Reimann v. Mantelli

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
16-JUN-2026
08:01 AM
Dkt. 61 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

JESSICA REIMANN, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
GIO MANTELLI aka Giovanni Mantelli, Respondent-Appellant,
and
KRISTEN SANTOS aka Kristin Santos, Respondent-Appellee

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

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

In this appeal, Respondent-Appellant Gio Mantelli
(Mantelli) challenges the district court's grant of a harassment
injunction on grounds that the correct legal standard was not
applied, and that two specific conditions imposed were overly
broad and unreasonable. We affirm.
Mantelli appeals from the December 22, 2023 "Order
Granting Petition for Injunction Against Harassment"
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(Injunction) filed by the District Court of the Third Circuit
(District Court).1
On appeal, Mantelli raises two points of error,
contending the District Court erred by: (1) "fail[ing] to apply
the relevant legal standards for issuing a harassment injunction
under Hawaii law, particularly whether or not [Mantelli]'s
actions served no legitimate purpose and whether such conduct
would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress";2
and (2) "ordering [an] injunction that is overly broad and which
imposed unreasonable restrictions" on Mantelli's "lawful use of
his own property."
Upon review of the record on appeal and relevant legal
authorities, giving due consideration to the issues raised and
arguments advanced in the Opening Brief,3 we resolve the
contentions as follows.
Reimann's January 18, 2023, "Petition for Ex Parte
Temporary Restraining Order and for Injunction Against
Harassment" (TRO Petition) alleged that her neighbors, Mantelli
and Kristen Santos (Santos), were illegally operating a food
truck business without a permit; and that out of Mantelli's
entire 14-acre property, Mantelli and Santos chose to locate
their business in the acre closest to the parties' property line
and Reimann's home. Reimann alleged the constant presence of

1 The Honorable Kimberly B. Tsuchiya presided.

2 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604-10.5(a)(2) (2016) defines
"[h]arassment" as "[a]n intentional or knowing course of conduct directed at
an individual that seriously alarms or disturbs consistently or continually
bothers the individual and serves no legitimate purpose; provided that such
course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional
distress." (Emphasis added.)

3 Petitioner-Appellee Jessica Reimann (Reimann) did not file an
Answering Brief.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

food truck customers affected her health and privacy. Reimann
alleged that on or about Christmas of 2022, Reimann's husband
Jarred Yates (Yates) informed Mantelli and Santos that the food
truck was "highly disruptive" and requested they stop
operations; but Santos refused. Reimann described how the
"harassment and stalking" then commenced on January 14, 2023,
with multiple daily incidents until January 18, 2023, the date
the TRO was issued. These incidents consisted generally of
Mantelli and Santos walking their dogs "up and down the property
line," causing Reimann's own dogs to bark; "blasting music" from
their truck; and initiating a construction project near the
property line, to "make animal shelters and start a petting zoo
next to [Reimann's] house." Reimann alleged that on January 17,
2023, when Yates went to inform Mantelli again about how his
family did not feel safe in their home, Mantelli stated:

I am going to use all my resources, all of the money that I
have earned over my life and put that towards making you
and your family's life hell! Everyday I will come down by
your house and make you not want to live in your home.
This will happen all day, every day. It will not stop!

A trial on the TRO Petition was held on February 22,
June 30, December 15, and December 22, 2023. Reimann, Yates,
Mantelli, and Santos testified. Their testimonies related to
the parties' conflicts regarding Mantelli's operation of the
food truck on Mantelli's property; Mantelli's construction of an
animal feeding structure on the property line during the January
2023 time frame of the Petition; and Mantelli and Santos walking
their dogs at the property line.
In its December 22, 2023 ruling, the District Court
found certain aspects of Mantelli's testimony not credible, made
oral factual findings, and granted the harassment injunction, as
follows:

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Mr. Mantelli –- let's see. [Yates] testified he had
a conversation with Mr. Mantelli. Mr. Mantelli advised
[Yates] that . . . this is my land. I can do whatever I
want. I'm not going to stop.

[Mantelli] told Mr. Yates he would build an animal
structure with the pallets. That he would never consider
moving the food truck. If he had to stop operating the
food truck there were any number of businesses he could
create and make sure the public would always be near Mr.
Yates' property. And he specifically said a petting zoo in
the area of the property line was an option.

Mr. Mantelli told Mr. Yates that he would not stop.
That Mr. Yates was never going to be happy with his family
at that property.

That he would use all of his resources and all of the
money he earned in his lifetime so that the petitioner's,
ah, husband and his family were not happy at their property
and they could not thrive. And if Mr. Yates didn't like
it, he better move.

. . . .

Also testimony from [Mantelli] that was not credible,
he testified initially that he had his property for five
years and he planned on having penned animals at the shared
fence line. And his purpose was to have a sheep farm.

And then after additional questioning he testified
that after the food truck was shut down he was deciding
what kind of farm to do and he did research and he learned
that you can not put pig pens up next to a house. Thought
about it. Did some research. Pig pens need to be 300 feet
away. He had looked it up.

And so because he could not do pigs he decided on
sheep. And this was after the food truck was shut down.
Which according to the testimony was in January of 2022
[sic].[4]

Find that Mr. Mantelli's testimony is not credible.

. . . .

[Mantelli] testified that he had two sheep. I
believe he got additional sheep in January of 2023. But
for about a year and a half before then he had two sheep.

In the two years he had these sheep before the food
truck shut down he fed them in the same spot next to the

4 The Petition allegations and the trial dealt with alleged
incidents in January 2023, not 2022.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

barn that was next to his residence. He fed them next to
the container to keep them undercover.

It was only after the food truck shut down that he
built a structure for feeding the sheep in proximity of
[Reimann]'s fence line and the portion of the fence line
that is visible from [Reimann]'s home.

And again, the fence line is very long. He testified
he put his shelter there because it was shaded, their tree.
But if you look at the exhibits, 13, 14, 15, there are
trees in other areas. There are shaded portions of the
property. Even along that fence line further away from
[Reimann]'s home there are shaded and, ah, areas with
trees.

. . . .

And there's other behavior about, um -- well,
creating a situation where the animals would be directed,
and he feeds them twice a day, to this location in
proximity of the very small home of 900 square feet
occupied by [Reimann] wherein he -- ah, [Mantelli and
Santos] have 14 acres upon which to house, feed, shelter
their animals.

To direct all this activity to that one location for
a week and nothing had happened in that area for the four
years before or the one year before, but suddenly in this
week almost every day something is happening.

State of mind is something that can be deduced from
circul -- circumstantial evidence. And in this case what
it appears is that [Mantelli and Santos] were acting,
specifically after they had been advised by [Reimann] and
[Reimann]'s husband of the adverse effect [sic] activity in
proximity to the fence have on [Reimann]'s family,
[Mantelli and Santos] decided to focus their attention in
that very small area.

I'm going to grant the request for petition -- ah, an
injunction.

(Emphases added.) In granting the maximum three-year injunction
allowed under HRS § 604-10.5, the District Court found "that the
testimony of Ms. Reimann, [and] Mr. Yates" was "credible" and
"the allegations of the [TRO] [P]etition proven by clear and
convincing evidence[.]"
In addition to the three-year harassment injunction
prohibiting Mantelli from contacting, threatening, or physically

