NO. 24392
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF
STATE OF
HAWAI‘I, by its Office of Consumer Protection, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. METRO CLUB, INC., a foreign corporation, and
DAVID A. KERSH, individually and as an officer of METRO CLUB, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants, and METRO CLUB, INC., a Michigan corporation, and DAVID
A. KERSH, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellants, and INTERNATIONAL
KITCHENS, a Hawai‘i corporation, WYMT, INC., dba
FOGCUTTER RESTAURANT, a Hawai‘i corporation, TRATTORIA, C&W
CORPORATION, dba KING TSIN, a Hawai‘i
corporation, CHURCH'S FRIED CHICKEN, INC., a Texas corporation, GANNETT PACIFIC
CORPORATION, dba HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN, a foreign
corporation, BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF HAWAII, INC., a Hawai‘i
corporation, Third-Party Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(Civ. No. 00-0-63668)
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
DAVID KERSH'S JUNE 25, 2009 HRAP RULE 40 MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
THE JUNE 17, 2009 ORDER DENYING THE
JUNE 8, 2009 MOTION TO SET ASIDE ALL ORDERS ENTERED IN THIS
APPEAL AND DISMISS
APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(By: Foley, Presiding Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.)
Upon review of (1) the intermediate court of appeals' April 2, 2003
memorandum opinion in appellate court case number 24393, (2)
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant David Kersh's
(Appellant Kersh) May 19, 2003 application for a
writ of certiorari in appellate court case number 24393, (3) the supreme
court's May 29, 2003 order denying Appellant Kersh's
May 19, 2003 application for a writ of certiorari in appellate court case
number 24393, (4) the intermediate court of appeals' June 17, 2009 order
denying Appellant Kersh's June 8, 2009 motion to
set aside all orders entered in this appeal and dismiss this appeal for lack of
appellate jurisdiction, (5) Appellant Kersh's
June 25, 2009 motion for reconsideration of the June 17, 2009 order
pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP),
and (6) the record, we conclude that, with respect to the June 17, 2009 order,
we have not overlooked or misapprehended any points of law or fact, and, thus,
Appellant Kersh's June 25, 2009 HRAP
Rule 40 motion for reconsideration of the June 17, 2009 order lacks merit.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant Kersh's June 25, 2009 HRAP Rule 40 motion for reconsideration of the June 17, 2009 order is denied.
DATED: