465 P.3d 815
Haw.2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Theodorico Erum sued Josue Llego for injuries and property damage after a 2012 car collision; a small‑claims judgment later awarded a smaller damages amount for property damage.
- The case progressed to circuit court; the parties missed deadlines and engaged in repeated settlement negotiations; the court imposed multiple monetary sanctions against Erum at different times.
- On August 24, 2017 Erum did not appear at a scheduled pretrial conference; Llego made an ex parte oral motion to dismiss with prejudice, which the circuit court granted without written motion, notice to Erum, or explanatory findings.
- The circuit court’s dismissal order cited HRCP Rules 16 and 37 but did not identify the specific authority, make findings of deliberate delay or contumacious conduct, show actual prejudice, or explain why lesser sanctions were inadequate.
- The ICA affirmed; the Hawai‘i Supreme Court vacated the ICA judgment, the circuit court dismissal and the monetary sanctions, and remanded—holding that written notice and findings are generally required and that dismissals with prejudice demand particularized findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of ex parte oral motion to dismiss at a pretrial conference | Erum: oral motion violated HRCP 7(b)(1) and HRCP 5(a); he lacked notice/opportunity to be heard | Llego: pretrial/conference authority (HRCP 16/37) permits dismissal for nonappearance or noncompliance | Court: HRCP 7(b)(1) requires motions be written and served unless made at a hearing or trial; a pretrial conference where no motion was pending is not a “hearing” for this exception; dismissal on an ex parte oral motion was improper |
| Standard for dismissal with prejudice based on procedural violations | Erum: dismissal was extreme; no findings support deliberate delay, contumacious conduct, or actual prejudice; lesser sanctions not considered | Llego: cumulative delays, missed appearances, and prior sanctions justified dismissal | Court: dismissal with prejudice is a last resort; must be supported by deliberate delay or contumacious conduct causing actual prejudice and explanation why lesser sanctions are insufficient; circuit court abused discretion here and Blaisdell standard applies across rules |
| Treatment of pro se emergency filing to reschedule trial | Erum: emergency motion should have been liberally construed and considered to allow response and preserve due process | Llego: court acted within discretion in denying post hoc continuance | Court: courts must liberally construe pro se filings; the emergency motion should have been considered rather than denied summarily because construing it might have restored Erum’s opportunity to be heard |
| Validity of monetary sanctions imposed earlier | Erum: sanctions orders failed to cite legal authority, lacked findings of bad faith, and did not show reasonableness or consider his resources | Llego: sanctions authorized under HRCP rules or inherent power based on Erum’s conduct | Court: sanctions vacated; orders must identify sanctioning authority, make required findings (bad faith for inherent‑power fees) supported by clear and convincing evidence where applicable, and assess reasonableness and party resources on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Blaisdell, 125 Hawai‘i 44, 252 P.3d 63 (Haw. 2011) (establishes that dismissal with prejudice is extreme and requires deliberate delay or contumacious conduct causing actual prejudice and consideration of lesser sanctions)
- Chen v. Mah, 146 Hawai‘i 157, 457 P.3d 796 (Haw. 2020) (reaffirms Blaisdell standard and requirement that lesser sanctions be considered)
- Gap v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 106 Hawai‘i 325, 104 P.3d 912 (Haw. 2004) (sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion; inherent‑power sanctions require particularized bad‑faith findings)
- Kunimoto v. Bank of Hawaii, 91 Hawai‘i 372, 984 P.2d 1198 (Haw. 1999) (trial courts must state sanctioning authority and make specific findings when imposing sanctions under inherent power)
- Fujimoto v. Au, 95 Hawai‘i 116, 19 P.3d 699 (Haw. 2001) (failure to make particularized findings undermines appellate review of sanctions)
- Bagalay v. Lahaina Restoration Found., 60 Haw. 125, 588 P.2d 416 (Haw. 1978) (applies dismissal principles across different court rules; examines actual prejudice requirement)
- Benezet v. Nowell, 42 Haw. 581 (Haw. 1958) (oral motions may be upheld when made in open court at a hearing with opposing counsel present and notice objectives satisfied)
- Shasteen, Inc. v. Hilton Hawaiian Village Joint Venture, 79 Hawai‘i 103, 899 P.2d 386 (Haw. 1995) (dismissal with prejudice is severe and appropriate only in extreme circumstances)
- Ryan v. Palmer, 130 Hawai‘i 321, 310 P.3d 1022 (Haw. App. 2013) (ICA vacated dismissal where record lacked findings of deliberate delay or contumacious conduct)
- Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1976) (illustrates actual prejudice example: delayed service led to defendants’ deaths and impaired defense)