Caetano v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
05-MAY-2026
08:36 AM
Dkt. 55 MO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ALLISON CAETANO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee,
and DOE PERSONS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10;
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; ROE "NON-PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10;
DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; and
ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.)

Allison Caetano's cat was killed while in the custody
of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (HA) in Los Angeles. She sued HA in
Hawai#i. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted HA's
motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.1 Caetano
appeals from the Final Judgment for HA. She challenges the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order granting HA's
motion to dismiss, and the Order Granting Defendant Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees.
We hold that the circuit court acted within its
discretion by dismissing Caetano's lawsuit based on forum non
conveniens, but acted outside its discretion by dismissing the
action with prejudice, and by not conditioning the dismissal on
HA's agreement to waive any statute of limitations defense

1
The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

provided Caetano filed suit in California within a reasonable
time. We vacate the Final Judgment and the orders granting HA's
motion to dismiss and awarding attorney fees, and remand to the
circuit court with instructions.

I. BACKGROUND

Caetano booked an HA flight from Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX) to Honolulu. On April 8, 2022, she
checked in her cat, Nubis, to travel in the baggage compartment.
After Nubis was checked in, he escaped from his kennel and was
fatally hit by a bus on the LAX tarmac.
Caetano sued HA on November 2, 2022. Her complaint
alleged negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, breach of contract, negligent supervision,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On October 13, 2023, HA moved to dismiss based on forum
non conveniens. The motion was heard on November 14, 2023. The
record does not contain a transcript of the hearing because
Caetano failed to deposit the required fee.2 HA's motion was
granted; Caetano's complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The
Final Judgment was entered on August 13, 2024. HA timely moved
for an award of $55,315.65 in attorney fees. The circuit court
granted the motion in part, awarding $26,323.55 including Hawai#i
general excise tax.3 Caetano appeals.

II. POINTS OF ERROR

Caetano's opening brief states two points of error.
She contends the circuit court erred by (1) granting HA's motion
to dismiss, and (2) granting HA's motion for attorney fees.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review an order granting a motion to dismiss based
on forum non conveniens for abuse of discretion. UFJ Bank Ltd.
v. Ieda, 109 Hawai#i 137, 142, 123 P.3d 1232, 1237 (2005).

2
See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 10(b)(1)(C).
3
The Honorable Lisa W. Cataldo presided.

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

Caetano does not challenge the circuit court's findings
of fact, including those labeled as conclusions of law,4 or mixed
findings and conclusions. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4)(C). Unchallenged findings of fact
are binding on appeal. Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water
Supply, 97 Hawai#i 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82 (2002).

IV. DISCUSSION

Forum non conveniens gives a court discretion to
decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case that may be more
appropriately tried in another forum. UFJ Bank, 109 Hawai#i at
145, 123 P.3d at 1240. An alternative forum must exist and the
defendant must be amenable to process in the alternative forum
for the doctrine to apply. Id.

A. HA did not waive forum non conveniens.

Caetano argues that HA waived its forum non conveniens
argument because it "waited almost a year to file their instant
motion even though they knew right away all the facts that they
raised in their motion." She relies on Estate of I.E.H. v. CKE
Restaurants, Holdings, Inc., 995 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2021).
There, the motion to dismiss was filed 18 months after
the complaint was filed, after the discovery cutoff. Id. at 662.
CKE knew all facts relevant to its forum non conveniens argument
when the complaint was filed. Id. at 664. Under those
circumstances, the federal court of appeals held that "the motion
should have been filed earlier than 18 months after [the
plaintiffs] filed their complaint and earlier than the end of the
discovery period prior to trial." Id. at 665.
Here, Caetano's complaint was filed on November 2,
2022. HA answered on December 2, 2022, and asserted forum non
conveniens as an affirmative defense. The scheduling conference

4
The label of a finding of fact or a conclusion of law does not
determine the standard of review because the accuracy of the label affixed by
the trial court is freely reviewable by an appellate court. Cf. Kilauea
Neighborhood Ass'n v. Land Use Comm'n, 7 Haw. App. 227, 229, 751 P.2d 1031,
1034 (1988) (concerning administrative agency's findings and conclusions).

