Background
Thirtyone50 Management LLC, as plaintiff-appellee, brought an action against tenants Bill K. Kekawa and Valila Auelua in the District Court of the Third Circuit, North and South Kona Division (Case No. 3DRC-24-0000444). The defendants-appellants filed a timely appeal to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, though the appeal had not yet been docketed by the time the parties reached a resolution.
Before the appeal could proceed on the merits, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation and Settlement on May 12, 2026. Separately, appellants’ counsel Kirsha K.M. Durante filed a motion on June 1, 2026 to withdraw from the matter, requesting that co-counsel Henderson K. Huihui remain as counsel of record for the appellants.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, per Chief Judge Nakasone and Associate Judges Wadsworth and Gluck, construed the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Settlement as a stipulation to dismiss the appeal under Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 42(a). Finding all procedural requirements satisfied — including that the stipulation was signed by counsel for all parties — the court approved the stipulation and dismissed the appeal.
The court also granted counsel Durante’s motion to withdraw under HRAP Rule 50, noting that appellants had been informed of the withdrawal request and that Henderson K. Huihui would continue as their counsel. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A joint settlement agreement filed in an appellate proceeding may be construed as a stipulation to dismiss under HRAP Rule 42(a), even if not explicitly labeled as such.
- Dismissal under HRAP Rule 42(a) is available before an appeal has been docketed, provided the stipulation is signed by counsel for all parties.
- Counsel withdrawal under HRAP Rule 50 requires notice to the client and, here, was granted alongside the dismissal order in the same ruling.
Why It Matters
While this order resolves no contested legal question on the merits, it illustrates the procedural mechanism by which Hawaii appellate courts handle settlements that moot pending appeals. Practitioners should note that a settlement document need not use magic words — courts will look to substance over form and construe a joint stipulation as a motion to dismiss where that is the evident intent of the parties.
The order also serves as a reminder that attorney withdrawal in an active appellate matter requires compliance with HRAP Rule 50, including client notification, and that courts may address withdrawal motions simultaneously with case-dispositive procedural orders.