Ehrenlechner v. Williams

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-APR-2025
08:06 AM
Dkt. 76 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(CONSOLIDATED WITH CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

PATRICK EHRENLECHNER, individually and
on behalf of L.E. and B.E., Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, Respondent-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NORTH AND SOUTH HILO
(CASE NO. 3DSS-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, and Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

In these consolidated appeals, self-represented
Respondent-Appellant Timothy Williams (Williams) appeals from the
March 17, 2022 Order Granting Petition for Injunction Against
Harassment (Injunction), and the April 26, 2022 Order for
Attorney's Fees (Fee Order), both entered by the District Court
of the Third Circuit, North and South Hilo Divisions (District
Court).1/ The Injunction restrained and enjoined Williams from,

1/
The Honorable M. Kanani Laubach presided.

On March 28, 2022, Williams filed a notice of appeal from the
Injunction, initiating appellate case number CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. On May 10,
2022, Williams filed a notice of appeal from the Fee Order, initiating
appellate case number CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. On January 17, 2023, this court
entered an order consolidating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX under CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

among other things, contacting, threatening, or harassing
Petitioner-Appellee Patrick Ehrenlechner (Ehrenlechner) and
minors L.E. and B.E. for a period of three years. The Fee Order
awarded Ehrenlechner attorney's fees and costs in the amount of
$2,913.84 as against Williams.
On appeal Williams contends that the District Court
abused its discretion by: (1) denying Williams's March 17, 2022
Non-Hearing Motion for Continuance (Motion to Continue); and (2)
"citing the wrong statute of law" in granting Ehrenlechner's
April 12, 2022 request for attorney's fees and costs (Fee
Request).
As a threshold matter, we note that Williams's opening
briefs do not comply in material respects with Hawai#i Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). In particular, Williams
makes numerous factual assertions and arguments without any
supporting references to the record. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4),
(7). Williams also improperly appends documents to his opening
brief in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX that are not part of the record.2/ See
id. Rule 28(b)(10). To promote access to justice, we liberally
interpret a self-represented litigant's briefs and do not
automatically foreclose them from appellate review because they
fail to comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368,
380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). We thus address Williams's
arguments to the extent they are discernible and have some

2/
Ehrenlechner asserts that these documents, designated as Exhibits
"U" and "V" (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX dockets 32 and 34), contain confidential personal
information and/or information filed under seal in another case pursuant to
Rule 9 of the Hawai#i Court Records Rules (HCRR). Ehrenlechner requests that
these documents be stricken and/or sealed. Because these documents are not
part of the record, they will be stricken. See DW Aina Le #a Development, LLC
v. Bridge Aina Le#a, LLC, 134 Hawai#i 187, 216, 339 P.3d 685, 714 (2014)
(ruling that documents that were not part of the record before the Land Use
Commission should have been stricken from the record on appeal). Because
these stricken documents also contain confidential personal information
regarding a minor child or children – including medical or health information
in which the respective child has a compelling privacy interest – they will
also be sealed. See HCRR Rules 2.19, 9.1; Oahu Publications Inc. v. Takase,
139 Hawai#i 236, 247-48, 386 P.3d 873, 884-85 (2016); Roy v. Gov't Emps. Ins.
Co., 152 Hawai#i 225, 233-34, 524 P.3d 1249, 1257-58 (App. 2023); see also
Civ. Beat L. Ctr. for Pub. Int., Inc. v. Maile, 117 F.4th 1200, 1210 (9th Cir.
2024) ("[P]rotecting an individual's constitutional and statutory right to
privacy is a compelling interest that may justify sealing a particular medical
or health record.").

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

apparent basis in the record. We disregard assertions made
without such a basis, as well as appended documents that are not
part of the record.
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
Williams's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Williams contends that the District Court should
have granted his Motion to Continue the evidentiary hearing on
the Petition. He argues that "the restraining orders in effect
could have been extended, [and] there was no prejudice."
"We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a
motion to continue for an abuse of discretion." Onaka v. Onaka,
112 Hawai#i 374, 378, 146 P.3d 89, 93 (2006); see DJ v. CJ, 147
Hawai#i 2, 16, 464 P.3d 790, 804 (2020) (citing Onaka). "It is
well established that 'an abuse of discretion occurs if the trial
court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded
rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial
detriment of a party-litigant.'" Onaka, 112 Hawai#i at 378, 146
P.3d at 93 (brackets omitted).
On January 3, 2022, Ehrenlechner filed a Petition for
Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and for Injunction Against
Harassment, individually and on behalf of L.E. and B.E., pursuant
to HRS § 604-10.5. On January 4, 2022, the District Court
entered a Temporary Restraining Order Against Harassment (TRO) as
to Williams. The TRO was later extended by court order several
times, including on March 3, 2022, when the District Court
extended the TRO and continued the evidentiary hearing to
March 17, 2022.
Williams filed the Motion to Continue on the morning of
March 17, 2022, the scheduled evidentiary hearing date. The
motion stated that "Williams wishes to hire other counsel" and
pointed out that an earlier motion for a continuance filed by

