Background
Plaintiff-Appellant Hye Ja Choi appealed in a case involving Defendant-Appellee Wireless City LLC from the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division. On July 15, 2026, the Hawaiʻi Intermediate Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing the appeal.
Choi filed a motion for reconsideration on July 21, 2026. She also stated that she had not appealed a different district court case, No. 1DRC-24-0010100, which was pending in the Intermediate Court of Appeals as CAAP-26-0000514.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Choi’s motion for reconsideration. Applying Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(b), the court concluded that Choi presented no point of law or fact that the court had overlooked or misapprehended.
The court separately explained that any request to dismiss CAAP-26-0000514 must be filed in that appellate proceeding. It therefore did not address dismissal of the separate appeal through the motion filed in CAAP-25-0000730.
Key Takeaways
- Reconsideration was denied because Choi identified no point of law or fact that the court overlooked or misapprehended.
- A request concerning dismissal of a separate appeal must be filed under that appeal’s own docket.
- The July 15, 2026 order dismissing CAAP-25-0000730 remained in place.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the limited function of appellate reconsideration under HRAP Rule 40(b): the movant must identify a point of law or fact that the court overlooked or misapprehended.
It also highlights the importance of filing requests in the correct appellate proceeding when multiple cases involving the same litigant are pending.