Annan-Yartey, Sr. v. Securitas Security Service, Inc. USA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
26-NOV-2025
07:47 AM
Dkt. 160 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

NAPOLEON T. ANNAN-YARTEY, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICE, INC. USA;
JUSTIN CASTRO, SECURITY GUARD; E. RODRIGUEZ, SECURITY GUARD; W.
AGAPAY, SECURITY GUARD; ROJAS RODERICK, SUPERVISOR (All Sued
Individually and Official Capacity), Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC181001463)

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

Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Napoleon T.

Annan-Yartey, Sr. (Annan-Yartey) appeals from the Circuit Court

of the First Circuit's 1 (circuit court) March 6, 2023 "Final

Judgment," entered in favor of Defendants-Appellees Securitas

Security Service Inc. USA (Securitas), and Securitas employees

1 The Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree (Judge Crabtree) presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Justin Castro, E. Rodriguez, 2 W. Agapay, and Rhoderick Rojas

(Individual Appellees), 3 and against Annan-Yartey, on all claims.

This appeal arises out of legal action initiated by

Annan-Yartey against Appellees. Annan-Yartey alleged that, in

July 2017, he suffered injuries from an interaction with the

Individual Appellees at the Daniel K. Inouye Honolulu

International Airport, where Securitas was contracted to provide

security services. Annan-Yartey asserted claims of false

imprisonment, conspiracy, assault, battery, intentional

infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of

emotional distress, negligent hiring and screening, negligent

training, negligent supervision, and violations of state and

federal constitutional rights.

Annan-Yartey's state and federal constitutional

claims, negligent hiring, negligent training, and negligent

supervision claims were disposed of prior to trial. The state

and federal constitutional claims were dismissed pursuant to

Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6) for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Summary

judgment was granted in favor of Appellees on the negligent

2 E. Rodriguez is also referred to as "Elijah Rodriguez" in the
analysis of point of error 7.

3 Securitas and the Individual Appellees are collectively referred
to as Appellees.

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

hiring, negligent training, and negligent supervision claims.

During trial, but prior to jury deliberation, judgment as a

matter of law (JMOL) was entered on the conspiracy claim

pursuant to HRCP Rule 50.

Annan-Yartey's remaining claims then proceeded to the

jury, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees.

The circuit court entered the Final Judgment. This appeal

followed.

Annan-Yartey raises nine arguments on appeal, 4

contending that the circuit court erred or abused its discretion

in: (1) "commit[ing] prejudicial error . . . when [Judge

Crabtree] refused to recuse himself for being tainted with bias,

[lack of] impartiality, conflict of interest and racism toward

[Annan-Yartey]"; (2) "when it granted final [JMOL] in favor of

[Appellees]"; (3) in entering judgment in favor of Appellees

because "the jury erred when it found that [Securitas] was not

vicariously liable of [sic] [Individual Appellees]"; (4) "in

denying [Annan-Yartey's] motion for discovery"; (5) "by

excluding [Annan-Yartey's] treating physicians' medical reports

and testifying as fact witness[es]"; (6) by giving the jury

4 Annan-Yartey's opening brief does not set forth points of error
on appeal, and is in other ways noncompliant with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). To promote access to justice, we do not
automatically foreclose self-represented litigants from appellate review for
their failure to comply with the court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368,
380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020).

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

"erroneous jury instructions"; (7) in "den[ying] [Annan-

Yartey's] motion to compel attendance of Elijah Rodriguez[] [at

a] deposition and [the] jury trial"; (8) in "violat[ing] [Annan-

Yartey's] constitutional rights" by "permit[ting] [Appellees'

attorney] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s] and evidence

to perpetuate fraud on the court"; and (9) in "violat[ing]

[Annan-Yartey's] constitutional rights" by "permit[ting]

[Appellees' attorney] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s]

by expanding the scope of Dr. Marvit[']s testimony about [Annan-

Yartey's] mental condition and the arrest of [Honolulu Police

Department]." (Capitalization altered.)

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we resolve Annan-Yartey's contentions as discussed below, and

affirm the circuit court's Final Judgment.

(1) Annan-Yartey contends that Judge Crabtree erred by

"refus[ing] to recuse himself for being tainted with bias, [lack

of] impartiality, conflict of interest and racism towards

[Annan-Yartey]." "Decisions on recusal or disqualification

present perhaps the ultimate test of judicial discretion and

should thus lie undisturbed absent a showing of abuse of that

discretion." State v. Ross, 89 Hawaiʻi 371, 375, 974 P.2d 11, 15

(1998).
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hawaiʻi courts reviewing questions of disqualification

and recusal apply a two-part analysis. First, with respect to

judicial disqualification, "courts determine whether the alleged

bias is covered by [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)] § 601-7,

which only pertains to cases of affinity or consanguinity,

financial interest, prior participation, and actual judicial

bias or prejudice." Kondaur Cap. Corp. v. Matsuyoshi,

150 Hawaiʻi 1, 10-11, 496 P.3d 479, 488-89 (App. 2021) (footnote

omitted) (quoting Ross, 89 Hawai‘i at 377, 974 P.2d at 17).