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

harassing Reimann, the District Court considered Reimann's
request for the imposition of additional special conditions to
address the "dog walking on that section of the shared fence
line, feeding animals on the shared section of the fenced line,
and playing loud music and other activities[.]" Mantelli
opposed the requested special conditions citing various reasons.
The District Court ordered the following special conditions:
"[Mantelli] shall not feed his livestock or animals within 100
yards of the shared property line between [Mantelli] and
[Reimann]'s parcels. [Mantelli] shall relocate by Jan[uary] 2,
2024 any structures (not including fencing) from the area within
100 yards of the shared property line."
Mantelli timely appealed.
(1) Mantelli contends the District Court "made no
determination of whether [Mantelli]'s actions served a
legitimate purpose or whether a reasonable person would have
suffered substantial emotional distress[,]" which is necessary
before "a court may grant an injunction against harassment."
Mantelli argues that his testimony revealed that the "feeding of
livestock near the property line was part of his agricultural
practices, a legitimate purpose that should have been
considered"; and that because Reimann described herself as
"someone who had a trauma that makes having [her] privacy taken
away . . . particularly disturbing[,]" her emotional distress
was "significantly influenced" by subjective factors.
Under HRS § 604-10.5(a)(2) and (g) (2016 & 2021
Supp.), the District Court "shall" grant a harassment injunction
if "the court finds by clear and convincing evidence" that the
respondent engaged in "[a]n intentional or knowing course of
conduct directed at [the petitioner] that seriously alarms or
disturbs consistently or continually bothers the [petitioner]

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and serves no legitimate purpose; provided that such course of
conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional
distress."
The record reflects the District Court did not enter
findings of fact and conclusions of law (FOFs/COLs), but it was
not required to do so because no party had requested them. See
District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 52(a)
("Unless findings are requested, the court shall not be required
to make findings of fact and conclusions of law."). Under DCRCP
Rule 52(c),5 however, once the notice of appeal was filed, it
appears such FOFs/COLs should have been entered. Hawaiʻi Rules
of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 10(f) requires that in such
situations "where the court appealed from is not required to
enter" FOFs/COLs prior to judgment, "but is required to do so
once a notice of appeal is filed, the appellant shall, no later
than 10 days after filing the notice of appeal, file in the
court appealed from" such request for entry of FOFs/COLs.
Mantelli did not file a request with the District Court for
entry of FOFs/COLs. In these circumstances, the appellate court
"may" still proceed with its review where "the record is
sufficiently clear without the necessity of findings for
purposes of deciding the issues raised on appeal." Omura v. Am.
River Invs., 78 Hawaiʻi 416, 417-18, 894 P.2d 113, 114-15 (App.
1995) (citation omitted). In Omura, this court found the record
of the transcript, exhibits, closing arguments of counsel and
the district court's oral ruling sufficient to decide the appeal
without findings. Id. at 418, 894 P.2d at 115. We similarly

5 DCRCP Rule 52(c) provides: "Whenever a notice of appeal is filed
and findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been made, unless such
findings and conclusions are unnecessary as provided by subdivision (a) of
this rule, the court shall" make such findings and conclusions.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

conclude that the record before us is sufficiently clear for us
to proceed with appellate review. See id.
Here, the District Court found Reimann and Yates
"credible[,]" Mantelli's testimony "not credible[,]" and "the
allegations of the petition proven by clear and convincing
evidence[.]" The TRO Petition contained Mantelli's statement
that he would "use all [his] resources" "towards making [Yates]
and [Yates'] family's life hell" so they would "not want to live
in [their] home"; and that Mantelli would do so "all day, every
day" and "[i]t will not stop!" The District Court made oral
factual findings, which included that "the purpose for Ms.
Santos being in that area [of the property line] for these
periods of time was to upset or antagonize the dogs and thus her
neighbors[,]" and that Mantelli had told Yates he would "make
sure the public would always be near Mr. Yates' property" and
that Yates "w[ould] never . . . be happy with his family at that
property." Mantelli does not challenge these findings, which
are binding on appeal. See Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water
Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82 (2002).
We conclude that the District Court's unchallenged
findings reflect that Mantelli's and Santos's conduct at the
shared property line was intended to seriously alarm and
continually disturb Reimann and her family; and such conduct,
which included Mantelli's threat to continue such conduct "all
day, every day" and "not stop" in order to make "life hell" for
Reimann and her family -- would cause a reasonable person to
suffer emotional distress, consistent with HRS § 605-10.5(a)(2).
There was substantial evidence to support the harassment
injunction, and the issuance of the injunction was not clearly
erroneous. See Bailey v. Sanchez, 92 Hawaiʻi 312, 316 n.6, 990
P.2d 1194, 1198 n.6 (App. 1999).

