*1 30-31, tally opinion at disabled.” ICA

P.3d at 88-89. question TPRa

Because the whether “program activity” public of a ceeding is a subject entity to the ADA not before the sweeping court in this would limit the majority’s specific scope holding to the reject majority’s facts of this case In re Jane Doe. intention overrule RIVERA, Alphonso D. Plaintiff- Appellant, AND IN- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS, Employment DUSTRIAL Security Division, Evergreen Ter- AOAO Inc., Management,

race Certified c/o Defendants-Appellees, 1-10,

Doe Entities Defendants. No. 24827. Honolulu, Varady, M. Carl Plaintiff- Rivera, Appellant, Alfonso D. Jr. Supreme Court of Hawai'i. Yamashiro, Deputy Attorney Li-Ann Gen- Dec. eral, Department Defendant-Appellee, Labor and Industrial Relations. Uesato,

Philip Ayabe Chong S. Nishimo- Nakamura, Honolulu, Sia & Defen- dant-Appellee, Evergreen AOAO Terrace. MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, RAMIL, JJ., ACOBA, J., dissenting. RAMIL, Opinion J. COURT D. Alphonso ap- Plaintiff peals secondary appeal in this from a circuit judgment dismissing agency appeal. his an agency Rivera filed with the circuit pursuant to court1 Hawai'i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) 91-14, appealing a decision of the Department of Labor and Industrial Rela- (“DILR”) disqualifying tions Rivera from un- presiding. 1. The Honorable Eden Elizabeth Hifo

employment quit his right/wrong benefits because he em- that we review under the stan- ployment Ontiveros, Evergreen with AOAO Terrace dard. State (“Evergreen”) good without cause. The cir- appeal untimely.

cuit court dismissed the Judgment on was entered December III.DISCUSSION appeal judgment 2001. Notice of from the Appeals from the decisions timely by filed January. was Rivera on Appeals by Office are authorized HRS thirty-day period within appeal § provides judicial 383-41. That statute prescribed by Appellate Hawai'i Rules of review a decision of the shall referee be (“HRAP”) 4(a)(1). Oral provided instituted the manner in HRS heard before this court November 91—14(b) chapter 91. provides HRS in rel Upon carefully reviewing the record part: evant parties and briefs submitted and hav- (b) ing given arguments due consideration to ... proceedings for review shall be raised, advanced and the issues we affirm the thirty instituted in the circuit court within judgment dismissing circuit court's order and after service the certified agency appeal. Rivera’s of the final decision agen- and order cy pursuant to rule .... court I.BACKGROUND added.) (Emphasis mandatory The is statute Unemployment Rivera a claim for filed respect pro- of review commencement Unemployment Insurance benefits. The In- ceedings prescribed. within the time Division, DLIR, surance determined that applicable ap The court” “rules disqualified quit- Rivera was for benefits for peal are Hawai'i Rules Civil Procedure ting employment good his without cause. (“HRCP”) 72(b). 5(b)(3), 6(a), 6(e), appealed determination 72(b), 91-14(b), HRCP Rule like HRS section Employment Security Appeals Office requires filing days.2 of an appeal within 30 Office”). (“Appeals hearing A was held 5(b)(8), HRCP Rule states service Appeals Office on June at which complete upon mailing. When service is represented by Rivera was counsel. The as in the instant HRCP Rule Appeals Decision Office mailed No. 0101196 operates parties provide two additional affirming to Rivera on De- appeal: to file a notice of partment’s A determination. document enti- (e) Additional Time After Service Mail. “Important—Further Appeal Rights” tled right party or re- Whenever was attached to Decision No. in- quired to or pro- do some act take some forming parties rights request of their ceedings prescribed within a reopening appeal, of the ease or to and stat- upon paper of a notice or other ing appeal within must be filed paper him and the notice or is seived mailing delivery from the or date of the mail, 2 him shall added to the be Rivera, counsel, through decision. filed his prescribed period. of Appeal Notice circuit on Au- court added.) gust thirty-third day (Emphasis after the HRCP Rule mailing last Office decision. The vides relief when the take appeal prescribed circuit court dismissed the untime- action falls or holi- weekend ly. day: (a) computing Computation. any period OF