Second, with respect to judicial recusal, "if HRS

§ 601-7 does not apply, courts may then turn, if appropriate, to

the notions of due process . . . in conducting the broader

inquiry of whether circumstances . . . fairly give rise to an

appearance of impropriety and . . . reasonably cast suspicion on

[the judge's] impartiality." Id. at 11, 496 P.3d at 489

(cleaned up). "The test for appearance of impropriety is

whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a

perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial

responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is

impaired." Id. at 21, 496 P.3d at 499 (quoting Off. of

Disciplinary Couns. v. Au, 107 Hawaiʻi 327, 338, 113 P.3d 203,

214 (2005)).

Judge Crabtree filed two judicial disclosures on the

record. His first disclosure, dated January 11, 2019, informed
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the parties of his former professional affiliation with

Appellees' law firm, which was then known as Bronster Crabtree &

Hoshibata, and with attorney Margery S. Bronster, who was his

law partner from 1999 to 2007. Judge Crabtree represented that

he is "completely neutral and impartial" "[r]egarding the

parties to this case." The first disclosure gave the parties

until January 25, 2019 to request "further clarification or

information regarding any of the [] disclosures," and until

4 p.m. on February 4, 2019 to move for Judge Crabtree's

disqualification/recusal. Both Annan-Yartey and Appellees

responded that they had no objections to Judge Crabtree

presiding over the case.

Judge Crabtree's second disclosure, filed August 10,

2021, informed the parties that his former law clerk had

recently accepted employment at the Bronster Fujichaku Robbins

law firm during the pendency of the litigation, and that normal

conflict avoidance procedures would be observed. Judge Crabtree

represented that his second disclosure "[did] not change the

[circuit] court's previous view that it can in fact be

completely fair and impartial."

In September 2021, Annan-Yartey moved for Judge

Crabtree's recusal, to which Appellees objected. In October

2021, Judge Crabtree heard and denied Annan-Yartey's motion.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

We note the absence of record evidence supporting

Annan-Yartey's contentions that Judge Crabtree exhibited bias

towards him. "Bias cannot be premised on adverse rulings

alone." Arquette v. State, 128 Hawaiʻi 423, 448, 290 P.3d 493,

518 (2012) (citation omitted). Annan-Yartey's speculative

claims of bias or prejudice are insufficient to require

disqualification, absent specific facts to support those claims.

Id.

"[A] judge is duty-bound not to withdraw where the

circumstances do not fairly give rise to an appearance of

impropriety and do not reasonably cast suspicion on his [or her]

impartiality." Kondaur, 150 Hawaiʻi at 22, 496 P.3d at 500

(cleaned up). We conclude that Judge Crabtree did not abuse his

discretion by not disqualifying or recusing himself from this

case.

(2) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court

erred in entering JMOL. HRCP Rule 50(a)(1) authorizes a trial

court to grant JMOL, "[i]f during a trial by jury a party has

been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient

evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party

on that issue[.]" The record reflects that the circuit court's

JMOL was entered only as to Annan-Yartey's conspiracy claim.

The circuit court explained that, based on the testimony

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

presented at trial, "there was just nothing the [circuit] court

could find that supported a conspiracy claim."

Annan-Yartey's opening brief fails to point to any

record evidence that supports his allegations of conspiracy.

Moreover, Annan-Yartey has not satisfied his duty to provide the

relevant trial transcripts that are necessary for this court's

review of this issue -- i.e., the testimony of Justin Castro,

Rhoderick Rojas, and W. Agapay. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt,

80 Hawaiʻi 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is

upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to

matters in the record, and [they have] the responsibility of

providing an adequate transcript.") (citation omitted). We

therefore have no basis upon which to review the circuit court's

JMOL, which we leave undisturbed.

(3) Annan-Yartey appears to contend that the jury

erred in finding that Securitas was not vicariously liable for

the Individual Appellees' actions. The record reflects that the

jury did not make a finding as to Securitas' vicarious

liability. Annan-Yartey therefore fails to make a discernible

argument as to this point. "We will disregard a point of error

if the appellant fails to present discernible argument on the

alleged error." Bank of Haw. v. Shaw, 83 Hawaiʻi 50, 52, 924

P.2d 544, 546 (App. 1996) (citation omitted).

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred

in denying his "motion for discovery." Annan-Yartey appears to

contend that the circuit court erred in denying the testimony of

his "treating physicians" who he alleges to have knowledge of

his medical condition.

In its June 6, 2022 "Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part [Annan-Yartey's] Motion to Present Testimony of

Physicians Who Treated Him for the Injuries that He Sustained on

July 4, 2019 After July 4, 2017, Filed April 8, 2022" (Physician

Testimony Order), the circuit court ruled,

The Motion is GRANTED with respect to:

1. Dr. Henry Cacanindin of the Kuakini Medical
Center, who treated [Annan-Yartey] on July 4, 2017 may
testify at the trial of this matter.

The Motion is DENIED with respect to:

1. Dr. Maria Ver, Dr. [Szeto-Wong], and Dr. Richard Inae
may not testify at the trial of this matter[. 5]

5 In its earlier May 6, 2022 "Ruling," the circuit court denied
Annan-Yartey's request to introduce Dr. Ver, Dr. Szeto-Wong, and Dr. Inae's
testimony, explaining,

C. Here, the three doctors the instant motion is
focused on did not treat [Annan-Yartey] at or soon after
the alleged assault in 2017. They treated him one year
later (2008, Dr. Ver, neck cysts), and three years later
(2020, Dr. Inae, bowel obstruction and Dr. Szeto-Wong,
heart ailment/Pacemaker).

