Background
Nicole Moreau-Brown obtained injunctions against harassment against Stephen R. Kenny in the District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku Division. The injunctions, entered April 21 and June 30, 2025, were later the subject of proceedings concerning a default judgment and an order dissolving an injunction.
On January 14, 2026, the district court granted Moreau-Brown’s oral motion to set aside its September 29, 2025 oral order that had granted Kenny’s motion to set aside a default judgment. It also set aside the order dissolving the harassment injunction and reconfirmed that the April 21 and June 30 injunctions remained in effect. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed that order in a September 29, 2026 summary disposition order.
The Court’s Holding
Construing Kenny’s October 6, 2026 pro se filings liberally, the Intermediate Court of Appeals treated them as potentially seeking reconsideration of its September 29 summary disposition order.
The court denied reconsideration because Kenny identified no point of law or fact that the court had overlooked or misapprehended, as required by Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(b).
Key Takeaways
- Reconsideration requires a showing that the appellate court overlooked or misapprehended a material legal or factual point.
- The court liberally construed Kenny’s pro se filings as a reconsideration motion.
- The underlying district-court order reconfirming the harassment injunctions remains affirmed.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that liberal construction of pro se filings does not relax the substantive standard for appellate reconsideration. A litigant must still identify a specific overlooked or misapprehended point of law or fact.
For the parties, the appellate court’s denial leaves intact its prior affirmance of the district court order keeping the harassment injunctions in full force and effect.