court failed to enter a written order memorializing this dismissal. On October 20, 2025, Choi filed a Notice of Appeal.
Choi’s Notice of Appeal improperly referenced two separate district court cases (1DRC-24-0005700 and 1DRC-24-0010100), violating Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3(a), which requires a separate notice of appeal for each case. On June 16, 2026, the Intermediate Court of Appeals temporarily remanded the case to the district court to enter a written dismissal order. During the remand, however, the district court granted Choi’s pending motion for reconsideration and set aside the oral dismissal entirely.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the district court set aside its oral dismissal on remand, there was no final decision remaining for the appellate court to review. The court emphasized that appellate jurisdiction requires the existence of a final, reviewable decision—once that decision is vacated or set aside, the appellate court loses jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The panel noted the procedural defect in Choi’s original Notice of Appeal but did not need to address it, as the jurisdictional defect was dispositive. All pending motions in the appeal were dismissed. However, the court directed the clerk to open a new, separate appeal for the second case (1DRC-24-0010100) and required Choi to pay the applicable fee, file required documents, and comply with appellate rules within seven days.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an appeal when the trial court’s decision has been set aside or vacated.
- A single Notice of Appeal cannot cover multiple separate cases; each case requires its own notice of appeal under HRAP Rule 3(a).
- An oral dismissal without a written order can create procedural complications; trial courts should memorialize dismissals in writing to establish a clear record for appeal.
- A motion for reconsideration that succeeds in setting aside a dismissal eliminates the finality necessary for appellate review.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores a fundamental principle of appellate jurisdiction: courts of appeals can only review final decisions. When a trial court grants a motion for reconsideration and reverses its own ruling, the case returns to pending status, and no appealable decision exists. Practitioners should be aware that procedurally proper appellate review requires compliance with notice rules and a finalized decision. Choi’s case illustrates how procedural missteps—both the informal oral dismissal and the multi-case notice of appeal—can complicate appellate review and require corrective action.
The temporary remand procedure under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 602-57(3) proved significant here: what appeared to be a final dismissal was reopened when the trial court was asked to memorialize it. This serves as a reminder that appellants must ensure the record is complete and that all decisions subject to appeal are properly finalized before filing notices of appeal.