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2) Mantelli argues the District Court reversibly
erred by issuing an injunction that is "overbroad and not
narrowly tailored to address the alleged harassment," and
"imposes unreasonable restrictions that unduly interfere with
[Mantelli's] lawful use of his own property."
Mantelli purports that "[u]nder Hawaii law, an
injunction must be narrowly tailored to address the specific
conduct that constitutes harassment, without unnecessarily
infringing on the lawful use of property[,]" but cites no Hawaiʻi
authority in support of this proposition. Mantelli does cite
two federal cases but presents no argument as to what these
cases stand for or explain how they support his position. See
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may be deemed waived.").
Mantelli claims the injunction's 100-yards-from-the-
shared-property-line animal feeding prohibition "is not
justified by the evidence presented[,]" and argues that
"[t]estimonies, including those given on June 30, 2023, and
December 15, 2023, indicate that feeding livestock is a routine
and legitimate agricultural activity that serves a lawful
purpose." Mantelli, however, provides no description of such
"[t]estimonies" or record references for where such testimony
can be found in the lengthy transcripts to which he refers.6 See
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) (requiring argument to contain citations to
the record relied on). Mantelli's assertion that "[t]here was
no evidence provided that the mere presence of these structures,
which likely serve agricultural or other lawful purposes,
directly contributed to any alleged harassment" is wholly
contradicted by the District Court's binding findings set forth

6 The transcripts for the morning and afternoon June 30, 2023
sessions are 104 pages and 76 pages long. The transcripts for the morning
and afternoon December 15, 2023 sessions are 132 pages and 119 pages long.

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

supra, that Mantelli's construction and use of the animal
feeding structure at the shared property line constituted
harassment. The District Court found that Mantelli deliberately
created the situation where the animals would be fed in the
"very small area" "in proximity" to the Reimann's home, even
though Mantelli had "14 acres upon which to house, feed, shelter
[his] animals" and "nothing had happened in that area"
previously.
Mantelli argues that the harassment injunction's order
to relocate any structure within 100 yards of the shared
property line is "overly broad and unnecessary[,]" and the
District Court "should have considered less restrictive means to
address [Reimann]'s concerns, such as limiting the types of
activities allowed near the property line, rather than imposing
a blanket prohibition on structures." By "requiring the removal
of structures," Mantelli argues, "the injunction effectively
diminishes the functionality and economic value of the
property."
This argument mischaracterizes the special condition.
It is not a "blanket prohibition on structures" but specifically
requires the relocation of the existing animal feeding structure
that the District Court determined to constitute harassment.
The District Court's finding that it was not "unreasonable" for
the animal feeding structure to be moved "some place else on his
14 acres to feed those sheep that's not right next to
[Reimann]'s house[,]" was supported by substantial evidence,
because the feeding station had previously been located on a
different site "for two years" and was "moved to an area in
close proximity to [Reimann]'s house" only "suddenly in January
[2023]." Mantelli does not explain how the relocation of the
existing animal feeding structure "diminishes the functionality

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and economic value" of his property, which consists of 14 acres.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
We conclude there was substantial evidence to support
the imposition of the two special conditions of the harassment
injunction prohibiting animal feeding and requiring removal of
the existing feeding structure at the parties' shared property
line; and the findings that supported the District Court's
conclusion that the imposition of these special conditions was
necessary under the circumstances here to address the specific
conduct constituting harassment were not clearly erroneous. See
Bailey, 92 Hawaiʻi at 316 n.6, 990 P.2d at 1198 n.6.
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court's
December 22, 2023 Injunction is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 16, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Edward J. Fetzer,
Chief Judge
for Respondent-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