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

was set for January 30, 2023, but was continued by stipulation to
March 1, 2023. A settlement conference was set for April 26,
2023. A 4-day jury trial was set for February 26, 2024.
HA's motion to dismiss was filed on October 13, 2023.
The circuit court found, and Caetano does not dispute, that:

28. On April 26, 2023, [Caetano] and Hawaiian
Airlines participated in an early settlement conference.
29. [Caetano] participated remotely in the
settlement conference from California.

30. Hawaiian Airlines made a good faith attempt to
resolve the instant case through participation in the
settlement conference.

31. The parties have propounded no other written
discovery [besides Caetano's initial disclosures] in this
matter, depositions have not been taken and no other motions
practice (other than the instant Motion [to dismiss]) has
occurred.

. . . .

40. As set forth above, in this case, neither party
has propounded written discovery, nor have any depositions
been taken, nor has any motions practice occurred other than
the instant Motion. Accordingly, substantial progress has
not been made in this litigation.

41. Furthermore, the Court holds that Hawaiian
Airlines did not unduly delay in filing its Motion, nor was
there any dilatory intent on the part of Hawaiian Airlines
with respect to the timing of the Motion, because Hawaiian
Airlines made a good faith attempt to resolve the case via a
settlement before filing its Motion, including participating
in a settlement conference with the Court.
42. Consequently, the Court holds that the Motion
was timely filed.

(Citations omitted.)
On this record, the circuit court acted within its
discretion by holding that HA's motion to dismiss had been timely
filed — that is, there was no unreasonable delay that prejudiced
Caetano.

B. An alternative forum was conditionally
available.

Caetano argues that an "alternative forum is not
practically available." "An alternative forum ordinarily exists
when all defendants are amenable to service of process in the
foreign forum." UFJ Bank, 109 Hawai#i at 145, 123 P.3d at 1240.

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

HA is registered to do business in California and is amenable to
service of process there. California appears to be an
alternative forum.
However, Nubis died on April 8, 2022. The California
statute of limitations on Caetano's tort claims could be three
years. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(c)(1) (2022) (three years
for "action for taking, detaining, or injuring goods or
chattels"). An alternative forum is not available "if the
plaintiff's cause of action would elsewhere by barred by the
statute of limitations, unless the court is willing to accept the
defendant's stipulation that he will not raise this defense in
the second state." Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co., 314 Md. 521,
530, 552 A.2d 29, 33 (1989) (quoting Restatement (Second) of
Conflict of Laws § 84, Comment c (1971)).
In Lesser v. Boughey, 88 Hawai#i 260, 965 P.2d 802
(1998), the supreme court noted that "the trial court guaranteed
an alternative forum by expressly conditioning [its] order upon
Boughey's agreement to accept service of process and waive any
statute of limitations defense in California." Id. at 263, 965
P.2d at 805 (emphasis added).
The statute of limitations issue was not raised with
the circuit court, apparently because a lawsuit by Caetano in
California would not then have been time-barred. We ordered
supplemental briefing on it, under HRAP Rule 28(b)(4).
HA's supplemental brief argued that the minutes of the
November 14, 2023 hearing on its motion to dismiss show the court
orally granted the motion. According to HA, no applicable
California statute of limitations had then expired; Caetano
should have immediately filed suit in California; she instead
filed this appeal and "offers no explanation for her delay in
filing suit in California."
The record reflects a reason for Caetano's apparent
reticence to file a second suit against HA without pursuing this
appeal. The circuit court's order granting HA's motion to
dismiss stated "the case is dismissed in Hawai#i WITH PREJUDICE
on the ground of forum non conveniens." HA argues the words "in
Hawai#i" would "avoid[] any possible confusion on the part of the

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

California court that the action could not be litigated on the
merits in California." But that is just speculation about how a
California court might interpret the ambiguous Hawai#i order.
And the Final Judgment unqualifiedly states the order "dismissed
all claims in the case with prejudice as to all Defendants." The
language of the Final Judgment shows it was a judgment on the
merits of Caetano's claims.
A new case filed in California may also have been
subject to abatement because this appeal is pending. See
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Dep't of Tax'n, 158 Hawai#i 1, 6, 581
P.3d 1232, 1237 (App. 2025) (discussing abatement), cert.
rejected, SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2026 WL 883991 (Haw. March 31, 2026).
The possible three-year California statute of
limitation expired while this appeal was pending. Thus, HA's
proffered alternative forum may only be available if HA waived a
statute of limitations defense.

