NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI`I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER



NO. 27982





IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I





MAURICIA GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, and
LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, INC.,
dba LONGS DRUG STORES, Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES 1-10, et al., Defendants





APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CV. NO. 04-1-1220)



ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Burns, C.J., Lim and Foley, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that we lack jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Appellant Mauricia Gonzales's (Appellant Gonzales) appeal from the Honorable Karen S. S. Ahn's June 13, 2006 judgment, because the June 13, 2006 judgment is not an appealable final judgment under HRS § 641-1(a) (Supp. 2005), Rule 58 of the Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP), and the holding in Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai`i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994).

Under the HRCP Rule 58 separate document rule, "[a]n appeal may be taken from circuit court orders resolving claims against parties only after the orders have been reduced to a judgment and the judgment has been entered in favor of and against the appropriate parties pursuant to HRCP [Rule] 58[.]" Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai`i at 119, 869 P.2d at 1338.

[I]f a judgment purports to be the final judgment in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties, the judgment (a) must specifically identify the party or parties for and against whom the judgment is entered, and (b) must (i) identify the claims for which it is entered, and (ii) dismiss any claims not specifically identified[.]

Id. (emphases added). Furthermore, "if the judgment resolves fewer than all claims against all parties, or reserves any claim for later action by the court, an appeal may be taken only if the judgment contains the language necessary for certification under HRCP [Rule] 54(b)[.]" Id. Therefore, "an appeal from any judgment will be dismissed as premature if the judgment does not, on its face, either resolve all claims against all parties or contain the finding necessary for certification under HRCP [Rule] 54(b)." Id.

Although Appellant Gonzales asserted multiple claims in her second amended complaint, the June 13, 2006 judgment does not specifically identify the claims on which the circuit court has entered judgment. The June 13, 2006 judgment does not clearly express whether the circuit court has entered judgment on all of the multiple causes of action in Appellant Gonzales's second amended complaint or less than all of them. Although the June 13, 2006 judgment states that there are no remaining or outstanding claims, the supreme court has explained that "[a] statement that declares 'there are no other outstanding claims' is not a judgment. If the circuit court intends that claims other than those listed in the judgment language should be dismissed, it must say so: for example, . . . 'all other claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims are dismissed.'" Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai`i at 119-20 n.4, 869 P.2d at 1338-39 n.4. Therefore, the June 13, 2006 judgment does not satisfy the requirements for an appealable final judgment under HRCP Rule 58 and the holding in Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright.

Absent an appealable final judgment, this appeal is premature. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August 30, 2006.