11

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
16-JUN-2026
08:01 AM
Dkt. 61 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

JESSICA REIMANN, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
GIO MANTELLI aka Giovanni Mantelli, Respondent-Appellant,
and
KRISTEN SANTOS aka Kristin Santos, Respondent-Appellee

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

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

In this appeal, Respondent-Appellant Gio Mantelli
(Mantelli) challenges the district court's grant of a harassment
injunction on grounds that the correct legal standard was not
applied, and that two specific conditions imposed were overly
broad and unreasonable. We affirm.
Mantelli appeals from the December 22, 2023 "Order
Granting Petition for Injunction Against Harassment"
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(Injunction) filed by the District Court of the Third Circuit
(District Court).1
On appeal, Mantelli raises two points of error,
contending the District Court erred by: (1) "fail[ing] to apply
the relevant legal standards for issuing a harassment injunction
under Hawaii law, particularly whether or not [Mantelli]'s
actions served no legitimate purpose and whether such conduct
would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress";2
and (2) "ordering [an] injunction that is overly broad and which
imposed unreasonable restrictions" on Mantelli's "lawful use of
his own property."
Upon review of the record on appeal and relevant legal
authorities, giving due consideration to the issues raised and
arguments advanced in the Opening Brief,3 we resolve the
contentions as follows.
Reimann's January 18, 2023, "Petition for Ex Parte
Temporary Restraining Order and for Injunction Against
Harassment" (TRO Petition) alleged that her neighbors, Mantelli
and Kristen Santos (Santos), were illegally operating a food
truck business without a permit; and that out of Mantelli's
entire 14-acre property, Mantelli and Santos chose to locate
their business in the acre closest to the parties' property line
and Reimann's home. Reimann alleged the constant presence of

1 The Honorable Kimberly B. Tsuchiya presided.

2 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604-10.5(a)(2) (2016) defines
"[h]arassment" as "[a]n intentional or knowing course of conduct directed at
an individual that seriously alarms or disturbs consistently or continually
bothers the individual and serves no legitimate purpose; provided that such
course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional
distress." (Emphasis added.)

3 Petitioner-Appellee Jessica Reimann (Reimann) did not file an
Answering Brief.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

food truck customers affected her health and privacy. Reimann
alleged that on or about Christmas of 2022, Reimann's husband
Jarred Yates (Yates) informed Mantelli and Santos that the food
truck was "highly disruptive" and requested they stop
operations; but Santos refused. Reimann described how the
"harassment and stalking" then commenced on January 14, 2023,
with multiple daily incidents until January 18, 2023, the date
the TRO was issued. These incidents consisted generally of
Mantelli and Santos walking their dogs "up and down the property
line," causing Reimann's own dogs to bark; "blasting music" from
their truck; and initiating a construction project near the
property line, to "make animal shelters and start a petting zoo
next to [Reimann's] house." Reimann alleged that on January 17,
2023, when Yates went to inform Mantelli again about how his
family did not feel safe in their home, Mantelli stated:

I am going to use all my resources, all of the money that I
have earned over my life and put that towards making you
and your family's life hell! Everyday I will come down by
your house and make you not want to live in your home.
This will happen all day, every day. It will not stop!

A trial on the TRO Petition was held on February 22,
June 30, December 15, and December 22, 2023. Reimann, Yates,
Mantelli, and Santos testified. Their testimonies related to
the parties' conflicts regarding Mantelli's operation of the
food truck on Mantelli's property; Mantelli's construction of an
animal feeding structure on the property line during the January
2023 time frame of the Petition; and Mantelli and Santos walking
their dogs at the property line.
In its December 22, 2023 ruling, the District Court
found certain aspects of Mantelli's testimony not credible, made
oral factual findings, and granted the harassment injunction, as
follows:

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Mr. Mantelli –- let's see. [Yates] testified he had
a conversation with Mr. Mantelli. Mr. Mantelli advised
[Yates] that . . . this is my land. I can do whatever I
want. I'm not going to stop.