D. Based on the current record, it is not readily
apparent that these later-treated medical conditions are
causally related to the alleged assault in 2017, such as if
it were follow-up treatment for a broken bone suffered at
the time of the alleged incident.

E. The instant motion does not provide any medical
evidence regarding the three doctors mentioned above, other
than the medical records for their treatment. None of
these medical records states, infers, or even discusses
(continued . . .)
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Annan-Yartey presents no argument, nor does he point

to any evidence in the record, that would support a causal

connection between Dr. Ver, Dr. Szeto-Wong, and Dr. Inae's

treatment and Annan-Yartey's alleged assault. We therefore

conclude that Annan-Yartey failed to demonstrate error, and we

affirm the circuit court's exclusion of Dr. Ver, Dr. Szeto-Wong,

and Dr. Inae's testimony from trial. See Haw. Ventures, LLC v.

Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawaiʻi 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007)

(appellants failed to demonstrate error where they "[did] not

point to anything in the record or provide any analysis that

5(. . . continued)
whether any symptom, diagnosis, or prognosis is related to
the alleged assault in 2017.

F. [Annan-Yartey's] motion asks that the three above-
named treating doctors be allowed to testify about their
treatment of the later conditions discussed above. But
such testimony is only relevant to [Annan-Yartey's] claims
if the later conditions are [causally] related to the 2017
alleged assault. So the three doctors' testimony is only
relevant if they give causation opinions. This was already
barred by the court's prior summary judgment ruling,
because no admissible medical opinion establishing
causation was ever submitted.

G. [Annan-Yartey] frames his request as one for
"clarification" rather than reconsideration. The court
respectfully disagrees. The prior [motion for summary
judgment] established that medical causation testimony is
required under Hawaii law, that it is [Annan-Yartey's]
burden to establish causation, that discovery had closed,
that the required evidence was not provided in opposition
to the motion, and therefore such causation testimony was
precluded. It is true that [Annan-Yartey] was pro se at
the time, but that in and of itself is not grounds to
unwind a prior dispositive order.

(Emphasis in original.)

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

would guide th[e] court in determining the validity of their

contention.").

(5) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred

by ruling "that [Annan-Yartey's] medical records were not

admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule." Annan-

Yartey does not specify which medical records were excluded,

where in the record they were excluded, or the basis for the

circuit court's alleged exclusion of the records. The record

reflects that the partial medical records of Annan-Yartey's

emergency medical treatment at the airport and in transit were

admitted into evidence. Annan-Yartey's Kuakini Health System

emergency medical records were also admitted into evidence. We

therefore decline to address this contention for lack of a

discernible argument.

(6) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred

in its instructions to the jury. We review jury instructions to

determine whether, considered as a whole, the instructions were

"prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or

misleading." Medeiros v. Choy, 142 Hawaiʻi 233, 239, 418 P.3d

574, 580 (2018) (quoting Nelson v. Univ. of Haw., 97 Hawaiʻi 376,

386, 38 P.3d 95, 105 (2001)).

Annan-Yartey makes three arguments related to jury

instructions. In light of sections (2) and (3), supra, we

decline to address the circuit court's instruction on
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

conspiracy, and its "refus[al]" to give an instruction on

vicarious liability. With regard to the remaining instruction,

Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court "erred in

instructing the jury regarding the Civil Assault claim by giving

[Appellees'] requested instruction, which was a criminal assault

instruction[, as] this instruction confused the jury."

The record reflects that the circuit court instructed

the jury as to both civil assault and criminal assault. 6 The

6 The circuit court's instruction on "assault" and "assault against
a law enforcement officer" was given in connection with Appellees' "probable
cause to arrest" defense, as follows:

The existence of probable cause to arrest is an
affirmative defense to an action for false imprisonment.
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances
known to the officer, or of which he had reasonably
trustworthy information, would warrant a man of reasonable
caution to believe that the person arrested has committed
or is committing an offense.

A person commits the offense of assault if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily
injury to another person.

A person commits the offen[se] of assault against a
law enforcement officer in the first degree if the person
intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to a law
enforcement officer who is engaged in the performance of
duty.

A person commits the offen[se] of assault against a
law enforcement officer in the second degree if the person
recklessly causes bodily injury to a law enforcement
officer who is engaged in the performance of duty.

If [Annan-Yartey] committed assault, assault against
a law enforcement officer in the first degree, or assault
against a law enforcement officer in the second degree
against [Justin] Castro, then [Annan-Yartey] committed a
criminal offense under the laws of the State of Hawaiʻi.

If [Annan-Yartey] committed a criminal offense under the
laws of the State of Hawaiʻi in any [Individual Appellees']
(continued . . .)
12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

circuit court gave the following instruction on the common law

tort of assault,

A person commits the common law tort of assault if he
acts with intent to cause another a nonconsensual harmful
or offensive contact or apprehension thereof, and the other
person apprehends imminent contact. The actor must intend
to cause a harmful or offensive contact, or imminent
apprehension thereof.