II.STANDARD REVIEW prescribed or these of time rules, court, question applica- The of whether a court has order of or jurisdiction act, statute, event, question is a over of law ble 72(b) order, provides part: entry relevant decision or or of taken, (b) provided by appeal action in the manner Time. statute. filed added.) per- the circuit within 30 after the desiring appeal son notified render- designated gust was filed

default after which the The notice late, begins beyond to run shall not be included. which is computed so period. Accordingly, we hold that the it untimely. shall he included unless *3 Sunday holiday, or a in event the which timely appeal Rivera contends the was day the end the next runs until of a 6(a) him because HRCP Rule would allow Saturday, tvhich is not or a 6, 2001, Monday, August and the until since pre- time holiday. When the of mailed, decision was HRCP Appeals Office days, 7 or allowed is less than scribed 6(e) by the period would further extend Rule Saturdays, Sundays and holi- intermediate Wednesday, August al- days to two computation. in days be excluded the shall thirty-four days him of to lowing a total rule, “holiday” any As in this includes used appeal His of was on the appeal. notice filed day pursuant to designated as such section thirty-third day Appeals of after service the 8-1 of Hawai'i Revised the Statutes. Office decision. added.) upon his reli- Rivera’s contention based mind, foregoing With the rules in we now opinion on the of the ance Intermediate Here, to facts this turn the of case. the (ICA) Appeals in Korean Buddhist Court sought, appeal Ap- which decision from was Temple Zoning Dae Won Sa Board of peals No. was Office Decision Haw.App. re- Appeals, 9 day mailed 2001. thirtieth on The denied, Haw.App. 833 P.2d 98 con. Saturday, August was thereafter extrapolates from Rivera Korean Appeals Because the Office decision was assessing time Temple in the Buddhist triggered. by Rule HRCP case, appeal in this HRCP the Thus, party receiving provid- the mail is the (1) responsive mandates: action days two the ed file non-holiday weekday the first after taken 6(e) (“2 days appeal. (2) that, holiday; Sunday, or and prescribed period.”); be added to Cf. service is two additional where Zoning Appeals, 77 Price v. Board Hawai'i foregoing. are In Korean Bud- added (“In com- Temple, at the ICA the rules dhist puting prescribed of time follow: issue as act HRCP of the after which the ease, In the instant the certified designated period begins time run is [agency’s] Order was mailed on Janu- 6(a) (1990). [agency] HRCP The excluded.” ary The mail- thirtieth after August final and on mailed its decision order 11, 1990, which, February ing was howev- 5(b) 5,1991. (1990), Under HRCP service Therefore, er, Sunday. appeal was a permissible mail is a method of service and is Monday, February period was extended to Thus, “complete upon mailing.” the statuto- 6(a), 12, 1990. HRCP. Under ry thirty day period within which the Prices 6(e), HRCP, required Temple to file was appeal a notice required were file February no appeal notice of later than August on circuit court commenced 14,1990. notice of was filed The mailing. Pursuant HRCP 16,1990, February days late. two 6(e) (1990), were to add the Prices entitled 305-06, period, by at Haw.App. 315. Be virtue effecting in Bud [agency’s] dispositive mail. issue Korean cause Thus, thirty-two application of Prices were accorded dhist was 6(a) but, rather, days, commencing August within Rules and HRCP mailing or the appeal.”). their of whether the which to file determination Monday, agency’s triggered the thirty-second receipt order after service running appeal, language August 2001. Rivera filed the notice of the time Tuesday, court on Au- relies is dictum.3 to the circuit ("City”) Temple, City County Appellees-Appel- In Buddhist Honolulu Korean ("ZBA”) City's Zoning Department of Land Uti- lants Director of the Board Marketplace found Waikiki Investment application proposed Rivera’s Zoning Appeals, Co. v. Chair Board flies face of HRCP plain language of the rules. (App.1997). HRCP Hawai'i put place Marketplace, alleviate unfair Waikiki considered ICA might ness that be caused transmission admin- one issue: how to determine when plain language mail.4 The of the rule re