Liberty Dialysis — appeal dismissed as to ILWU Trust; abeyance request denied as moot

Case
Liberty Dialysis – Hawaii, LLC v. Health Management Network, Inc.
Court
Hawaiʻi Intermediate Court of Appeals
Judge
Katherine G. Leonard (Linda Lingle, 2008); Clyde J. Wadsworth (David Y. Ige, 2019); Sonja M.P. McCullen (David Ige, 2021)
Date Decided
August 28, 2026
Docket No.
CAAP-24-0000193
Topics
Appellate procedure; stipulated dismissal; settlement
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Health Management Network, Inc. and Multiplan, Inc. appealed in litigation involving Liberty Dialysis entities and several health and welfare trusts. The appeal was docketed on March 22, 2024.

On July 2, 2026, HMN-Multiplan and third-party defendant-appellee ILWU Local 142 Health and Welfare Trust jointly asked the court to hold the appeal in abeyance for 60 days while they pursued settlement discussions. On August 11, the same parties filed a stipulated dismissal of the appeal solely as to ILWU Trust.

The Court’s Holding

The Hawaiʻi Intermediate Court of Appeals approved the stipulated dismissal under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b). The stipulation disposed of all HMN-Multiplan claims against ILWU Trust, specified that each side would bear its own appellate costs, and drew no opposition.

The court dismissed ILWU Trust from the appeal and ordered HMN-Multiplan and ILWU Trust to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal. It denied the earlier joint request for an abeyance as moot. The dismissal did not affect the appeal or claims involving the other appellees.

Key Takeaways

  • A stipulated dismissal that meets HRAP Rule 42(b)’s requirements may be approved after an appeal has been docketed.
  • The dismissal was limited to ILWU Trust and did not resolve the remaining appeal.
  • The settlement-related abeyance motion became moot once the parties stipulated to dismissal.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates that parties can narrow a pending appeal through a partial stipulated dismissal without disturbing claims involving other appellees. It also confirms that a settlement-driven request to pause an appeal need not be decided once the relevant parties instead dismiss their portion of the dispute.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top