Plaintiff must prove each element of assault by a
preponderance of the evidence. Failure to prove any single
element, is a failure to prove the civil assault claim.

Annan-Yartey does not acknowledge the above

instruction on civil assault, and contends only that the circuit

court's "assault instruction" was "verbose, jumbled, and

confusing."

On this record, we conclude that the circuit court's

jury instructions on civil and criminal assault were not

"prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or

misleading." Medeiros, 142 Hawaiʻi at 239, 418 P.3d at 580

(citation omitted).

(7) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred

in failing to compel Defendant-Appellee Elijah Rodriguez's

(Rodriguez) attendance at trial and, separately, at a pre-trial

deposition. We review the circuit court's ruling on a motion to

compel discovery for abuse of discretion. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

6(. . .continued)
presence, then [Individual Appellees] had probable cause to place
[Annan-Yartey] under arrest.
13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

v. Lemay, 137 Hawaiʻi 30, 33, 364 P.3d 928, 931 (2015) (citation

omitted).

Annan-Yartey first contends that the circuit court

failed to compel Rodriguez's attendance at trial. The record

reflects that Annan-Yartey did not move to compel Rodriguez's

attendance at trial. On this record, we conclude that Annan-

Yartey's contention lacks merit.

Annan-Yartey next contends that the circuit court

failed to compel Rodriguez's attendance at a pre-trial

deposition. The record reflects that Annan-Yartey subpoenaed

Rodriguez to appear at a deposition on November 12, 2019.

Appellees' counsel met and conferred with Annan-Yartey to

discuss rescheduling the deposition to a date/time that would

work for both sides. Appellees' counsel's declaration states

that Annan-Yartey "told us [at the meet and confer] that he

would insist on the depositions going forward on November 12 and

13, 2019." "However, after the meet and confer, [Annan-Yartey]

stated that he would reset the deposition dates and time in

December to allow sufficient time to contact and prepare the

deponents." The record reflects further communication between

Appellees' counsel and Annan-Yartey regarding the deposition

scheduling.

In December 2019, Annan-Yartey moved the circuit court

to compel Rodriguez to appear at a deposition. The circuit
14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

court noted, at the January 2020 hearing, that it was inclined

to deny the motion without prejudice. The circuit court did

not, however, enter a written order on the motion, and Annan-

Yartey subpoenaed Rodriguez to a video deposition scheduled for

February 4, 2020. Prior to the scheduled deposition, the

circuit court issued a minute order, noting further difficulties

regarding the parties' scheduling of depositions. The circuit

court "encourage[d] both sides to accomplish whatever can be

accomplished on Feb. 3 and 4, and then [the circuit court would]

set another status hearing if [needed] to smooth out any ongoing

problems."

It appears that the February 4, 2019, deposition did

not proceed as scheduled, Rodriguez was not deposed, and Annan-

Yartey did not make further attempts to depose Rodriguez. In

January 2021, two months after the discovery cut-off date,

Annan-Yartey filed "[Annan-Yartey's] Motion to Re-Open Discovery

for Limited Written Discovery," in which he sought to "conduct

expedited limited written discovery of Elijah Rodrigo [sic] and

[Annan-Yartey's] 'disclosed treating doctors.'" The circuit

court denied Annan-Yartey's request to re-open discovery.

On this record, we conclude that the circuit court did

not abuse its discretion by not compelling Rodriguez's

deposition testimony.

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(8) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court

violated his constitutional rights by "permitt[ing] [Appellees'

counsel] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s] and evidence

to perpetuate Fraud on the Court." Annan-Yartey specifically

maintains that Appellees' counsel "was permitted by the

[circuit] court to elicit from the [HRS §] 261-17 . . .

inflammatory evidence that, Securitas Security guards [] were

airport police and not Security Guards." Annan-Yartey fails to

present any discernible argument, and we therefore decline to

address this contention.

(9) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court

violated his constitutional rights by "permitt[ing] [Appellees'

counsel] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s] by expanding

the scope of Dr. Marvit[']s testimony about [Annan-Yartey's]

mental condition and the arrest of [Honolulu Police

Department]." It appears that Annan-Yartey is objecting here to

Appellees' introduction of Annan-Yartey's arrest record and the

characterization of Annan-Yartey as "delusional."

The transcript of Dr. Marvit's testimony is not in the

record. We therefore lack a sufficient record on which to

review contentions of error related to the introduction of Dr.

Marvit's testimony.

The transcript of Appellees' counsel's closing

statement is in the record and, relevant here, it reflects that
16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Annan-Yartey did not make any objections. Annan-Yartey's

argument on appeal is therefore waived. See Ass'n of Apartment

Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 100 Hawaiʻi 97, 107,

58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002) ("Legal issues not raised in the trial

court are ordinarily deemed waived on appeal.") (citations

omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Final

Judgment. 7

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 26, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Napoleon T. Annan-Yartey, Sr.
Self-represented /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Plaintiff-Appellant. Associate Judge

Kenneth S. Robbins, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Defendants-Appellees. Associate Judge

7 Pursuant to HRAP Rule 34(c), Annan-Yartey's November 10, 2025
Motion for Retention of Oral Argument is denied.
17

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
26-NOV-2025
07:47 AM
Dkt. 160 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

NAPOLEON T. ANNAN-YARTEY, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICE, INC. USA;
JUSTIN CASTRO, SECURITY GUARD; E. RODRIGUEZ, SECURITY GUARD; W.
AGAPAY, SECURITY GUARD; ROJAS RODERICK, SUPERVISOR (All Sued
Individually and Official Capacity), Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC181001463)

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

Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Napoleon T.