istrative decision had been “served” when quires the two be added to the proof mailing agency’s no there was “prescribed period.” period prescribed Korean expressly file. The ICA considered 91—14(b) thirty days. HRS Accord Temple, citing, Buddhist approval, ingly, under the facts of the instant supra, above, see very passage quoted re- thirty garding application of HRCP Rules the rules is an additional two *4 (e). Nonetheless, hypothetical in a re- by operation of Rule for total HRCP it, the Waikiki Mar- garding the facts before days. thirty-two Only when the last ketplace speculated that: period Saturday, of the allowed falls on a if Appellees prove were to that [E]ven able 6(a) Sunday, a holiday will HRCP Rule 27, August DLU mailed on the Order was operable. become 6(e) 1991, Ap- HRCP would authorize Rule pellant thirty-two days also within which to file contends the circuit court persuaded by Appellees disregard appeal. thirty-second day was an The 27, Temple, Korean Btiddhist dicta September August Saturday, favor was ("DLU”) (collectively, essentially appropri- lization ate, where circuit The court's Order Denial that, Board), 72(b), appealed 30-day from Rule the the first circuit held under HRCP the ("ZBA reversing filing appeal HRS court's order the ZBA's denial the notice under 91—14(b) Order”) began § the Appellant-Appellee when notice of an adminis- Korean Buddhist Hawai'i, agency actually ("Tem- trative decision was received. Temple Sa Dae Won Inc.’s 302, Disagreeing, Id. at 837 P.2d 313. the ICA ple”) City’s at application for a variance from the jurisdic- held the was circuit court without zoning remanding ordinances and the matter Order, appeal hear the from ZBA’s tion to the rehearing ZBA for and reconsideration. 9 Haw. copy because the service of the certified of an 300, ICA, App. at 312. The sua at agency’s complete administrative decision was sponte, held that the circuit court was without copy deposited when certified was jurisdiction appeal to hear the from the ZBA mail, actually not when it was received. Id. at that, consequently, The Order. Id. ICA then held 305, such, Temple’s 837 P.2d at As 315. jurisdiction it also no over the Id. matter. appeal, thirty- which was filed on tire Temple applied The to the DLU for a variance mailed, fifth after the ZBA's order was zoning regulations restricting height from the untimely. Accordingly, the ICA remanded building. public of its cultural center Id. After a matter to the circuit court with instructions to hearing, the DLU denied Id. at variance. vacating an order Order of enter latter’s 300-01, Temple appealed 837 P.2d at 312. The appeal dismissing Temple’s Denial and to the ZBA. Id. at P.2d at 312. After jurisdiction. Id. at at 315. lack of public hearings, the ZBA affirmed the DLU’s Wright Miller 4. Professors have commented January denial in an order entered on 6(e) counterpart Rule of the Federal that the February Id. On filed (“FRCP”), of Civil which appeal in the court. Id. circuit an additional three to take action vides filed a in the Board motion circuit court made where has been untimely, Temple's appeal dismiss based secretary personally on the fact ZBA’s clearly protect parties who are is intended to Temple’s mailed a to the ZBA's order system- suffering a notice mail from served attorney January thereby rendering respond their atic diminution of through time to late, Temple’s filing appeal pursuant 5(b), application which of Rule 72(b) period prescribed HRCP Rule and HRS complete mailing, provides that service is § Id. 91-14. at at 312-13. receipt; days provided the additional three not by motion, Temple’s attorney opposing party being repre- Rule appeal time, the time which averred that within and a fair reasonable transmission sent began Temple's receipt compromise time of the measur- between harshness of January thereby strictly ZBA render- ing mailing order date of and the from the Temple’s filing pre- attempting within indefiniteness of to measure 30-day period. many receipt, scribed Id. at 837 P.2d at date of which in cases would hearing, circuit court After entered be unverifiable. Miller, denying Wright motion 4A & Federal Practice and order Board's to dismiss C. A. (Order Denial). Civil 2d at 514-15 Id. Procedure: day—Monday, August Pursuant 2001—-was a