Background
Kerry Ramirez sued Patrick Lambert in the District Court of the Third Circuit, Kona Division. Lambert, representing himself, appealed in CAAP-22-0000264.
Lambert’s opening brief was due February 16, 2026. He neither filed the brief nor sought more time. On July 7, 2026, the appellate clerk issued a default notice stating that the matter could be dismissed under Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 30 and that Lambert could seek relief by motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed Lambert’s appeal. The court found that Lambert had failed to file his opening brief, request an extension, or take further action after receiving the default notice.
The dismissal was procedural. The order did not address the merits of the underlying dispute or the district court’s decision.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must timely file an opening brief or obtain an extension.
- A default notice may provide an opportunity to seek relief, but inaction can result in dismissal.
- The dismissal did not resolve the merits of Ramirez’s claims or Lambert’s appellate arguments.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the consequence of failing to prosecute an appeal after a briefing deadline has passed. Even self-represented appellants must comply with appellate filing requirements.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of promptly responding to default notices and moving for relief when a briefing deadline cannot be met.