[Mantelli] told Mr. Yates he would build an animal
structure with the pallets. That he would never consider
moving the food truck. If he had to stop operating the
food truck there were any number of businesses he could
create and make sure the public would always be near Mr.
Yates' property. And he specifically said a petting zoo in
the area of the property line was an option.

Mr. Mantelli told Mr. Yates that he would not stop.
That Mr. Yates was never going to be happy with his family
at that property.

That he would use all of his resources and all of the
money he earned in his lifetime so that the petitioner's,
ah, husband and his family were not happy at their property
and they could not thrive. And if Mr. Yates didn't like
it, he better move.

. . . .

Also testimony from [Mantelli] that was not credible,
he testified initially that he had his property for five
years and he planned on having penned animals at the shared
fence line. And his purpose was to have a sheep farm.

And then after additional questioning he testified
that after the food truck was shut down he was deciding
what kind of farm to do and he did research and he learned
that you can not put pig pens up next to a house. Thought
about it. Did some research. Pig pens need to be 300 feet
away. He had looked it up.

And so because he could not do pigs he decided on
sheep. And this was after the food truck was shut down.
Which according to the testimony was in January of 2022
[sic].[4]

Find that Mr. Mantelli's testimony is not credible.

. . . .

[Mantelli] testified that he had two sheep. I
believe he got additional sheep in January of 2023. But
for about a year and a half before then he had two sheep.

In the two years he had these sheep before the food
truck shut down he fed them in the same spot next to the

4 The Petition allegations and the trial dealt with alleged
incidents in January 2023, not 2022.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

barn that was next to his residence. He fed them next to
the container to keep them undercover.

It was only after the food truck shut down that he
built a structure for feeding the sheep in proximity of
[Reimann]'s fence line and the portion of the fence line
that is visible from [Reimann]'s home.

And again, the fence line is very long. He testified
he put his shelter there because it was shaded, their tree.
But if you look at the exhibits, 13, 14, 15, there are
trees in other areas. There are shaded portions of the
property. Even along that fence line further away from
[Reimann]'s home there are shaded and, ah, areas with
trees.

. . . .

And there's other behavior about, um -- well,
creating a situation where the animals would be directed,
and he feeds them twice a day, to this location in
proximity of the very small home of 900 square feet
occupied by [Reimann] wherein he -- ah, [Mantelli and
Santos] have 14 acres upon which to house, feed, shelter
their animals.

To direct all this activity to that one location for
a week and nothing had happened in that area for the four
years before or the one year before, but suddenly in this
week almost every day something is happening.

State of mind is something that can be deduced from
circul -- circumstantial evidence. And in this case what
it appears is that [Mantelli and Santos] were acting,
specifically after they had been advised by [Reimann] and
[Reimann]'s husband of the adverse effect [sic] activity in
proximity to the fence have on [Reimann]'s family,
[Mantelli and Santos] decided to focus their attention in
that very small area.

I'm going to grant the request for petition -- ah, an
injunction.

(Emphases added.) In granting the maximum three-year injunction
allowed under HRS § 604-10.5, the District Court found "that the
testimony of Ms. Reimann, [and] Mr. Yates" was "credible" and
"the allegations of the [TRO] [P]etition proven by clear and
convincing evidence[.]"
In addition to the three-year harassment injunction
prohibiting Mantelli from contacting, threatening, or physically