weekend date. second 6(a), therefore, day. last regular the due date business Because the Appellant’s appeal would have been was Mon- of the extended September Monday, regular day, August extended was a day, trig- HRCP was not business Marketplace's application of the Waikiki gered August 2001 was may in its dicta have been inconsistent rules appeal. deadline for impliedly an that the with the method ICA but, in Temple, nounced Korean Buddhist view, being it was correct as more consis our IV. CONCLUSION plain language of the rules.5 with the tent Riv- foregoing, on the hold that Based we Accordingly, HRCP we hold such, untimely. the cir- era’s As i.e., triggered, when service by granting Appellees’s cuit court did err effected HRCP jurisdiction. motion to dismiss for lack of instantly original prescribed to extend the hereby judgment circuit court’s af- days.6 for action When the firmed. extended holiday, it is falls on ACOBA, Dissenting Opinion J. only becomes then HRCP *5 period operable, such First, separately I write for two reasons. day that is not until the end runs the next ease, I we as to the merits believe Sunday, holiday.7 a a or a ambiguous should construe rules favor resolving case. Here, days matters the merits two added to the would be Accordingly, respectfully I must from thirty days, thirty-two days and would be dissent 5, 2001, holding in this reasons set the date the deci- case for the counted I, second, thirty- forth in Part But favor sion of the referee was mailed. infra. adopt days, insignificant compulation to- Ais for 5.The method of that we Federal difference is Miller, purposes day regarded Wright of our and discussion. is Professors 6(e), in their discussion of FRCP Rule Accord, Estate, In re 241 Minn. 63 view”: "better Iofredo (1954) (holding 19 under statute N.W.2d providing days original period or When tire more, is eleven appeal may within 30 be taken days the three allowed when days filing probate after service notice of by mail be add- service has been made should court order and Aat notice of shall be original period, ed to the rather than treated court, served as in civil in district and actions separate period, die total treated as a a and governing under Rules of Civil civil period compulation. single purposes days providing 3 actions district court and accomplishes simplifies computation and This prescribe period additional time to where service 6(e), purpose adequately of Rule is mail, party made mail has 33 is days suffering protect parties served mail from in which to unless to district court systematic their time to re- Sunday diminution of day holiday legal in which falls on or Thus, suppose thirty days spond. normal- event the runs the end of the next until ly perform particular holiday); act follow- Sunday are which is neither nor a notice, Bowen, (S.D.Fla. Pagan service of and the thirtieth 113 v. F.R.D. 668 1987) 6(e) (stating party simply would fall on a if the were served that FRCP means personally. argued It has under state that the 3 additional allowed where service been 6(e) provisions has been made mail added to the similar that if service is should be to Rule original period thirty-day and the original total taken as the made purposes computation (citing Wright Monday three-day & for Miller, extended to and the then Thursday Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil then the final addition makes (1969))). however, view, §§ 1171 taking action. The is that better simply thirty-three day period and there is one thirty-third day, Wednesday, today that the is the holding con 7. Our does not disturb final period. the extended holding sistent with the central of Korean Bud Miller, Wright Temple: mailing 4B C. & A. Federal Practice agency’s order be dhist (3d ed.2002). §3d Al- gins running appeal. Procedure: Civil 9 Haw. time for 6(e) 6(e) However, though App. FRCP Rule from HRCP differs at 315. when in the number of service the dictum extent that of Korean Buddhist reasoning opinion, such the State rule allows with the made is inconsistent of this only two additional rather than the three it is overruled. process by mailing, which we heard oral done in this of oral discuss benefits pre- two more are tacked on II, argument in Part period. scribed them construction of the infra.

