CourtListener 10690270

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
03-OCT-2025
07:47 AM
Dkt. 107 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STEPHEN I. ADLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
DISCOVERY HARBOUR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 3CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, and Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen I. Adler (Adler),
representing himself, appeals from the following order and
judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit1/
(Circuit Court): (1) the February 27, 2023 "Minute Order
Granting Defendant[-Appellee Discovery Harbour Community
Association (DHCA)]'s Motion for Summary Judgment, Filed
September 9, 2022" (Minute Order); and (2) the July 10, 2023
Final Judgment (Judgment).2/
Adler owns property in the Discovery Harbour
subdivision. In his Statement of Claim and Notice (Complaint),
he alleged that DHCA "violated his rights" and denied him "equal

1/
The Honorable Peter K. Kubota presided.
2/
Adler filed his notice of appeal on March 23, 2023. The Circuit
Court subsequently entered its April 3, 2023 "Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and Order Granting [DHCA's] Motion for Summary Judgment Filed
September 9, 2022 [Dkt. 149]" and the Judgment. Under Hawai #i Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(2), Adler's premature appeal, filed after
the Circuit Court announced its decision in the Minute Order but before entry
of the Judgment, is "considered as filed immediately after" the entry of the
Judgment.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

protection of the law" inasmuch as DHCA board members "were not
legally in their positions when these actions took place" and
committed "wrongful acts" by "misrepesent[ing]" a governing
document and "discriminat[ing] against him." (Formatting
altered.) The Circuit Court granted DHCA's motion for summary
judgment, concluding that: (1) "[Adler] has failed to establish
that there are genuine issues of material fact to substantiate
[Adler's] claims that the DHCA violated [Adler's] rights and did
not afford him equal protection under the law" (Conclusion of Law
(COL) 13); (2) "[Adler's] contest to the validity of the election
and appointment of DHCA's Board members is the very issue that
was adjudicated in DHCA, et al. vs. Flaherty, et al., Civil No.
3CC191000081; thus, [Adler] is barred by the doctrine of
collateral estoppel from raising the same issues" (COL 15); and
(3) "[t]here is no right of [Adler] to Constitutional Equal
Protection in this case as the DHCA is a non-governmental entity"
(COL 16).
On appeal, Adler appears primarily to contend that the
Circuit Court's order granting DHCA's motion for summary judgment
violated his "rights to jury involvement" and "a jury trial."3/
(Capitalization altered.) Adler further contends that the
Circuit Court failed to secure his approval as to the form of the
Minute Order; DCHA's motion for summary judgment contained
"frivolous claims"; the allegations made in Adler's complaints
have never been addressed or answered; DHCA did not answer five
of Adler's discovery requests; and DHCA did not answer an
"amendment/supplemental pleading" that Adler filed on March 30,
2022.

3/
We note that Adler's opening brief fails to comply in material
respects with HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) and (7). In particular, Adler fails to state
specific points of error made by the Circuit Court, where in the record the
alleged error occurred, and where in the record the alleged error was objected
to or otherwise brought to the court's attention. The argument section is
conclusory, lacking supporting legal authority, and often difficult to
discern. Adler's "failure to comply with HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) is alone
sufficient to affirm the circuit court's judgment." Morgan v. Planning Dep't,
Cty. of Kauai, 104 Hawai#i 173, 180, 86 P.3d 982, 989 (2004) (citing Schefke
v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai #i 408, 420, 32 P.3d 52, 64
(2001)). Nevertheless, we have "consistently adhered to the policy of
affording litigants the opportunity 'to have their cases heard on the merits,
where possible.'" Morgan, 104 Hawai#i at 180–81, 86 P.3d at 989–90 (quoting
O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai#i 383, 386, 885 P.2d 361, 364
(1994)). We thus address Adler's arguments to the extent discernible.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Adler's contentions as follows, and affirm.
Adler contends that the grant of summary judgment
violated his jury trial rights. We review this decision de novo.
Nozawa v. Operating Eng'rs Local Union No. 3, 142 Hawai#i 331,
338, 418 P.3d 1187, 1194 (2018) (citing Adams v. CDM Media USA,
Inc., 135 Hawai#i 1, 12, 346 P.3d 70, 81 (2015)).
Even when a case is triable to a jury, summary judgment
permits a court to resolve the case without a jury where no
genuine issue as to any material fact exists. See HRCP Rule
56(c). Specifically, "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
Nozawa, 142 Hawai#i at 342, 418 P.3d at 1198 (quoting Adams, 135
Hawai#i at 12, 346 P.3d at 81) (internal quotation marks
omitted). "A fact is material if proof of that fact would have
the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential
elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the
parties." Id. (quoting Adams, 135 Hawai#i at 12, 346 P.3d at
81). The evidence and the inferences drawn from the evidence
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. Yoneda v. Tom, 110 Hawai#i 367, 384, 133 P.3d 796, 813
(2006).
The moving party has the burden to establish that
summary judgment is proper. Nozawa, 142 Hawai#i at 342, 418 P.3d
at 1198 (citing French v. Haw. Pizza Hut, Inc., 105 Hawai#i 462,
470, 99 P.3d 1046, 1054 (2004)). "Once a summary judgment movant
has satisfied its initial burden of producing support for its
claim that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the party
opposing summary judgment must 'demonstrate specific facts, as
opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue
worthy of trial.'" Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Lales v.
Wholesale Motors Co., 133 Hawai#i 332, 359, 328 P.3d 341, 368