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

harassing Reimann, the District Court considered Reimann's
request for the imposition of additional special conditions to
address the "dog walking on that section of the shared fence
line, feeding animals on the shared section of the fenced line,
and playing loud music and other activities[.]" Mantelli
opposed the requested special conditions citing various reasons.
The District Court ordered the following special conditions:
"[Mantelli] shall not feed his livestock or animals within 100
yards of the shared property line between [Mantelli] and
[Reimann]'s parcels. [Mantelli] shall relocate by Jan[uary] 2,
2024 any structures (not including fencing) from the area within
100 yards of the shared property line."
Mantelli timely appealed.
(1) Mantelli contends the District Court "made no
determination of whether [Mantelli]'s actions served a
legitimate purpose or whether a reasonable person would have
suffered substantial emotional distress[,]" which is necessary
before "a court may grant an injunction against harassment."
Mantelli argues that his testimony revealed that the "feeding of
livestock near the property line was part of his agricultural
practices, a legitimate purpose that should have been
considered"; and that because Reimann described herself as
"someone who had a trauma that makes having [her] privacy taken
away . . . particularly disturbing[,]" her emotional distress
was "significantly influenced" by subjective factors.
Under HRS § 604-10.5(a)(2) and (g) (2016 & 2021
Supp.), the District Court "shall" grant a harassment injunction
if "the court finds by clear and convincing evidence" that the
respondent engaged in "[a]n intentional or knowing course of
conduct directed at [the petitioner] that seriously alarms or
disturbs consistently or continually bothers the [petitioner]

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and serves no legitimate purpose; provided that such course of
conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional
distress."
The record reflects the District Court did not enter
findings of fact and conclusions of law (FOFs/COLs), but it was
not required to do so because no party had requested them. See
District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 52(a)
("Unless findings are requested, the court shall not be required
to make findings of fact and conclusions of law."). Under DCRCP
Rule 52(c),5 however, once the notice of appeal was filed, it
appears such FOFs/COLs should have been entered. Hawaiʻi Rules
of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 10(f) requires that in such
situations "where the court appealed from is not required to
enter" FOFs/COLs prior to judgment, "but is required to do so
once a notice of appeal is filed, the appellant shall, no later
than 10 days after filing the notice of appeal, file in the
court appealed from" such request for entry of FOFs/COLs.
Mantelli did not file a request with the District Court for
entry of FOFs/COLs. In these circumstances, the appellate court
"may" still proceed with its review where "the record is
sufficiently clear without the necessity of findings for
purposes of deciding the issues raised on appeal." Omura v. Am.
River Invs., 78 Hawaiʻi 416, 417-18, 894 P.2d 113, 114-15 (App.
1995) (citation omitted). In Omura, this court found the record
of the transcript, exhibits, closing arguments of counsel and
the district court's oral ruling sufficient to decide the appeal
without findings. Id. at 418, 894 P.2d at 115. We similarly

5 DCRCP Rule 52(c) provides: "Whenever a notice of appeal is filed
and findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been made, unless such
findings and conclusions are unnecessary as provided by subdivision (a) of
this rule, the court shall" make such findings and conclusions.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

conclude that the record before us is sufficiently clear for us
to proceed with appellate review. See id.
Here, the District Court found Reimann and Yates
"credible[,]" Mantelli's testimony "not credible[,]" and "the
allegations of the petition proven by clear and convincing
evidence[.]" The TRO Petition contained Mantelli's statement
that he would "use all [his] resources" "towards making [Yates]
and [Yates'] family's life hell" so they would "not want to live
in [their] home"; and that Mantelli would do so "all day, every
day" and "[i]t will not stop!" The District Court made oral
factual findings, which included that "the purpose for Ms.
Santos being in that area [of the property line] for these
periods of time was to upset or antagonize the dogs and thus her
neighbors[,]" and that Mantelli had told Yates he would "make
sure the public would always be near Mr. Yates' property" and
that Yates "w[ould] never . . . be happy with his family at that
property." Mantelli does not challenge these findings, which
are binding on appeal. See Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water
Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82 (2002).
We conclude that the District Court's unchallenged
findings reflect that Mantelli's and Santos's conduct at the
shared property line was intended to seriously alarm and
continually disturb Reimann and her family; and such conduct,
which included Mantelli's threat to continue such conduct "all
day, every day" and "not stop" in order to make "life hell" for
Reimann and her family -- would cause a reasonable person to
suffer emotional distress, consistent with HRS § 605-10.5(a)(2).
There was substantial evidence to support the harassment
injunction, and the issuance of the injunction was not clearly
erroneous. See Bailey v. Sanchez, 92 Hawaiʻi 312, 316 n.6, 990
P.2d 1194, 1198 n.6 (App. 1999).

