Background
This case originated in the District Court of the Fifth Circuit, Līhuʻe Division (Case No. 5DRC-24-0000752), where Serina M. Santa Monica was the plaintiff and various members of the Wong family were defendants. Treena: Apostadiro Kahakuakoi, appearing pro se, was an interested party who filed a notice of appeal to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.
Following the filing of the notice of appeal, Kahakuakoi was required to file a statement of jurisdiction and an opening brief by October 23, 2025, and December 24, 2025, respectively. She failed to file either document and did not request an extension of time. The appellate clerk entered a default notice on December 30, 2025, warning that the appeal could be dismissed and that relief from default could be sought by motion.
The default notice mailed to Kahakuakoi’s address of record was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable and unable to be forwarded. Kahakuakoi never filed a notice of change of address as required by Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 25(f), and took no further action in the appeal after filing her notice of appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, per Chief Judge Nakasone and Associate Judges Wadsworth and Gluck, ordered the appeal dismissed. The court acted pursuant to HRAP Rules 12.1(e) and 30, which authorize dismissal when an appellant fails to file the required statement of jurisdiction and opening brief.
The court found that all procedural prerequisites for dismissal were satisfied: the filing deadlines had passed, proper default notice had been issued, and Kahakuakoi had neither cured the default nor taken any action to prosecute the appeal. The order is designated not for publication in West’s Hawaiʻi Reports and Pacific Reporter.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant’s failure to file a statement of jurisdiction and opening brief by the applicable deadlines, without seeking an extension, will result in default and may lead to dismissal of the appeal under HRAP Rules 12.1(e) and 30.
- Self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules as represented parties; pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with appellate filing requirements.
- Appellants have an ongoing obligation under HRAP Rule 25(f) to keep their address of record current; failure to do so may prevent receipt of critical court notices and will not excuse procedural default.
Why It Matters
This dismissal underscores the strict enforcement of Hawaii’s appellate procedural rules, particularly against self-represented parties who fail to prosecute their appeals. Courts will not indefinitely hold appeals open when appellants ignore deadlines, fail to communicate with the court, and cannot even be reached at their address of record.
For attorneys advising clients who are interested parties or co-litigants in cases where a pro se appellant is involved, this ruling is a reminder that such appeals can collapse on procedural grounds, potentially mooting related stay requests or other relief sought during the pendency of the appeal.