 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kohala Agriculture v. Deloitte & Touche11/10/1997
r party "in every situation" is without merit. The Keaau investors were removed completely from the litigation by the Keaau order. Because their only interest in the action was as Keaau investors, all of their rights were decided by the Keaau order and the August 31, 1994 judgment, making HRCP Rule 54(b) certification permissible.
Although D&T;admits that certification under HRCP Rule 54(b) was proper with respect to the Keaau investors, D&T;argues that the Keaau order was not properly certified under HRCP Rule 54(b) with respect to the Kohala/Keaau investors. Because the Kohala/Keaau investors' post-March 30, 1984 Kohala claims have not been dismissed, these investors have not been eliminated from the suit.
However, it suffices that "at least one 'claim' or all of the rights and liabilities of at least one party decided" by the Keaau order for certification under HRCP Rule 54(b). Id. (emphasis added). The Keaau order decided all claims relating to Keaau; thus, even though the Kohala/Keaau investors (and Kohala, asserting Keaau's claims) were not entirely eliminated as parties by the Keaau order, their claims based on Keaau were decided by the Keaau order. Thus, certification under HRCP Rule 54(b) was allowable.
Furthermore, all of the requirements for an appeal following HRCP Rule 54(b) certification have been met. The Keaau order was reduced to judgment on August 31, 1994. Oppenheimer, 77 Hawai'i at 93, 881 P.2d at 1239. The court entered a finding of "no just reason for delay" in the August 31, 1994 judgment, which is the necessary language for HRCP Rule 54(b) certification. Jenkins, 76 Hawai'i at 120, 869 P.2d at 1339. Plaintiffs appealed within thirty days of the entry of the partial final judgment on the Keaau order.
Thus, we conclude that we properly have jurisdiction to address the appeal of the Keaau order.
III.
A.
In the Keaau order, the court granted summary judgment in favor of D&T;and against Plaintiffs
on all claims brought by or on behalf of [Keaau] or any investors in [Keaau], including any claim arising from or relating to [Keaau] or the investors in [Keaau], on the ground that [D&T; owed no duty to [Keaau] or its investors.
(Emphases added.) Although the court did not specify what exactly was included by the words "all claims," in their summary judgment memoranda and briefs, Plaintiffs and D&T;have addressed four claims that are potentially encompassed by this order. We must determine then if the court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to each of the claims relating to Keaau.
B.
We review an award of summary judgment "under the same standard applied by the circuit court." Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 104, 839 P.2d 10, 22, reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 843 P.2d 144 (1992) (citation omitted). "Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Because "a negligence action lies only where there is a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff," Birmingham v. Fodor's Travel Publica
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|