Background
Patrick Worley filed a petition in the District Court of the First Circuit, Ewa Division, against John William Jacob Jr. (Case No. 1DSS-26-0000235). The nature of the underlying proceeding is not detailed in the appellate record addressed here, but Jacob, acting as a self-represented litigant, had taken an appeal from the district court’s ruling to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.
The appeal was docketed at the appellate level, but no other parties entered an appearance in the appellate proceedings. On May 1, 2026, Jacob filed a motion seeking to voluntarily dismiss the appeal he himself had initiated.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals granted Jacob’s motion and dismissed the appeal. The court found that all procedural requirements for a voluntary dismissal were satisfied: the appeal had been docketed, Jacob himself was the moving party seeking dismissal of his own appeal, no other parties had appeared, and no opposition was filed.
The court relied on Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b) as the procedural basis authorizing the dismissal. The court further ordered that each party bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal, and that all other pending motions be dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A self-represented appellant may voluntarily dismiss his own appeal under HRAP Rule 42(b), and the court will grant such a motion when no opposing parties have appeared and no opposition is filed.
- Voluntary dismissal results in each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal absent an agreement or order to the contrary.
- All pending motions are mooted and dismissed upon voluntary dismissal of the appeal.
Why It Matters
While procedurally straightforward, this order illustrates the operation of HRAP Rule 42(b) in practice: an appellant who changes course after docketing an appeal can exit the appellate process cleanly through a voluntary dismissal motion, without requiring consent from parties who have not appeared. The absence of opposition streamlines the process considerably.
The decision carries no precedential weight as it is designated not for publication in West’s Hawai’i Reports and Pacific Reporter, but it serves as a routine example of appellate case management in Hawaii state courts.