C. The circuit court appropriately balanced the
private interests of the litigants and the
public interest factors.

Caetano argues "she is a full-time resident of Hawai#i
with limited means and resources and has been since April of
2022." She maintains she "cannot afford to travel to California
nor to litigate the case there." That argument goes to the
"balance of conveniences" analysis. "[A]lthough the plaintiff's
choice of forum is an important factor, if the balance of
conveniences suggests that trial in the chosen forum would be
unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court,
dismissal is proper." Lesser, 88 Hawai#i at 263, 965 P.2d at 805
(quotation marks omitted).
A court deciding a forum non conveniens motion must
balance "the private interest of the litigants and public
interest factors." Lesser, 88 Hawai#i at 263, 965 P.2d at 805.
Private interest factors include:

the relative ease of access to sources of proof;
availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing,
witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be
appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems

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

that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.
There may also be questions as to the enforcibility [sic] of
a judgment if one is obtained. The court will weigh
relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial. It is
often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an
inconvenient forum, 'vex,' 'harass,' or 'oppress' the
defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not
necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy. But unless
the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the
plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (footnote
omitted).
Public interest factors include:

Administrative difficulties follow for courts when
litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being
handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not
to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no
relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the
affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the
trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of
the country where they can learn of it by report only.
There is a local interest in having localized controversies
decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in
having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at
home with the state law that must govern the case, rather
than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in
conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.

Id. at 508–09.
Here, the circuit court conducted a lengthy analysis of
the parties' relative ease of access to sources of proof;
availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling
witnesses, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing
witnesses; the possibility of a jury view; administrative
difficulties; jury duty burden and local interest; and court
congestion.
The circuit court found and concluded that Caetano
claimed to be a Hawai#i resident, but her declaration "is devoid
of any actual facts that would establish residency, such as a
residential address or employment information."
Caetano's initial disclosures showed the only evidence
she had that HA did not have, or that was not in California, were
the crates in which her cats were stored at LAX.
Other than Caetano herself, every potential witness
identified was in California. HA would incur substantial lodging
and incidental costs for its California-based witnesses if the

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

case were tried in Hawai#i,5 while it would be relatively
inexpensive for Caetano to try the case in California because
she'd be the only witness required to travel to California and
she's shown an ability to do so (when she participated in the
settlement conference by Zoom from California).
The circuit court rejected Caetano's argument that
witness costs could be resolved by allowing testimony by Zoom,
stating, "It is well-recognized that in-person testimony is
preferable to videoconferencing or other remote means of
testifying. . . . [HA]'s concerns regarding its key witnesses
testifying remotely in this case are amplified given that
[Caetano] has demanded a jury trial."
Given the case facts — Nubis escaping from his kennel
and making his way to the LAX tarmac, HA "and several airport
agencies" conducting "an intensive search for the cat" which,
while airport police were trying to collect him, "darted in front
of a bus and was hit and did not survive" — the circuit court
noted a jury site visit could be appropriate.
On the public interest factors, the circuit court
stated "the origin of this dispute is in California at LAX. As
such, litigation concerning a California dispute would, under the
instant circumstances, be better handled in California and
Hawai#i courts should not be burdened with such a California-
centric dispute." The court also stated, "Dismissing this case
so that it may be tried in California will serve the interests of
avoiding unnecessary court congestion in Hawai#i, and of not
imposing jury duty on the people of Hawai#i, who have no relation
to, or interest in, this litigation. Additionally, California
has an interest in resolving this localized controversy arising
out of an incident that occurred at LAX."
The circuit court's mixed findings and conclusions were
supported by substantial evidence in the record, and were not

5
HA's Los Angeles Station General Manager Daniel Castro submitted a
declaration stating, "Myself, Hawaiian Airlines' LAX Manager Chasity Wills,
and LAX Operations Manager Maritza Leanos, and Darren Horio, the Hawaiian
Airlines' [sic] agent who checked in Plaintiffs [sic] cats at the Hawaiian
Airlines LAX special services counter, are all based at LAX and reside in
California."

