Wu v. Zhang

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
02-MAY-2025
08:03 AM
Dkt. 60 OGMD
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DI WU,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, v.
DAN DAN ZHANG aka DANDAN ZHANG,
Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee, and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10;
DOE ENTITIES 1-10; AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY
RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN SAID REAL PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN THIS COMPLAINT,
Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Defendant/Counterclaimant-
Appellee Dan Dan Zhang aka Dandan Zhang's [(Zhang)] Motion to
Dismiss [self-represented] Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-
Appellant Di Wu's [(Wu)] Appeal, filed March 24, 2025, the papers
in support, and the record, it appears that Zhang seeks dismissal
of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the October 30,
2024 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting
[Zhang]'s Motion for Summary Judgment, Filed August 30, 2024
[Dkt. 507]" (Summary Judgment Order) from which Wu appeals is not
an appealable order.
We conclude we lack jurisdiction because the Circuit
Court has not entered a final, appealable order or judgment, see
Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai#i Rules of
Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

& Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994); the
Circuit Court has not reduced the Summary Judgment Order to an
HRCP Rule 54(b) judgment as to some but less than all claims and
parties; the Summary Judgment Order is not independently
appealable under the collateral order or Forgay1 doctrines; and
the Circuit Court has not granted leave for an interlocutory
appeal under HRS § 641-1(b). See Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawai#i
249, 253, 369 P.3d 832, 836 (2016) (setting forth the
requirements for appealability under the collateral order and
Forgay doctrines); HRS § 641-1(b) (specifying requirements for
leave to file interlocutory appeal).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is
granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are
dismissed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 2, 2025.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

1
Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848).

2