parallel Federal Civil Procedure Rules (FRCP) 6, Wright and Miller acknowl- I. edge adopt that some state courts the same matter, general interprets As this court construction Appel- of Rule 6 advocated rule the same as a statute. manner Miller, Wright lant. See 4B C. & A. Federal Lee, Dorrance v. 90 Hawai'i Practice and Procedure: Civil 1171 at 3d (1999) (“The interpretation P.2d aof (3d ed.2002) 595-96 [hereinafter “Federal promulgated by rule prin- the courts involves (“It argued ”] Practice under state been ciples statutory (Quoting construction.” 6(e) provisions peri- similar Rule [that Kim, Cresencia v. 85 Hawai'i working day od is extended the next (1997).)). Thus, “[w]hen applied.]”). the mail then rule is doubt, there is meaning, doubleness of uncertainty an expres- indistinctiveness interpreta also observes that his rule], sion used in a ambiguity [or statute tion best fulfills the of the Rule Gray exists.” Dir. Administrative rule,” it grants “mail inasmuch as Court, 590 beyond available for a (1997). Plaintiff-Appellant Alfonso D. Riv- filing. majority’s in non-mailed Under the era, (Appellant) argues Jr. that Hawai'i terpretation, filing an appellant to whom a (HRCP) Civil Procedure' Rule 6 is may had been mailed receive no additional ambiguous as whether HRCP Rule days beyond appellant what a non-mailed 6(a), applies exclusively of Rule or whether example, would For under ma receive. and Rule are to be consecutive- *6 jority’s analysis, day if a the thirtieth falls on ly applied in a situation an is where order Saturday, filing date for to the is extended by holiday served mail and a or weekend 6(a) Monday the next under both Rules and intervenes. 6(e). however, rules, This construction of the 6(a),1 that section *7 argument Dae Won v. oral take this Korean Buddhist Sa 298, Haw.App. opportunity proce- Zoning Appeals, Bd. 9 305- to discuss EOA. EOA of 06, denied, proposed by P.2d 837 reconsideration dures were Ramil and Justice 659, (1992). 3, implemented experi- Haw.App. 9 P.2d 98 on 2002 on 833 Under Thus, analysis, this conformed case mental basis. continuance of the existing determining good at EOA a law calendar rests faith of mailed, justices majority of values of oral when an order is would be 6(e). first, argument. proceed- these followed But see ings delay Marketplace mitigate by resolving Inv. v. Chair was to Waikiki Co. cases 343, summary disposition Zoning Appeals, Bd. 86 Hawai'i 949 identified orders (1997) (SDO) contrary appropriate that oral (applying P.2d 183 view would be 6). argument. Attorneys ap- v. who have since decision Price 171, 168, peared expedited argument 77 Zoning Appeals, Bd. Hawai'i oral calen- (1994), 629, they appreciated 883 little this dar have that 632 adds remarked question opportunity argue as it did not this court. discussion involve before See 24376, No. 98 occurs the final In re Doe Hawai'i what Children (Jo- 2002) (SDO) 507, 25, (July thirty-day period holiday on a P.3d 374 falls week seph “glad [the A. Dubiel was that court was end. Moreover, holidays, alleviating analysis of the federal rules is distin- weekends and thus holiday. grants problem guishable, on a FRCP when the thirtieth falls insofar as 6(e), however, two-day peri- when service mail. Under HRCP Rule three extension 6(e). holiday. day period spans span A three most od does a weekend and FRCP Rule However, argument, having] oral [and] thank[ed so the EOA calendar is limited that.”); 23857, Bundy, No. approach argument court] for State v. sup- to oral does not 2002) 498, 9, (July 98 Hawai'i 50 P.3d 974 plant scheduling regular argu- oral (SDO) (Steven remarked, Songstad B. “Your recently authorizing ment. Honors, here.”); pretty