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

Ehrenlechner had been granted.3/ At the March 17 hearing,
Williams's then-counsel explained to the court that Williams had
"fired" him the prior day, and counsel had prepared the Motion to
Continue the prior evening. Ehrenlechner opposed the motion,
stating that he had "expended considerable resources to prepare
for this morning. . . . We have witnesses. People have taken
time off from work." (Formatting altered.) Ehrenlechner also
confirmed for the court that two of the witnesses, the "minor
children," were there to testify.
The District Court denied the Motion to Continue,
stating in part: "I'm gonna deny your request to continue. I
cannot. The time period [for expiration of the relevant
temporary restraining order] is shortly coming up4/ and the
children are here today so I'm gonna deny your request to
continue." (Footnote added.) The court then excused Williams's
counsel and proceeded with the hearing, after first confirming
that (a) Williams still wanted "to fire" his counsel, (b)
Williams's counsel had given Williams his entire file, (c)
Williams had received or had had access to Ehrenlechner's
previously delivered hearing exhibits, and (d) Ehrenlechner would
allow Williams to review a courtesy copy of the exhibits.
Williams argues that he was not ready to proceed on
March 17, 2022, for various reasons. He makes numerous factual
assertions without supporting references to the record, including

3/
On February 23, 2022, Ehrenlechner filed a motion to continue the
evidentiary hearing, then scheduled for March 3, 2022. Williams had no
objection to the motion, and the evidentiary hearing was continued to
March 17, 2022.
4/
Under HRS § 604-10.5(g), "[a] temporary restraining order that is
granted under this section shall remain in effect at the discretion of the
court for a period not to exceed ninety days from the date the order is
granted . . . ."

We note that, about a year after the March 17, 2022 hearing, the
Hawai#i Supreme Court held that "if a district court has commenced hearing
the merits of an HRS § 604-10.5 injunction petition but, despite reasonable
efforts, it is unable to conclude the hearing within ninety days of issuance
of the ex parte TRO, it has jurisdiction and discretion to continue the TRO
pending its final decision on the injunction petition, if standards for
issuance of temporary injunctive relief are met" because "the continued TRO is
no longer ex parte." Meyer v. Basco, 152 Hawai #i 281, 289-90, 526 P.3d 258,
266-67 (2023).

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

many assertions that find no apparent support in the record. See
supra.
We conclude, on this record, that the District Court
did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion to Continue
the hearing on the Petition.
(2) The District Court awarded Ehrenlechner attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to HRS § 604-10.5(h). Williams contends
that the District Court abused its discretion by "citing the
wrong statute of law" in granting the Fee Request. Williams's
argument is conclusory, but appears to challenge the court's
authority to award fees under HRS § 604-10.5(h) in these
circumstances.
HRS § 604-10.5(h) states: "The court may grant the
prevailing party in an action brought under this section costs
and fees, including attorney's fees." "[A]n action brought under
this section[,]" i.e., HRS § 604-10.5, includes a petition
brought to obtain a temporary restraining order or injunction
against harassment. See HRS § 604-10.5(c); see also LeMay v.
Leander, 92 Hawai#i 614, 627, 994 P.2d 546, 559 (2000) ("The
plain language of HRS § 604-10.5(g), when read in the context of
the entire statute, applies . . . to proceedings to procure a
temporary retraining order or injunction pursuant to HRS § 604-
10.5 . . . ."). Accordingly, the District Court did not err in
citing or relying on HRS § 604-10.5(h) as the statutory basis for
awarding costs and fees to Ehrenlechner in this action.
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the
March 17, 2022 Order Granting Petition for Injunction Against
Harassment, and the April 26, 2022 Order for Attorney's Fees,
entered by the District Court of the Third Circuit, North and
South Hilo Division.
Further, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The appellate clerk shall strike from the record
on appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX the documents appended to Williams's
opening brief, designated as Exhibits "U" and "V," at dockets 32
and 34.
2. The appellate clerk shall seal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
the documents appended to Williams's opening brief, designated as

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Exhibits "U" and "V," at dockets 32 and 34.
3. Within ten (10) days from the date of this summary
disposition order, any individual may file a motion objecting to
the sealing of the identified documents.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 25, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Pastor Timothy Williams, Presiding Judge
Self-represented Respondent-
Appellant.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
William B. Heflin Associate Judge
(Alcain Naniole & Heflin)
for Petitioner-Appellee.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

6