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

(2014)). "Thus, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment
cannot discharge his or her burden by alleging conclusions, nor
is he or she entitled to a trial on the basis of a hope that he
or she can produce some evidence at that time." Adams v. Haw.
Med. Serv. Ass'n, 145 Hawai#i 250, 256, 450 P.3d 780, 786 (2019)
(quoting Henderson v. Prof'l Coatings Corp., 72 Haw. 387, 401,
819 P.2d 84, 92 (1991)) (brackets and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Here, Adler alleged in the Complaint that DHCA board
members (1) were not legally in their positions when the board
took actions that violated his equal protection rights, and (2)
misrepresented a governing document to accomplish these "wrongful
acts." The alleged wrongful acts are difficult to discern, but
appear to relate to disputed association charges, the suspension
of Adler's voting privileges in the association, and the board's
alleged failure to respond to Adler's complaints and to treat him
in the same manner as other lot owners.
DHCA moved for summary judgment on three grounds: (1)
the DHCA is not a governmental entity that could engage in
discriminatory action to deprive Adler of his right to equal
protection; (2) Adler failed to articulate legally cognizable
claims regarding DHCA's alleged wrongdoing; and (3) Adler was
barred from raising claims based on the alleged illegal
appointment of DHCA board members by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel. The motion was supported by a declaration of counsel
and attached relevant exhibits. DHCA thereby satisfied its
initial burden of producing support for its position that there
was no genuine issue of material fact worthy of trial.
In response, Adler repeatedly referred to his demand
for a jury trial and reiterated parts of his difficult-to-
discern, conclusory Complaint. Although he attached multiple
documents to his response, he did not submit a declaration or
affidavit authenticating the documents or otherwise demonstrate
specific facts that presented a genuine issue as to any
cognizable claim. Similarly, in his opening brief on appeal,
Adler asserts that his jury trial rights were violated, but does
not identify any genuine issues of fact that are material to the

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

elements of a cognizable claim and state where in the record he
produced evidence supporting such facts. On this record, Adler
failed to demonstrate specific facts that presented a genuine
issue worthy of trial. The Circuit Court did not err in granting
the motion for summary judgment.
Separately, Adler contends that the Circuit Court
failed to secure his approval as to the form of the Minute Order.
The Circuit Court was not required to do so. See Rules of the
Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai#i Rule 23.
Adler's remaining contentions appear to challenge
DHCA's alleged failure to respond to various pleadings and
discovery requests. Adler does not state the alleged error
committed by the Circuit Court, where in the record the alleged
error occurred, and how the matter was brought to the Circuit
Court's attention. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4); see also Ass'n of
Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 100 Hawai#i
97, 107, 58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002) ("Legal issues not raised in the
trial court are ordinarily deemed waived on appeal."). These
remaining contentions are therefore disregarded. See HRAP Rule
28(b)(4).
For the reasons discussed above, the Final Judgment
entered on July 10, 2023, in the Circuit Court of the Third
Circuit is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 3, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Stephen I. Adler, Presiding Judge
Self-represented Plaintiff-
Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Stefan M. Reinke Associate Judge
(Lyons, Brandt, Cook &
Hiramatsu)
for Defendant-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge