CourtListener 10734294

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
10-NOV-2025
07:54 AM
Dkt. 37 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

LONNELL REGINALD WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
HICKAM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; MARK (DOE); and ELISA (DOE),
Defendants-Appellees

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.)

Lonnell Reginald Wideman, representing himself, appeals
from the Final Judgment as to All Claims and All Parties for
Hickam Federal Credit Union, Mark (Doe), and Elisa (Doe) (the
Credit Union Defendants) entered by the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit on September 21, 2023.1 We affirm.
Wideman, representing himself, sued the Credit Union
Defendants on December 14, 2022. He filed an amended complaint
the next day. He alleged he went to Hickam FCU's Pearl City
branch on November 16, 2022, to open a savings account. He was
assisted by Elisa.
He asked Elisa if she was married.
Elisa replied, "I have someone, but I don't know if
it's for the long term."

1
The Honorable Kevin T. Morikone presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On November 23, 2022, Wideman spoke with Elisa by phone
about a problem he had accessing his account online. Elisa
suggested he come to the branch for assistance on November 25,
2022. He did. On November 25, 2022, before leaving the branch,
he gave Elisa "a gentleman's letter[.]"
On November 30, 2022, Wideman received a call from
Mark, the branch manager. Mark said his "gentleman letter" to
Elisa was unwanted, and asked him to keep business transactions
professional.
Wideman said, "no problem."
On December 7, 2022, Wideman went to the Pearl City
branch to conduct business. He stood in the line for Elisa.
Elisa called Mark and told him Wideman was threatening her. Mark
came out of his office and called Wideman out of Elisa's line.
Wideman replied, "I can wait."
Mark "gruffly" replied, "no!, [sic] I can help you
here."
Wideman sat at Mark's desk.
Mark "gruffly" asked, "are you here to close your
account?"
Wideman replied, "No." He felt insulted, harassed and
discriminated against. He asked Mark why Elisa could not help
him.
Mark responded, "she doesn't feel comfortable helping
YOU [sic]."
Wideman immediately felt "insulted, harassed, taunted,
discriminated against and challenged in a manner to try to
provoke [him] to an immediate violent response at the statement
that [Elisa] did not want to help [him]." He "felt . . . [he]
was being blatantly accused of being a threat to [Elisa] and made
to feel that [he] did something wrong when in fact [he] did
absolutely nothing wrong." He claimed that Mark's and Elisa's
actions "were totally wrong and [he] has suffered from the tort
of intentional infliction of extreme and severe emotional

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

distress caused by all defendants [sic] wrongful actions and
deserves to be compensated for his injuries, just so."
Wideman made claims under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
§§ 378-2 (discriminatory employment practices), 657-7 (statute of
limitations for damage to persons or property), and 711-1106
(criminal harassment), and under HRS Chapter 489 (discrimination
in public accommodations).
Credit Union Defendants moved to dismiss under Hawai#i
Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted). The Circuit Court
entered an order on February 9, 2023. Wideman's HRS §§ 378-2,
657-7, and 711-1106 claims were dismissed with prejudice. His
claims under HRS Chapter 489 and for intentional infliction of
emotional distress were dismissed with leave to amend. The order
stated:

[Wideman] shall file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of
filing this Order. Failure to do so will result in this
case being dismissed with prejudice.

Wideman did not file a second amended complaint. The
Credit Union Defendants again moved to dismiss "based on
[Wideman]'s failure to . . . [file] an amended complaint within
thirty (30) days after the filing of the [February 9, 2023]
Order. Wideman did not file a response.
The Circuit Court entered an order granting the motion
on September 12, 2023. The order stated that Wideman's claims
under HRS Chapter 489 and for intentional infliction of emotional
distress were dismissed without prejudice. The September 21,
2023 Final Judgment, however, entered judgment for the Credit
Union Defendants and against Wideman as to all claims; it did not
state the dismissal of Wideman's HRS Chapter 489 and intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims was without prejudice.
Wideman did not move to amend the Final Judgment under HRCP
Rule 59, or for relief from the Final Judgment under HRCP
Rule 60. He filed a timely notice of appeal.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Wideman's opening brief does not comply with Rule 28(b)
of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure. To promote access
to justice, we do not automatically foreclose Wideman from
appellate review just because he didn't comply with court rules.
Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28
(2020). Accordingly, we address what we discern to be his
arguments.
Wideman argues that the Circuit Court erred by
dismissing his HRS §§ 378-2, 657-7, and 711-1106 claims. We
review a circuit court's ruling on a motion to dismiss de novo.
Kealoha v. Machado, 131 Hawai#i 62, 74, 315 P.3d 213, 225 (2013).
We deem the factual allegations in the complaint to be true. Id.
But we are not required to accept conclusions about the legal
effect of the facts alleged. Id.
HRS § 378-2 (2015 & Supp. 2021) prohibits employers
from discriminating against employees and potential employees
"[b]ecause of race, sex including gender identity or expression,
sexual orientation, age, religion, color, ancestry, disability,
marital status, arrest and court record, reproductive health
decision, or domestic or sexual violence victim status[.]" It
also prohibits any person from aiding, abetting, inciting,
compelling, or coercing employment discrimination. Wideman's
amended complaint didn't allege he was employed by, or that he
had applied for employment with, the Credit Union Defendants.
HRS § 378-2 has no application to this case. The Circuit Court
did not err by dismissing Wideman's HRS § 378-2 claim.
HRS § 657-7 (2016) is the statute of limitations
governing claims "for damage or injury to persons or property[.]"
It doesn't create a cause of action. The Circuit Court did not
err by dismissing Wideman's HRS § 657-7 claim.
HRS § 711-1106 (2014) makes harassment a petty
misdemeanor. A criminal statute that doesn't expressly authorize
a private party to sue does not create a private right of action.
Kealoha, 131 Hawai#i at 81, 315 P.3d at 232. HRS § 711-1106 does

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

not expressly authorize a private party to sue. The Circuit
Court did not err by dismissing Wideman's HRS § 711-1106 claim.
Wideman's opening brief presents no other arguments.
The Final Judgment as to All Claims and All Parties entered by
the Circuit Court on September 21, 2023, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 10, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Lonnell Reginald Wideman, Chief Judge
Self-represented Plaintiff-
Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Wesley M. Fujimoto,
for Defendants-Appellees. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge