Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
07-JUN-2024
07:51 AM
Dkt. 183 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
MICHAEL C. GREENSPON,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
AS TRUSTEE; CIT BANK NA F/K/A ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.;
ALDRIDGE PITE LLP F/K/A PITE DUNCAN LLP,
Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1-100, Defendants,
and
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR
RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST SERIES 2006-A8 MORTGAGE
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H,
Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and
DOES 1-20, Counterclaim Defendants,
and
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC
BANK, F.S.B.; and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI,
Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-5;
JANE DOES 1-5; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5;
DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-5; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-5; and
DOE ENTITIES 1-5, Third-Party Defendants,

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
MICHAEL C. GREENSPON,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
AS TRUSTEE; CIT BANK NA F/K/A ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.;
ALDRIDGE PITE LLP F/K/A PITE DUNCAN LLP,
Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1-100, Defendants,
and
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR
RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST SERIES 2006-A8 MORTGAGE
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H,
Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and
DOES 1-20, Counterclaim Defendants,
and
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR INDYMAC
BANK, F.S.B.; and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI,
Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-5;
JANE DOES 1-5; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5;
DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-5; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-5; and
DOE ENTITIES 1-5, Third-Party Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CC171000090)

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

These consolidated appeals arise out of litigation

relating to a non-judicial foreclosure of real property (the

Haʻikū property) that was owned by self-represented

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant Michael C. Greenspon

(Greenspon). In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Greenspon appeals from the

Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure [(HRCP)] Rule 54(b) Final

Judgment Dismissing All Claims of the March 21, 2018 Second

Amended Complaint (SAC) as to Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP F/K/A

Pite Duncan, LLP (AP), entered on July 23, 2019 (Rule 54(b)

Judgment), by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit

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

court).1 The Rule 54(b) Judgment, entered in favor of AP,

dismissed all claims in the second amended complaint against AP.2

In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Greenspon appeals from the Final

Judgment (Judgment), entered on June 10, 2020, by the circuit

court. The Judgment, entered in favor of CIT Bank NA F/K/A

OneWest Bank, F.S.B. (CIT)3 and against Greenspon, dismissed all

remaining claims in the second amended complaint.4

1 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided.

2 Greenspon appealed in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX on May 17, 2019, from the
following predicate orders:

1. Order Denying Plaintiff's January 8, 2018 Motion to
Substitute Aldridge Pite, LLP for Defendant Cal-Western
Reconveyance Corp., entered April 12, 2018;

2. Order Granting Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP's Motion to
Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed March 21, 2018,
or, in the First Alternative, for Summary Judgment, or
in the Second Alternative, for More Definite Statement,
Filed May 3, 2018, entered August 13, 2018;

3. "Notice of Setting" (Order Denying in Part Greenspon's
August 27, 2018 "Rule 54(b) Motion to 1) Set Aside Rule
12(b)(6) Dismissal of Second Amended Complaint as to
Aldridge Pite, LLP and to Bifurcate Claims, and/or 2) To
Expressly Enter the Dismissal Order as Final"), entered
September 20, 2018; and

4. Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 54(b)
Certification of August 13, 2018 Order Dismissing Second
Amended Complaint as to Defendant Aldridge Pite, LLP,
entered April 29, 2019.

This court temporarily remanded the case to the circuit court for entry
of the July 2020 Rule 54(b) Judgment.

3 All claims against AP were previously dismissed pursuant to the
Rule 54(b) Judgment, and all claims for and against Defendant/
Counterclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust
(Deutsche Bank) were previously dismissed by stipulation.

4 Greenspon's opening brief, in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, also asserts
points of error with respect to the following five predicate orders,

(continued . . .)
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal

authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments

advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve

Greenspon's points of error5 as follows:

(1) Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred by

dismissing the second amended complaint, and in failing to find

that it adequately alleged claims against AP for: (1) "fraud and

tortious litigation conduct"; (2) "patently illegal activities";

(3) "abusive collections practices"; (4) participating in

"unfair methods of competition"; and (5) participating in a

"fraud on the market" and "combination in restraint of trade in

violation of [Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes] § 480-4[.]"

4(. . . continued)

1. Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Summary
Judgment RE: Counterclaim, Filed January 17, 2017,
entered June 6, 2017;

2. Order Denying Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment RE: Counterclaim, Filed February 14, 2018,
entered April 12, 2018;

3. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
SAC Claims for Wrongful Foreclosure and Unfair/Deceptive
Practices, Filed April 18, 2018, entered August 6, 2018;

4. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment RE Wrongful Foreclosure as to Defendants
CIT/DBNTC, Filed June 27, 2018, Without Prejudice,
entered January 30, 2019;

5. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant
[CIT's] Motion For Terminating Sanctions, Filed April 3,
2020, entered May 18, 2020 (Sanctions Order).

5 We have reordered and consolidated Greenspon's points of error in
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, and, with regard to CAAP-20-00000442, we limit our review to
the dispositive point of error. See, infra, note 9.

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

"A circuit court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is

reviewed de novo." Sierra Club v. Dep't of Transp., 115 Hawaiʻi

299, 312, 167 P.3d 292, 305 (2007) (citation omitted).

[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state
a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim
that would entitle him or her to relief. The appellate
court must therefore view a plaintiff's complaint in a
light most favorable to him or her in order to determine
whether the allegations contained therein could warrant
relief under any alternative theory. For this reason, in
reviewing a circuit court's order dismissing a complaint
. . . the appellate court's consideration is strictly
limited to the allegations of the complaint, and the
appellate court must deem those allegations to be true.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawaiʻi 249, 257,

428 P.3d 761, 769 (2018) (citation omitted).

Here, Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred

in dismissing his claims against AP, which provided legal

counsel to an opposing party, Cal-Western, during the underlying

litigation.6 Hungate v. Law Off. of David B. Rosen, 139 Hawaiʻi

394, 413, 391 P.3d 1, 20 (2017) (abrogated on other grounds by

State ex rel. Shikada v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 152 Hawaiʻi

418, 526 P.3d 395 (2023)), is controlling. Hungate recognized

that "absent special circumstances, attorneys owe no duty of

care to non-clients." Id. at 405, 391 P.3d at 12. The Hungate

court thus "declined to recognize a duty in favor of a plaintiff

6 To the extent that Greenspon's allegations against AP arise from
Cal-Western's alleged actions in the non-judicial foreclosure of the Haʻikū
property, the record reflects that AP did not represent Cal-Western at the
time of the non-judicial foreclosure. Cal-Western, which was dissolved in
bankruptcy, is itself no longer a party to this action.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

adversely affected by an attorney's performance of legal

services on behalf of the opposing party." Id. at 413, 391 P.3d

at 20.

Greenspon does not establish the basis,

notwithstanding Hungate, for a statutory or other private right

of action against an opposing party's legal counsel, based on

actions taken by counsel in representing the opposing party's

interests. The record reflects that Greenspon failed to state a

claim against AP upon which relief could be granted, and the

circuit court was not wrong in dismissing the claims against AP.

(2) Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred by

denying Greenspon's motion to substitute AP for Cal-Western in

the second amended complaint. We review the circuit court's

ruling for abuse of discretion. See Price v. Coulson, No. CAAP-

XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 2417754, at *3 (Haw. App. June 10, 2019)

(SDO). Greenspon contends that,

The circuit court erred by failing to find that [AP] used
its dissolved former client, Defendant Cal-Western, as its
alter-ego in its attempt to obstruct [Greenspon's]
discovery and conceal its own liability for the acts
alleged by [Greenspon's] [second amended complaint], and
thus erred in denying [Greenspon's] HRCP Rule 25(c) motion
to substitute [AP] for Cal-Western.

AP's purported acquisition of Cal-Western assets

during the bankruptcy proceedings does not, without more, make

AP the "alter ego" of Cal-Western. "Generally speaking, the

question whether a corporation is a mere agency,

instrumentality, or alter ego of another corporation or

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

individual is one of fact." Robert's Hawaii School Bus, Inc. v.

Laupahoehoe Transp. Co., Inc., 91 Hawaiʻi 224, 238, 982 P.2d 853,

867 (1999) (superseded by statute on other grounds, citing

1 William M. Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private

Corporations § 41.95, at 699-705 (perm. ed. 1999)).

In Calipjo v. Purdy, 144 Hawaiʻi 266, 439 P.3d 218

(2019), the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court recognized that,

Courts have identified a variety of factors to determine
whether a corporate entity is the alter ego of another,
though no single factor is dispositive. In addition, a
two-part test must be satisfied:

It must be made to appear that [1] the corporation is not
only influenced and governed by that person, but that there
is such a unity of interest . . . that the individuality,
or separateness, of such person and corporation has ceased,
and [2] that the facts are such that an adherence to the
fiction of the separate existence of the corporation would,
under the particular circumstances, sanction a fraud or
promote injustice.

Id. at 277, 439 P.3d at 229 (cleaned up). Greenspon failed to

present any evidence establishing that AP and Cal-Western shared

a "unity of interest," such that maintaining a corporate fiction

of AP and Cal-Western's "separate existence" would "sanction a

fraud or promote injustice." As discussed supra, the record

reflects that AP's role in this litigation was solely to provide

legal counsel for Cal-Western. AP, as legal counsel, and Cal-

Western, as the corporate client, were therefore separate

entities.

The circuit court did not err in denying Greenspon's

motion to substitute AP for Cal-Western.

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

(3) Greenspon contends that the circuit court erred by

not holding an evidentiary hearing regarding his motion for

reconsideration of the dismissal of his second amended

complaint. "Decisions relating to the conduct of a trial or

hearing and the adequacy of process usually involve the exercise

of discretion, and thus warrant review under the abuse of

discretion standard on appeal." TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu

Corp., 92 Hawaiʻi 243, 252, 990 P.2d 713, 722 (1999). Greenspon

has not alleged any new facts that would support his motion for

reconsideration, and the circuit court did not abuse its

discretion in determining that, given the voluminous record of

motions, papers, and exhibits, a further hearing would not be

beneficial to the court's decision-making process. The circuit

court therefore did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the

motion for reconsideration without a hearing.

(4) In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Greenspon contends that the

circuit court erred in dismissing the second amended complaint,

on grounds that Greenspon failed to comply with discovery rules

and orders. We review the circuit court's dismissal of the

second amended complaint for an abuse of discretion.

The circuit court is given broad discretion in determining
the sanctions to be imposed pursuant to HRCP Rule 37(b)(2).
A trial court's imposition of a discovery abuse sanction is
reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. A trial
court abuses its discretion whenever it exceeds the bounds
of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or
practice to the substantial detriment of a party.

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

Aloha Unlimited, Inc. v. Coughlin, 79 Hawaiʻi 527, 532-33, 904

P.2d 541, 546-47 (App. 1995) (cleaned up).

Pursuant to HRCP Rule 37, the circuit court may

sanction a party for its willful disobedience with respect to

discovery orders, including the issuance of an order "dismissing

the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a

judgment by default against the disobedient party[.]" HRCP

37(b)(2)(C). In determining the appropriateness of dismissal,

the court will consider: "(1) the public's interest in the

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions."

W.H. Shipman, Ltd. v. Hawaiian Holiday Macadamia Nut Co., Inc.,

8 Haw. App. 354, 362, 802 P.2d 1203, 1207 (App. 1990).

"Dismissal with prejudice is not an abuse of

discretion when a plaintiff's deliberate delay or contumacious

conduct causes actual prejudice." Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi

368, 382, 465 P.3d 815, 829 (2020) (citation omitted). In Erum

the supreme court overturned the dismissal of appellant's

complaint when appellant failed to appear at a pretrial

conference. The supreme court held that,

[W]henever a case is involuntarily dismissed with
prejudice, the trial court must state essential findings on
the record or make written findings as to deliberate delay
or contumacious conduct and actual prejudice and explain

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

why a lesser sanction than dismissal with prejudice is
insufficient to serve the interests of justice.

Erum, 147 Hawaiʻi at 390, 465 P.3d at 837.

This case is distinguishable from JK v. DK, 153 Hawaiʻi

268, 533 P.3d 1215 (2023), which concluded, on the record of

that case, that the trial court abused its discretion by

entering a default judgment as a discovery sanction. Id. at

278, 533 P.3d at 1225. Here, the discovery sanction against

Greenspon was warranted; Greenspon was afforded multiple

warnings that his noncompliance and contemptuous behavior would

result in sanctions.

The record reflects that the circuit court made

extensive findings7 regarding Greenspon's contumacious conduct

with respect to, inter alia, the site inspection of the Haʻikū

property, and opposing counsel's attempts to depose him:

The Site Inspection

12. On or around May 15, 2017, Mr. Rosen noticed an
inspection of the [Haʻikū] Property for June 14, 2017. The
inspection did not occur that day. Efforts to reschedule

7 In its May 18, 2020 Sanctions Order, the circuit court
incorporated from Civil No. 2CC141000395 its May 18, 2020 Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting the Motion For Rule 37 Sanctions,
filed by Defendants/Third-Party Defendants David B. Rosen, Esq. and the Law
Office of David B. Rosen, and joined by CIT, against Greenspon (FOF/COL).
Civil No. 2CC141000395 is a closely related case, involving the same parties;
the findings of fact and conclusions of law reference the site inspection and
Greenspon's deposition, as discussed herein, that were part of Civil No.
2CC1710000090.

As the FOF/COL have already been adopted and incorporated into
the record of this case, we deny as unnecessary AP's request, filed on
May 28, 2020, in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, for this court to take judicial notice of
the FOF/COL. We also deny AP's request for this court to take judicial
notice of other orders filed in Civ. No. 2CC171000090 as unnecessary.

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

proved unsuccessful and futile because Mr. Greenspon
refused to allow Mr. Rosen or counsel for CIT to inspect
the [Haʻikū] Property.

13. On September 11, 2018, Deutsche Bank moved in
[2CC171000090] to compel an inspection of the [Haʻikū]
Property. The Court granted the motion on December 21,
2018, ordering that the inspection be permitted and that it
occur between April 1 and April 30, 2019.

14. On February 19, 2019, Mr. Greenspon moved for
relief from the December 21, 2018 order and sought, among
other things, to have the inspection scheduled for April
15-19, 2019, April 29-30, 2019, or August 1-20, 2019.

15. On February 22, 2019, the Court ordered that the
site inspection occur on one of the dates requested by Mr.
Greenspon. The Court entered a written order (the
"[2CC171000090] Inspection Order") on March 14, 2019,
directing, among other things, that "[e]ach party is
permitted to have one (1) attorney and one (1) expert
(e.g., a real estate consultant, an engineer or an
appraiser) attend the Inspection."

16. On July 1, 2019, CIT moved in this action for an
inspection of the [Haʻikū] Property. The Court denied the
motion but ordered that the [2CC171000090] Inspection Order
would be effective in this action.

17. At the August 5, 2019 hearing, the Court warned
Mr. Greenspon that the inspection must occur, and there
would be consequences, up to and including dismissal, if he
failed to comply with the orders.

18. Deutsche Bank made efforts to schedule the site
inspection and, on August 16, 2019, informed Mr. Greenspon
that it would occur on August 19, 2019. In a subsequent
communication, Mr. Greenspon stated that he would not allow
the inspection to occur on that date. The Court's clerk
subsequently informed the parties that the August 19, 2019
inspection would be canceled due to safety concerns,
because Mr. Greenspon would not allow it to take place.

19. On July 24, 2019, the Rosen Defendants moved for
discovery relief, and on October 16, 2019, the Court
entered an order (the "Consolidated Case Inspection Order")
granting the motion in part and stating that the
inspection: (a) would occur prior to December 31, 2019; and
(b) shall be conducted, but for the presence of a special
master, pursuant to the [2CC171000090] Inspection Order.
The Rosen Defendants noticed the inspection for
December 19, 2019.

20. The Consolidated Case Inspection Order and
[2CC171000090] Inspection Order permitted Mr. Rosen and
attorneys for Defendants to attend the site inspection.

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

21. At a December 18, 2019 hearing, Mr. Greenspon
requested a continuance of the site inspection. The Court
denied the request, stated that it would occur as noticed,
and warned Mr. Greenspon to comply with the inspection
orders or face consequences. Mr. Greenspon responded to
the Court that, irrespective of its order, he would NEVER
allow the inspection.

22. Late in the afternoon on December 18, 2019, Mr.
Greenspon informed Mr. Rosen that he would not be permitted
to participate in the site inspection. Plaintiff failed to
present any evidence that Mr. Rosen threatened him
regarding the [Haʻikū] Property.

23. On December 19, 2019, Mr. Greenspon refused to
allow CIT's counsel and one of Deutsche Bank's attorneys to
participate in the site inspection.

. . . .

The Events of January 15, 2020

25. On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered Mr.
Greenspon to appear for his deposition between the dates of
January 15-31, 2020.