Annan-Yartey, Sr. (Annan-Yartey) appeals from the Circuit Court

of the First Circuit's 1 (circuit court) March 6, 2023 "Final

Judgment," entered in favor of Defendants-Appellees Securitas

Security Service Inc. USA (Securitas), and Securitas employees

1 The Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree (Judge Crabtree) presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Justin Castro, E. Rodriguez, 2 W. Agapay, and Rhoderick Rojas

(Individual Appellees), 3 and against Annan-Yartey, on all claims.

This appeal arises out of legal action initiated by

Annan-Yartey against Appellees. Annan-Yartey alleged that, in

July 2017, he suffered injuries from an interaction with the

Individual Appellees at the Daniel K. Inouye Honolulu

International Airport, where Securitas was contracted to provide

security services. Annan-Yartey asserted claims of false

imprisonment, conspiracy, assault, battery, intentional

infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of

emotional distress, negligent hiring and screening, negligent

training, negligent supervision, and violations of state and

federal constitutional rights.

Annan-Yartey's state and federal constitutional

claims, negligent hiring, negligent training, and negligent

supervision claims were disposed of prior to trial. The state

and federal constitutional claims were dismissed pursuant to

Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6) for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Summary

judgment was granted in favor of Appellees on the negligent

2 E. Rodriguez is also referred to as "Elijah Rodriguez" in the
analysis of point of error 7.

3 Securitas and the Individual Appellees are collectively referred
to as Appellees.

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

hiring, negligent training, and negligent supervision claims.

During trial, but prior to jury deliberation, judgment as a

matter of law (JMOL) was entered on the conspiracy claim

pursuant to HRCP Rule 50.

Annan-Yartey's remaining claims then proceeded to the

jury, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees.

The circuit court entered the Final Judgment. This appeal

followed.

Annan-Yartey raises nine arguments on appeal, 4

contending that the circuit court erred or abused its discretion

in: (1) "commit[ing] prejudicial error . . . when [Judge

Crabtree] refused to recuse himself for being tainted with bias,

[lack of] impartiality, conflict of interest and racism toward

[Annan-Yartey]"; (2) "when it granted final [JMOL] in favor of

[Appellees]"; (3) in entering judgment in favor of Appellees

because "the jury erred when it found that [Securitas] was not

vicariously liable of [sic] [Individual Appellees]"; (4) "in

denying [Annan-Yartey's] motion for discovery"; (5) "by

excluding [Annan-Yartey's] treating physicians' medical reports

and testifying as fact witness[es]"; (6) by giving the jury

4 Annan-Yartey's opening brief does not set forth points of error
on appeal, and is in other ways noncompliant with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). To promote access to justice, we do not
automatically foreclose self-represented litigants from appellate review for
their failure to comply with the court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368,
380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020).

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

"erroneous jury instructions"; (7) in "den[ying] [Annan-

Yartey's] motion to compel attendance of Elijah Rodriguez[] [at

a] deposition and [the] jury trial"; (8) in "violat[ing] [Annan-

Yartey's] constitutional rights" by "permit[ting] [Appellees'

attorney] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s] and evidence

to perpetuate fraud on the court"; and (9) in "violat[ing]

[Annan-Yartey's] constitutional rights" by "permit[ting]

[Appellees' attorney] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s]

by expanding the scope of Dr. Marvit[']s testimony about [Annan-

Yartey's] mental condition and the arrest of [Honolulu Police

Department]." (Capitalization altered.)

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we resolve Annan-Yartey's contentions as discussed below, and

affirm the circuit court's Final Judgment.

(1) Annan-Yartey contends that Judge Crabtree erred by

"refus[ing] to recuse himself for being tainted with bias, [lack

of] impartiality, conflict of interest and racism towards

[Annan-Yartey]." "Decisions on recusal or disqualification

present perhaps the ultimate test of judicial discretion and

should thus lie undisturbed absent a showing of abuse of that

discretion." State v. Ross, 89 Hawaiʻi 371, 375, 974 P.2d 11, 15

(1998).
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hawaiʻi courts reviewing questions of disqualification

and recusal apply a two-part analysis. First, with respect to

judicial disqualification, "courts determine whether the alleged

bias is covered by [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)] § 601-7,

which only pertains to cases of affinity or consanguinity,

financial interest, prior participation, and actual judicial

bias or prejudice." Kondaur Cap. Corp. v. Matsuyoshi,

150 Hawaiʻi 1, 10-11, 496 P.3d 479, 488-89 (App. 2021) (footnote

omitted) (quoting Ross, 89 Hawai‘i at 377, 974 P.2d at 17).