good it was to be Appeals judges, Intermediate Court Ferreira, 498, State v. No. 98 Hawai'i legislature argument that “oral observed 2002) (SDO) (July (Craig 50 P.3d 974 T. Rep. become rare.” Comm. No. Stand. “appreciatefd] opportunity [to Kimsel Journal, be] in 2001 The lack of House here.”). may oral argument lead believe that some to we are an court. absentee Hawai'i Rules of Although the EOA was meant calendar (HRAP) Appellate gov- Rule 34 characteristics, with address cases SDO some hearing argument erns the of oral in the presented significant heard cases have appellate HRAP courts this state. Therefore, questions laws. the EOA cal argument that “[o]ral states opinions, published endar has rise to except had in all in which cases those v. this ease. See also Associ Bauernfiend appellate court before which the case is Apartment ation Kihei Owners Beach pending providing enters an order for consid- Condominiums, 99 Hawai'i argument.” eration of case without oral argument Oral then has illuminated added.). seemingly This statement issues not from the evident briefs would rule, makes oral rather than not have been otherwise discovered. The exception, opposite but the true. provided EOA has also cases as to calendar which two members of this court believed For example, in the historic case of Rice v. warranted, publication although the ma 495, 516-17, Cayetano, 528 U.S. 120 S.Ct. jority publication. against voted See State v. (2000) (holding that a L.Ed.2d (October Bush, No. 2002 WL 31302086 provision of Hawai'i Constitution 2002) (SDO) (Acoba, (not J., dissenting) governed election trustees for Office of waiver-of-jury-trial “that requiring col Affairs, eligibili- Hawaiian under which voter loquy many would remove issues raised in ty was limited “native “Hawaiians” questions [and the] these cases Hawaiians,” violated the amend- fifteenth raised in will continue to this arise ment), the Federal District Court colloquy future unless the eases made Hawai'i, District of the Ninth Circuit Court J., (Ramil, mandatory”); dissenting) id. Supreme United States (“This exemplifies problems associ arguments. Court all oral Yet entertained colloquy lack of a ated standard court, arguably the tribunal most direct- Makalii, requirement.”); State v. Rice, ly argu- did not oral affected hold (2002) 431 n. n. 1 ment in the related state ease Office of (“Because (Ramil, J., dissenting) the case at Cayetano, Hawai'i Hawaiian Affairs very important dealing bar issue raises a (holding *8 statutory with construction of the word Supreme Caye- v. U.S. Court decision Rice statute,] prostitution strongly ‘fee[ ]’ [in the tano did not create vacancies as to the trust- publish critical for feel it is this court office). already ees who had into been voted (2002) opinion.”), reconsideration denied Justice must be seen to done. That be (“I (Acoba, J., agree dissenting) with the proposition applies appellate to all courts: assertion Defendant that a decision in this argument published, requested principal [T]he case should be as was Ramil.”).4 Supreme only Court] If for these before the States [United Justice rea sons, coun- argument proven is ... to communicate to the oral has invaluable Justices just try side resolution cases. the Court each hibited, Moreover, accordingly. urging publication, to act the defendant set out nor how making majority’s order be cited or what I believe is one set of conditions it since the cannot provide obligatory publish. precedent, it this court to The defen- relied requisite guidance fails to officers, judges, police argued majority's "the order does not dant juries.” conduct inform Hawaii's citizens of what [and, t]hus[,]

