Background
Thomas P. Flores, a self-represented claimant, brought a workers’ compensation appeal against his employer Safeway, Inc. (self-insured) and its insurance adjuster Sedgwick. The case originated from a Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board proceeding (Case No. AB 2022-137(T)(S); DCD No. 2-21-06728) and was appealed to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.
Under the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, Flores was required to file a statement of jurisdiction by September 29, 2025, and an opening brief by October 27, 2025. He failed to file either document and did not request an extension of time from the court.
On November 5, 2025, the appellate clerk entered a default notice advising Flores that the deadlines had passed, that the matter would be referred to the court on November 17, 2025 for possible dismissal, and that he could seek relief from default by motion. Flores took no further action.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in a brief order signed by Chief Judge Karen T. Nakasone and Associate Judges Clyde J. Wadsworth and Daniel M. Gluck, dismissed the appeal. The court acted pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30, which authorize dismissal when an appellant fails to timely file a statement of jurisdiction or opening brief.
Because Flores neither complied with the filing deadlines nor responded to the default notice by seeking an extension or other relief, the court exercised its authority to terminate the appeal for lack of prosecution. The dismissal was entered without reaching any merits of the underlying workers’ compensation dispute.
Key Takeaways
- A self-represented appellant’s failure to file a statement of jurisdiction and opening brief by their due dates, without requesting an extension, will result in dismissal under HRAP Rules 12.1(e) and 30.
- An appellate clerk’s default notice gives a defaulting appellant a final opportunity to seek relief by motion; ignoring that notice forfeits the appeal.
- The dismissal is procedural and does not resolve the merits of the underlying workers’ compensation claim.
Why It Matters
This case is a straightforward reminder that Hawaii’s appellate courts strictly enforce briefing deadlines and will dismiss appeals when self-represented litigants fail to comply — even after receiving explicit warning through a default notice. Attorneys advising clients who are currently self-represented on appeal should be alert to these procedural traps.
Because the opinion is designated “not for publication” in West’s Hawaii Reports and Pacific Reporter, it carries no precedential weight, but it illustrates the court’s consistent application of HRAP Rules 12.1(e) and 30 as a housekeeping tool to clear inactive appeals from the docket.