Second, with respect to judicial recusal, "if HRS

§ 601-7 does not apply, courts may then turn, if appropriate, to

the notions of due process . . . in conducting the broader

inquiry of whether circumstances . . . fairly give rise to an

appearance of impropriety and . . . reasonably cast suspicion on

[the judge's] impartiality." Id. at 11, 496 P.3d at 489

(cleaned up). "The test for appearance of impropriety is

whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a

perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial

responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is

impaired." Id. at 21, 496 P.3d at 499 (quoting Off. of

Disciplinary Couns. v. Au, 107 Hawaiʻi 327, 338, 113 P.3d 203,

214 (2005)).

Judge Crabtree filed two judicial disclosures on the

record. His first disclosure, dated January 11, 2019, informed
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the parties of his former professional affiliation with

Appellees' law firm, which was then known as Bronster Crabtree &

Hoshibata, and with attorney Margery S. Bronster, who was his

law partner from 1999 to 2007. Judge Crabtree represented that

he is "completely neutral and impartial" "[r]egarding the

parties to this case." The first disclosure gave the parties

until January 25, 2019 to request "further clarification or

information regarding any of the [] disclosures," and until

4 p.m. on February 4, 2019 to move for Judge Crabtree's

disqualification/recusal. Both Annan-Yartey and Appellees

responded that they had no objections to Judge Crabtree

presiding over the case.

Judge Crabtree's second disclosure, filed August 10,

2021, informed the parties that his former law clerk had

recently accepted employment at the Bronster Fujichaku Robbins

law firm during the pendency of the litigation, and that normal

conflict avoidance procedures would be observed. Judge Crabtree

represented that his second disclosure "[did] not change the

[circuit] court's previous view that it can in fact be

completely fair and impartial."

In September 2021, Annan-Yartey moved for Judge

Crabtree's recusal, to which Appellees objected. In October

2021, Judge Crabtree heard and denied Annan-Yartey's motion.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

We note the absence of record evidence supporting

Annan-Yartey's contentions that Judge Crabtree exhibited bias

towards him. "Bias cannot be premised on adverse rulings

alone." Arquette v. State, 128 Hawaiʻi 423, 448, 290 P.3d 493,

518 (2012) (citation omitted). Annan-Yartey's speculative

claims of bias or prejudice are insufficient to require

disqualification, absent specific facts to support those claims.

Id.

"[A] judge is duty-bound not to withdraw where the

circumstances do not fairly give rise to an appearance of

impropriety and do not reasonably cast suspicion on his [or her]

impartiality." Kondaur, 150 Hawaiʻi at 22, 496 P.3d at 500

(cleaned up). We conclude that Judge Crabtree did not abuse his

discretion by not disqualifying or recusing himself from this

case.

(2) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court

erred in entering JMOL. HRCP Rule 50(a)(1) authorizes a trial

court to grant JMOL, "[i]f during a trial by jury a party has

been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient

evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party

on that issue[.]" The record reflects that the circuit court's

JMOL was entered only as to Annan-Yartey's conspiracy claim.

The circuit court explained that, based on the testimony

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

presented at trial, "there was just nothing the [circuit] court

could find that supported a conspiracy claim."

Annan-Yartey's opening brief fails to point to any

record evidence that supports his allegations of conspiracy.

Moreover, Annan-Yartey has not satisfied his duty to provide the

relevant trial transcripts that are necessary for this court's

review of this issue -- i.e., the testimony of Justin Castro,

Rhoderick Rojas, and W. Agapay. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt,

80 Hawaiʻi 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is

upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to

matters in the record, and [they have] the responsibility of

providing an adequate transcript.") (citation omitted). We

therefore have no basis upon which to review the circuit court's

JMOL, which we leave undisturbed.

(3) Annan-Yartey appears to contend that the jury

erred in finding that Securitas was not vicariously liable for

the Individual Appellees' actions. The record reflects that the

jury did not make a finding as to Securitas' vicarious

liability. Annan-Yartey therefore fails to make a discernible

argument as to this point. "We will disregard a point of error

if the appellant fails to present discernible argument on the

alleged error." Bank of Haw. v. Shaw, 83 Hawaiʻi 50, 52, 924

P.2d 544, 546 (App. 1996) (citation omitted).

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred

in denying his "motion for discovery." Annan-Yartey appears to

contend that the circuit court erred in denying the testimony of

his "treating physicians" who he alleges to have knowledge of

his medical condition.

In its June 6, 2022 "Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part [Annan-Yartey's] Motion to Present Testimony of

Physicians Who Treated Him for the Injuries that He Sustained on

July 4, 2019 After July 4, 2017, Filed April 8, 2022" (Physician

Testimony Order), the circuit court ruled,

The Motion is GRANTED with respect to:

1. Dr. Henry Cacanindin of the Kuakini Medical
Center, who treated [Annan-Yartey] on July 4, 2017 may
testify at the trial of this matter.

The Motion is DENIED with respect to:

1. Dr. Maria Ver, Dr. [Szeto-Wong], and Dr. Richard Inae
may not testify at the trial of this matter[. 5]

5 In its earlier May 6, 2022 "Ruling," the circuit court denied
Annan-Yartey's request to introduce Dr. Ver, Dr. Szeto-Wong, and Dr. Inae's
testimony, explaining,

C. Here, the three doctors the instant motion is
focused on did not treat [Annan-Yartey] at or soon after
the alleged assault in 2017. They treated him one year
later (2008, Dr. Ver, neck cysts), and three years later
(2020, Dr. Inae, bowel obstruction and Dr. Szeto-Wong,
heart ailment/Pacemaker).