26. On November 5, 2019, the Court ordered that Mr.
Greenspon's deposition be conducted on January 15, 2020,
beginning at 9:00 a.m. On or around January 6, 2020, the
Rosen Defendants filed an amended notice for Mr.
Greenspon's deposition for that date and time.

27. On January 9, 2020, CIT filed and served its
Designation of Alternative Method of Recording Deposition
Testimony that provided, among other things, that Mr.
Greenspon's deposition would be video recorded at CIT's
sole cost and expense.

28. Mr. Greenspon appeared approximately 19 minutes
after the designated time that the Court set for the
deposition [to] begin (9:19 am versus 9:00 am), refused to
be sworn in, and would not proceed unless the video
recording stopped. Mr. Greenspon exhibited clear and
unequivocally hostile and verbally abusive conduct towards
Mr. Rosen and CIT's counsel. Mr. Rosen and the court
reporter, an innocent victim of the hostile and verbally
abusive conduct, requested on multiple occasions that Mr.
Greenspon not speak over counsel and to refrain from
screaming. Ultimately, the record and video recording at
one point reflects that the court reporter left the room
and refused to further participate in the proceedings.

29. Late in the morning of January 15, 2020, the
Court conducted a status conference regarding the
deposition. On the record at that conference, the Court
stated that "[t]he deposition will proceed pursuant to the
Court's order and pursuant to the notices that have been
served."

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

30. After returning to the court reporter's office
to resume the deposition, Mr. Greenspon continued to refuse
to be video recorded.

31. Mr. Greenspon then donned a mask. The mask that
Mr. Greenspon wore had a clear photograph of CIT's
counsel's face on it. There can be no mistake that the
mask worn by Mr. Greenspon had no health benefits, pre-
dated any COVID-19 requirements, had to be the result of
premeditated planning, and had the intent to disrupt the
deposition proceedings.

32. After Mr. Greenspon repeatedly disrupted the
deposition, Mr. Rosen terminated the proceedings at
approximately 12:20 p.m.

(Emphasis in original) (record citations omitted).

The above findings,8 as supported by the record

evidence, support the circuit court's conclusions that, inter

alia,

6. . . . Mr. Greenspon has consistently violated
orders requiring him to comply with discovery requests. He
has unequivocally stated to the Court that he intends not
to comply with said orders despite being advised of the
potential consequences, including the dismissal of his
actions. Thus, further motions practice would be useless
because Mr. Greenspon cast a die of his own making.

. . . .

7. . . . Mr. Greenspon's failure to follow [the
circuit court's] orders, specifically as to the site
inspection and his deposition, deprived the Remaining
Defendants of information material to their defense of Mr.
Greenspon's claims and damages, and that such actions
constitute a sizeable threat to the rightful decision of
this case. . . .

. . . .

9. The Court concludes that: (a) despite having
brought the remaining claims in these Consolidated Actions
against the Remaining Defendants, Mr. Greenspon has
wrongfully failed to provide and/or permit reasonable and
material discovery requested by them and ordered by this
Court; (b) Mr. Greenspon's actions caused delay; and (c)

8 "Findings of fact . . . that are not challenged on appeal are
binding on the appellate court." Okada Trucking Co., Ltd. v. Bd. of Water
Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002).

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Mr. Greenspon's conduct was willful, contumacious, and
inexcusable. . . .

. . . .

11. The Court has on multiple occasions warned Mr.
Greenspon to comply with discovery orders or face
sanctions, up to and including dismissal. Mr. Greenspon
nevertheless violated the Court's orders as to the site
inspection and deposition. He has demonstrated a
consistent contumacious and contentious attitude towards
discovery in this action. The donning of a mask bearing
the picture of an attorney in the case bears heavily on
this Court's conclusion that it cannot guarantee the
orderliness of proceedings or the continuing safety of
those participating including court personnel.

On this record, we conclude that the circuit court did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended

complaint.9

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit

court's July 23, 2019 Rule 54(b) Judgment, and June 10, 2020

Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 7, 2024.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Michael C. Greenspon, Presiding Judge
Self-represented
Plaintiff/Counterclaim /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Christina C. MacLeod, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Defendant-Appellee. Associate Judge

Jenny J.N.A. Nakamoto,
For Defendant-Appellee.

9 Given our conclusion that the circuit court properly dismissed
Greenspon's claims pursuant to HRCP Rule 37, we need not reach the additional
points of error raised in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.

14