***
NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
NO.
26391
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
NANCY
MAKANUI, Plaintiff-Appellant
vs.
STATE
OF HAWAI`I, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; DIRECTOR DR.
SUSAN CHANDLER,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI`I;
DR. PATRICIA SNYDER, ADULT PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, SOCIAL SERVICES
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAI`I;
DEPUTY
DIRECTOR PATRICIA MURAKAMI, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE
OF HAWAI`I;
ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR KATHLEEN STANLEY, DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF
HAWAI`I; BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR NOREEN
MOON-NG & COMMUNITY CARE BRANCH SOCIAL
SERVICES DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF HAWAII; NORMAN NISHIKI,
ADULT
COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES, EAST HAWAII, STATE OF HAWAI`I,
Defendants-Appellees
APPEAL
FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 02-1-155)
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon review of the record, it appears that we do not have jurisdiction
over Plaintiff-Appellant Nancy Makanui's (Appellant
Makanui) appeal from the February 20, 2004 order denying Appellant
Makanui's motion for summary judgment. "As a
general matter, this court's jurisdiction over an appeal is limited to
a review of final judgments, orders and decrees. Hawai`i Revised
Statutes § 641-1(a) (1985). Judgment is not final in a case until
all claims of the parties have been
terminated." Ciesla v.
Reddish, 78 Hawai`i 18, 20, 889 P.2d 702, 704 (1995) (citation
omitted). The February 20, 2004
order denying Appellant Makanui's motion for summary judgment did not
terminate any of the claims, and, thus, the
February 20, 2004 order "is interlocutory and not appealable absent
permission under HRS § 641-1(b) or Rule 54(b),
HRCP, as applicable." Jacober
v. Sunn, 5 Haw. App. 20, 25, 674 P.2d 1024, 1028 (1984)
(citation and footnote omitted). Appellant Makanui neither sought nor
obtained the circuit court's permission to appeal the February 20, 2004
order
pursuant to HRS § 641-1(b) (1993) or Rule 54(b) of the
Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the February 20,
2004 order does not qualify as an appealable final order under the Forgay doctrine or the
collateral order doctrine. See
Ciesla v. Reddish, 78
Hawai`i at 20, 889 P.2d at 704 (regarding the Forgay doctrine); Abrams v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming
&
Wright, 88 Hawai`i 319, 321-22, 966 P.2d 631, 633-34 (1998)
(regarding the collateral order doctrine). Therefore, this
appeal is premature and we lack appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate
jurisdiction.
DATED:
Honolulu, Hawai`i, May 12, 2004.