Ditto v. McCurdy12/3/2003
costs, but denied McCurdy and PCT's request for attorneys' fees without prejudice [hereinafter, the March 24, 2000 order]. The matters disposed of in the March 24, 2000 order are the subject of the instant appeal.
On September 28, 2000, the circuit court entered a document titled "Final Judgment on Collateral Issue" based on the March 24, 2000 order [hereinafter, the September 28, 2000 judgment]. On October 9, 2000, Ditto moved to set aside and/or alter the September 28, 2000 judgment pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 59(e) and 60(b). On October 30, 2000, Ditto filed a notice of appeal from the March 24, 2000 order and the September 28, 2000 judgment, which was docketed under appeal No. 23851.
Ditto's motion to set aside and/or alter the September 28, 2000 judgment came on for hearing on November 14, 2000. On November 20, 2000, the circuit court denied Ditto's motion [hereinafter, the November 20, 2000 order]. On December 19, 2000, McCurdy and PCT filed a notice of cross-appeal (under appeal No. 23851) from those portions of the March 24, 2000 order and the September 28, 2000 judgment respecting attorneys' fees. On December 20, 2000, Ditto filed a notice of appeal from the November 20, 2000 order, which was docketed under appeal No. 23962. Upon McCurdy and PCT's request, we consolidated appeal Nos. 23851 and 23962 under No. 23851 by order dated March 13, 2001.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A circuit court's determination of an HRCP Rule 60 motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawaii 152, 158, 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (citing Island Ins. Co., Inc. v. Santos, 86 Hawaii 363, 366, 949 P.2d 203, 206 (App. 1997) (citing Richardson v. Lane, 6 Haw. App. 614, 622, 736 P.2d 63, 69, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 953 (1987), reh'g denied, 484 U.S. 1037 (1988)).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Appeal and Cross-Appeal from the March 24, 2000 Order and the September 28, 2000 Judgment (Appeal No. 23851)
"As a general rule, compliance with the requirement of the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, and we must dismiss an appeal on our motion if we lack jurisdiction." Grattafiori v. State, 79 Hawaii 10, 13, 897 P.2d 937, 940 (1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Indeed, it is well settled that an appellate court is under an obligation to ensure that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine each case and to dismiss an appeal on its own motion where it concludes it lacks jurisdiction. Kernan v. Tanaka, 75 Haw. 1, 15, 856 P.2d 1207, 1215 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1119 (1994) (citation omitted); see Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawaii 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). The "lack of subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived by any party at any time." Housing Fin. & Dev. Corp. v. Castle, 79 Hawaii 64, 76, 898 P.2d 576, 588 (1995) (citing Chun v. Employees' Retirement Sys., 73 Haw. 9, 14, 828 P.2d 260, 263, reconsideration denied, 73 Haw. 625, 829 P.2d 859 (1992)). Therefore, " hen we perceive a jurisdictional defect in an appeal, we must, sua sponte, dismiss that appeal." Familian Northwest, Inc. v. Cent. Pac. Boiler & Piping, Ltd., 68 Haw. 368, 369, 714 P.2d 936, 937 (1986) (citations omitted).
Bearing these tenets in mind, we are compelled to sua sponte dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, Ditto's appeal and McCurdy and PCT's cross-appeal from the March 24, 2000 order and September 28, 2000 judgment. This court's jurisdiction over an appeal is limited to review of final judgments, orders, and decrees. HRS § 641-1(a) (1993). A post-judgment order is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|