open opportunity to be heard justice done, only publicly it is but to be done.... This consideration— seen justice always to be should be seen applicable appellate to all courts. done—is Harris, Blair v. (Aeoba, J., concurring and (citations omitted) (some dissenting part) original). argument also brackets Oral judi produces stemming other benefits Bar in a cial interaction members of the legal setting. id. at 45 P.3d at 808 (“A dialogue among the members of the counsel, court and essence of which is the briefs, argument, oral written enlivens the signifi heightens our of what is awareness parties, and ana invigorates cant to the our senses.”). lytical However, argument only possible in oral majority justices if a vote for supported Again, it. unless oral good faith and commitment of the justices, on the or on whether EOA calendar schedule, argu-

a regular the function of oral appellate and its ment contributions process substantially will diminished public’s perception justice. will the Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, STATE PAULINE, Jr., Frank Defendant-

Appellant.

No. 22961. Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Dec. notes which penalize party a would who has received the in comes first the order the sections listed mail, presumably la several 6, that, in Rule day states last the and, ter, thus, has had less to the time review case, period, thirty in days, the relevant this party than a who decision is not served a a holiday, period falls on weekend or is the in mail. This the contravenes subject doing will the act to be extended 6(e). Inst. Re tent Rule Kessler Cf. 6(e),2 working day. next the Rule which BcL, hab. v. National Labor Relations 6(a), that, follows Rule states when the order (3rd Cir.1982) (‘Without an F.2d such to two will be added allowance, party penalized a would be “prescribed period.” Accordingly, Appel- the being complete less to his task allotted time 6(a) lant, applying sections in the merely adversary because his chose to use they appear, posited if order which mail.”). the day prescribed period last of the the ends on regard, light ambiguity holiday, period a In this weekend or is extended day, pursuant Appellant’s interpretation to the next business Rule is neither 6(a) added.). pertinent part: (Emphasis 1. Rule states computing period prescribed In of time or rules, court, 2. Rule these order of or states: statute, act, any applicable day party right required Whenever a has event, designated or default after which the proceedings do act or some with- some take period begins of time to run not be in- shall prescribed period in a after the service of day computed cluded. The last so paper upon and notice or other him be it included unless is a paper is served him holiday, or a event the prescribed period. shall be added to the runs until end the next which is not added.). Saturday, Sunday holiday. or a given not unreasonable nor absurd.3 See Mahiai do believe the construction Suwa, applied Haw. rule should be to our rule. federal (1987) (“Courts Miller, Practice, interpreta- Wright adopt an A. Federal will See C. & (“there supra, simply thirty- an one which would absurd at 595-96 tion of a rule lead result.”). Here, first, day period thirty-third applied HRCP Rule and that if three day ... final to Mon- extended extends utilizing period”). interpretation this day, August 2001. Then HRCP Under rule, acknowledged it appended, would be that some Rule more federal Wednesday, courts federal courts extending the final deadline to state differ August apply way Appel in the this construction rule same Under Moreover, 6, Appellant’s appeal espouses. cir- lant id. in the See timely. apparently cuit would construction of FRCP no court be proposition consideration was (ICA) Intermediate Court that cases should be on their merits. decided way. Posing applied Rule 6 in the same hand, adjudication situation, On the other we favor factual similar the ICA Shasteen, case. Inc. the merits first. Inasmuch as the Venture, Village v. Hilton Sunday, Hawaiian Joint fell on ICA indicated two should (this prefers “giving parties oppor pursuant added to the relevant litigate tunity to claims or defenses on the accomplished had because service been merits”). Hence, we should construe Rule 6 by mail: principle. in consonance with this Accord the instant certified ingly, I would vacate the circuit court’s deter January order was mailed on Appellant’s appeal mination that was untime mailing was 1990. The thirtieth ly and remand with instructions to circuit which, however, February was a court of the first circuit treat the Therefore, Sunday. appeal period timely appeal accordingly. and to decide Monday, February extended 6(a), 6(e), HRCP, HRCP. Under Rule II. required [appellant] was to file the notice February no than later expedited arose from our Because (EOA) calendar,