D. Based on the current record, it is not readily
apparent that these later-treated medical conditions are
causally related to the alleged assault in 2017, such as if
it were follow-up treatment for a broken bone suffered at
the time of the alleged incident.

E. The instant motion does not provide any medical
evidence regarding the three doctors mentioned above, other
than the medical records for their treatment. None of
these medical records states, infers, or even discusses
(continued . . .)
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Annan-Yartey presents no argument, nor does he point

to any evidence in the record, that would support a causal

connection between Dr. Ver, Dr. Szeto-Wong, and Dr. Inae's

treatment and Annan-Yartey's alleged assault. We therefore

conclude that Annan-Yartey failed to demonstrate error, and we

affirm the circuit court's exclusion of Dr. Ver, Dr. Szeto-Wong,

and Dr. Inae's testimony from trial. See Haw. Ventures, LLC v.

Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawaiʻi 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007)

(appellants failed to demonstrate error where they "[did] not

point to anything in the record or provide any analysis that

5(. . . continued)
whether any symptom, diagnosis, or prognosis is related to
the alleged assault in 2017.

F. [Annan-Yartey's] motion asks that the three above-
named treating doctors be allowed to testify about their
treatment of the later conditions discussed above. But
such testimony is only relevant to [Annan-Yartey's] claims
if the later conditions are [causally] related to the 2017
alleged assault. So the three doctors' testimony is only
relevant if they give causation opinions. This was already
barred by the court's prior summary judgment ruling,
because no admissible medical opinion establishing
causation was ever submitted.

G. [Annan-Yartey] frames his request as one for
"clarification" rather than reconsideration. The court
respectfully disagrees. The prior [motion for summary
judgment] established that medical causation testimony is
required under Hawaii law, that it is [Annan-Yartey's]
burden to establish causation, that discovery had closed,
that the required evidence was not provided in opposition
to the motion, and therefore such causation testimony was
precluded. It is true that [Annan-Yartey] was pro se at
the time, but that in and of itself is not grounds to
unwind a prior dispositive order.

(Emphasis in original.)

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

would guide th[e] court in determining the validity of their

contention.").

(5) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred

by ruling "that [Annan-Yartey's] medical records were not

admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule." Annan-

Yartey does not specify which medical records were excluded,

where in the record they were excluded, or the basis for the

circuit court's alleged exclusion of the records. The record

reflects that the partial medical records of Annan-Yartey's

emergency medical treatment at the airport and in transit were

admitted into evidence. Annan-Yartey's Kuakini Health System

emergency medical records were also admitted into evidence. We

therefore decline to address this contention for lack of a

discernible argument.

(6) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred

in its instructions to the jury. We review jury instructions to

determine whether, considered as a whole, the instructions were

"prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or

misleading." Medeiros v. Choy, 142 Hawaiʻi 233, 239, 418 P.3d

574, 580 (2018) (quoting Nelson v. Univ. of Haw., 97 Hawaiʻi 376,

386, 38 P.3d 95, 105 (2001)).

Annan-Yartey makes three arguments related to jury

instructions. In light of sections (2) and (3), supra, we

decline to address the circuit court's instruction on
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

conspiracy, and its "refus[al]" to give an instruction on

vicarious liability. With regard to the remaining instruction,

Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court "erred in

instructing the jury regarding the Civil Assault claim by giving

[Appellees'] requested instruction, which was a criminal assault

instruction[, as] this instruction confused the jury."

The record reflects that the circuit court instructed

the jury as to both civil assault and criminal assault. 6 The

6 The circuit court's instruction on "assault" and "assault against
a law enforcement officer" was given in connection with Appellees' "probable
cause to arrest" defense, as follows:

The existence of probable cause to arrest is an
affirmative defense to an action for false imprisonment.
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances
known to the officer, or of which he had reasonably
trustworthy information, would warrant a man of reasonable
caution to believe that the person arrested has committed
or is committing an offense.

A person commits the offense of assault if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily
injury to another person.

A person commits the offen[se] of assault against a
law enforcement officer in the first degree if the person
intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to a law
enforcement officer who is engaged in the performance of
duty.

A person commits the offen[se] of assault against a
law enforcement officer in the second degree if the person
recklessly causes bodily injury to a law enforcement
officer who is engaged in the performance of duty.

If [Annan-Yartey] committed assault, assault against
a law enforcement officer in the first degree, or assault
against a law enforcement officer in the second degree
against [Justin] Castro, then [Annan-Yartey] committed a
criminal offense under the laws of the State of Hawaiʻi.

If [Annan-Yartey] committed a criminal offense under the
laws of the State of Hawaiʻi in any [Individual Appellees']
(continued . . .)
12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

circuit court gave the following instruction on the common law

tort of assault,

A person commits the common law tort of assault if he
acts with intent to cause another a nonconsensual harmful
or offensive contact or apprehension thereof, and the other
person apprehends imminent contact. The actor must intend
to cause a harmful or offensive contact, or imminent
apprehension thereof.

Plaintiff must prove each element of assault by a
preponderance of the evidence. Failure to prove any single
element, is a failure to prove the civil assault claim.

