NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
NO. 28733
IN
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
v.
CMP argues that we lack appellate jurisdiction because Campos's September 6, 2007 notice of appeal does not refer to the Honorable Glenn J. Kim's July 9, 2007 judgment and the June 26, 2007 Order Granting CMP's Motion to Dismiss and therefore, Campos's November 14, 2007 Amended Notice of Appeal could not add the judgment and order to the appeal. However, "the requirement that the notice of appeal designate the judgment or part thereof appealed from is not jurisdictional." State v. Bohannon, 102 Hawai‘i 228, 235, 74 P.3d 980, 987 (2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added); City and County of Honolulu v. Midkiff, 57 Haw. 273, 275, 554 P.2d 233, 235 (1976).
In contrast, however, the requirements for an appealable final judgment are jurisdictional. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (Supp. 2006) authorizes appeals from "final judgments, orders, or decrees[.]" HRS § 641-1(a) (Supp. 2006). Appeals under HRS § 641-1 "shall be taken in the manner . . . provided by the rules of the court." HRS § 641-1(c) (Supp. 2006). Rule 58 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) requires that "[e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document." HRCP Rule 58. Based on this requirement under HRCP Rule 58, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i has held that "[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 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994).[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). 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. at 119, 869 P.2d at 1338. Although Campos asserted five separate causes of action in her complaint, the July 9, 2007 judgment does not, on its face, identify the claim or claims for which judgment is entered, nor does the July 6, 2007 judgment state that the circuit court is entering judgment on all five of the counts in Campos's complaint. Although the July 9, 2007 judgment contains a statement that declares "[t]here are no other claims or parties remaining in this case[,]" the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i has noted 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, "Defendant Y's
counterclaim is dismissed," or "Judgment upon Defendant Y's
counterclaim is entered in favor of
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Z," or "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 (emphasis added). Therefore, the July 9, 2007 judgment does not satisfy the requirements for an appealable final judgment under the holding in Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright. Absent an appealable final judgment, we lack appellate jurisdiction over this case, and Campos's appeal is premature. Accordingly
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, January 7, 2008.