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2) Mantelli argues the District Court reversibly
erred by issuing an injunction that is "overbroad and not
narrowly tailored to address the alleged harassment," and
"imposes unreasonable restrictions that unduly interfere with
[Mantelli's] lawful use of his own property."
Mantelli purports that "[u]nder Hawaii law, an
injunction must be narrowly tailored to address the specific
conduct that constitutes harassment, without unnecessarily
infringing on the lawful use of property[,]" but cites no Hawaiʻi
authority in support of this proposition. Mantelli does cite
two federal cases but presents no argument as to what these
cases stand for or explain how they support his position. See
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may be deemed waived.").
Mantelli claims the injunction's 100-yards-from-the-
shared-property-line animal feeding prohibition "is not
justified by the evidence presented[,]" and argues that
"[t]estimonies, including those given on June 30, 2023, and
December 15, 2023, indicate that feeding livestock is a routine
and legitimate agricultural activity that serves a lawful
purpose." Mantelli, however, provides no description of such
"[t]estimonies" or record references for where such testimony
can be found in the lengthy transcripts to which he refers.6 See
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) (requiring argument to contain citations to
the record relied on). Mantelli's assertion that "[t]here was
no evidence provided that the mere presence of these structures,
which likely serve agricultural or other lawful purposes,
directly contributed to any alleged harassment" is wholly
contradicted by the District Court's binding findings set forth

6 The transcripts for the morning and afternoon June 30, 2023
sessions are 104 pages and 76 pages long. The transcripts for the morning
and afternoon December 15, 2023 sessions are 132 pages and 119 pages long.

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

supra, that Mantelli's construction and use of the animal
feeding structure at the shared property line constituted
harassment. The District Court found that Mantelli deliberately
created the situation where the animals would be fed in the
"very small area" "in proximity" to the Reimann's home, even
though Mantelli had "14 acres upon which to house, feed, shelter
[his] animals" and "nothing had happened in that area"
previously.
Mantelli argues that the harassment injunction's order
to relocate any structure within 100 yards of the shared
property line is "overly broad and unnecessary[,]" and the
District Court "should have considered less restrictive means to
address [Reimann]'s concerns, such as limiting the types of
activities allowed near the property line, rather than imposing
a blanket prohibition on structures." By "requiring the removal
of structures," Mantelli argues, "the injunction effectively
diminishes the functionality and economic value of the
property."
This argument mischaracterizes the special condition.
It is not a "blanket prohibition on structures" but specifically
requires the relocation of the existing animal feeding structure
that the District Court determined to constitute harassment.
The District Court's finding that it was not "unreasonable" for
the animal feeding structure to be moved "some place else on his
14 acres to feed those sheep that's not right next to
[Reimann]'s house[,]" was supported by substantial evidence,
because the feeding station had previously been located on a
different site "for two years" and was "moved to an area in
close proximity to [Reimann]'s house" only "suddenly in January
[2023]." Mantelli does not explain how the relocation of the
existing animal feeding structure "diminishes the functionality

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and economic value" of his property, which consists of 14 acres.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
We conclude there was substantial evidence to support
the imposition of the two special conditions of the harassment
injunction prohibiting animal feeding and requiring removal of
the existing feeding structure at the parties' shared property
line; and the findings that supported the District Court's
conclusion that the imposition of these special conditions was
necessary under the circumstances here to address the specific
conduct constituting harassment were not clearly erroneous. See
Bailey, 92 Hawaiʻi at 316 n.6, 990 P.2d at 1198 n.6.
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court's
December 22, 2023 Injunction is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 16, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Edward J. Fetzer,
Chief Judge
for Respondent-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

11