Annan-Yartey does not acknowledge the above

instruction on civil assault, and contends only that the circuit

court's "assault instruction" was "verbose, jumbled, and

confusing."

On this record, we conclude that the circuit court's

jury instructions on civil and criminal assault were not

"prejudicially insufficient, erroneous, inconsistent, or

misleading." Medeiros, 142 Hawaiʻi at 239, 418 P.3d at 580

(citation omitted).

(7) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court erred

in failing to compel Defendant-Appellee Elijah Rodriguez's

(Rodriguez) attendance at trial and, separately, at a pre-trial

deposition. We review the circuit court's ruling on a motion to

compel discovery for abuse of discretion. Bank of N.Y. Mellon

6(. . .continued)
presence, then [Individual Appellees] had probable cause to place
[Annan-Yartey] under arrest.
13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

v. Lemay, 137 Hawaiʻi 30, 33, 364 P.3d 928, 931 (2015) (citation

omitted).

Annan-Yartey first contends that the circuit court

failed to compel Rodriguez's attendance at trial. The record

reflects that Annan-Yartey did not move to compel Rodriguez's

attendance at trial. On this record, we conclude that Annan-

Yartey's contention lacks merit.

Annan-Yartey next contends that the circuit court

failed to compel Rodriguez's attendance at a pre-trial

deposition. The record reflects that Annan-Yartey subpoenaed

Rodriguez to appear at a deposition on November 12, 2019.

Appellees' counsel met and conferred with Annan-Yartey to

discuss rescheduling the deposition to a date/time that would

work for both sides. Appellees' counsel's declaration states

that Annan-Yartey "told us [at the meet and confer] that he

would insist on the depositions going forward on November 12 and

13, 2019." "However, after the meet and confer, [Annan-Yartey]

stated that he would reset the deposition dates and time in

December to allow sufficient time to contact and prepare the

deponents." The record reflects further communication between

Appellees' counsel and Annan-Yartey regarding the deposition

scheduling.

In December 2019, Annan-Yartey moved the circuit court

to compel Rodriguez to appear at a deposition. The circuit
14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

court noted, at the January 2020 hearing, that it was inclined

to deny the motion without prejudice. The circuit court did

not, however, enter a written order on the motion, and Annan-

Yartey subpoenaed Rodriguez to a video deposition scheduled for

February 4, 2020. Prior to the scheduled deposition, the

circuit court issued a minute order, noting further difficulties

regarding the parties' scheduling of depositions. The circuit

court "encourage[d] both sides to accomplish whatever can be

accomplished on Feb. 3 and 4, and then [the circuit court would]

set another status hearing if [needed] to smooth out any ongoing

problems."

It appears that the February 4, 2019, deposition did

not proceed as scheduled, Rodriguez was not deposed, and Annan-

Yartey did not make further attempts to depose Rodriguez. In

January 2021, two months after the discovery cut-off date,

Annan-Yartey filed "[Annan-Yartey's] Motion to Re-Open Discovery

for Limited Written Discovery," in which he sought to "conduct

expedited limited written discovery of Elijah Rodrigo [sic] and

[Annan-Yartey's] 'disclosed treating doctors.'" The circuit

court denied Annan-Yartey's request to re-open discovery.

On this record, we conclude that the circuit court did

not abuse its discretion by not compelling Rodriguez's

deposition testimony.

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(8) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court

violated his constitutional rights by "permitt[ing] [Appellees'

counsel] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s] and evidence

to perpetuate Fraud on the Court." Annan-Yartey specifically

maintains that Appellees' counsel "was permitted by the

[circuit] court to elicit from the [HRS §] 261-17 . . .

inflammatory evidence that, Securitas Security guards [] were

airport police and not Security Guards." Annan-Yartey fails to

present any discernible argument, and we therefore decline to

address this contention.

(9) Annan-Yartey contends that the circuit court

violated his constitutional rights by "permitt[ing] [Appellees'

counsel] to elicit highly prejudicial statement[s] by expanding

the scope of Dr. Marvit[']s testimony about [Annan-Yartey's]

mental condition and the arrest of [Honolulu Police

Department]." It appears that Annan-Yartey is objecting here to

Appellees' introduction of Annan-Yartey's arrest record and the

characterization of Annan-Yartey as "delusional."

The transcript of Dr. Marvit's testimony is not in the

record. We therefore lack a sufficient record on which to

review contentions of error related to the introduction of Dr.

Marvit's testimony.

The transcript of Appellees' counsel's closing

statement is in the record and, relevant here, it reflects that
16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Annan-Yartey did not make any objections. Annan-Yartey's

argument on appeal is therefore waived. See Ass'n of Apartment

Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 100 Hawaiʻi 97, 107,

58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002) ("Legal issues not raised in the trial

court are ordinarily deemed waived on appeal.") (citations

omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Final

Judgment. 7

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 26, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Napoleon T. Annan-Yartey, Sr.
Self-represented /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Plaintiff-Appellant. Associate Judge

Kenneth S. Robbins, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Defendants-Appellees. Associate Judge

7 Pursuant to HRAP Rule 34(c), Annan-Yartey's November 10, 2025
Motion for Retention of Oral Argument is denied.
17