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

clearly erroneous. See Cowan v. Exclusive Resorts PBL1, LLC, 156
Hawai#i 268, 272, 574 P.3d 288, 292 (2025) (stating that a
conclusion presenting mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed
under the clearly erroneous standard because it implicates the
facts and circumstances of that case).
On this record, we conclude the circuit court acted
within its discretion by dismissing Caetano's lawsuit based on
forum non conveniens, but acted outside its discretion by
dismissing the action with prejudice, and by not conditioning the
dismissal on HA's agreement to waive any statute of limitations
defense provided Caetano filed suit in California within a
reasonable time. Lesser, 88 Hawai#i at 263, 965 P.2d at 805.

D. The order awarding HA attorney fees is
vacated.

Because we are vacating the Final Judgment, we also
vacate the September 27, 2024 Order Granting Defendant Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees. See Ass'n of Owners
of Kalele Kai v. Yoshikawa, 149 Hawai#i 417, 420, 493 P.3d 939,
942 (2021) (stating that "an award of attorneys' fees is
inappropriate where the underlying judgment is vacated"). We
express no opinion about whether HA was or is a prevailing party.

V. CONCLUSION

The February 6, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Order granting HA's motion to dismiss Caetano's
complaint, the August 13, 2024 Final Judgment, and the
September 27, 2024 Order Granting Defendant Hawaiian Airlines,
Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees are vacated, and this case is
remanded to the circuit court.
On remand, if HA agrees to waive any potential statute
of limitations defense for an amount of time reasonable to allow
Caetano to file suit in California, the circuit court should
enter an amended order dismissing Caetano's complaint without
prejudice based on forum non conveniens. Because the order would
not be a decision on the merits of Caetano's claims, the Hawai#i
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 58 judgment should state only that

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

all claims in Caetano's complaint are dismissed without prejudice
based on forum non conveniens; it should not be entered for or
against any party.
If HA does not agree to waive any potential statute of
limitations defense for a reasonable period of time, the circuit
court should enter an order denying HA's motion to dismiss.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 5, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Bosko Petricevic, Chief Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant
Allison Caetano. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Joachim P. Cox,
Robert K. Fricke, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Abigail M. Holden, Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellee
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

10

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
05-MAY-2026
08:36 AM
Dkt. 55 MO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ALLISON CAETANO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee,
and DOE PERSONS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10;
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; ROE "NON-PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10;
DOE UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS 1-10; and
ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.)

Allison Caetano's cat was killed while in the custody
of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (HA) in Los Angeles. She sued HA in
Hawai#i. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted HA's
motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.1 Caetano
appeals from the Final Judgment for HA. She challenges the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order granting HA's
motion to dismiss, and the Order Granting Defendant Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees.
We hold that the circuit court acted within its
discretion by dismissing Caetano's lawsuit based on forum non
conveniens, but acted outside its discretion by dismissing the
action with prejudice, and by not conditioning the dismissal on
HA's agreement to waive any statute of limitations defense

1
The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

provided Caetano filed suit in California within a reasonable
time. We vacate the Final Judgment and the orders granting HA's
motion to dismiss and awarding attorney fees, and remand to the
circuit court with instructions.

I. BACKGROUND

Caetano booked an HA flight from Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX) to Honolulu. On April 8, 2022, she
checked in her cat, Nubis, to travel in the baggage compartment.
After Nubis was checked in, he escaped from his kennel and was
fatally hit by a bus on the LAX tarmac.
Caetano sued HA on November 2, 2022. Her complaint
alleged negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, breach of contract, negligent supervision,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On October 13, 2023, HA moved to dismiss based on forum
non conveniens. The motion was heard on November 14, 2023. The
record does not contain a transcript of the hearing because
Caetano failed to deposit the required fee.2 HA's motion was
granted; Caetano's complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The
Final Judgment was entered on August 13, 2024. HA timely moved
for an award of $55,315.65 in attorney fees. The circuit court
granted the motion in part, awarding $26,323.55 including Hawai#i
general excise tax.3 Caetano appeals.

II. POINTS OF ERROR

Caetano's opening brief states two points of error.
She contends the circuit court erred by (1) granting HA's motion
to dismiss, and (2) granting HA's motion for attorney fees.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review an order granting a motion to dismiss based
on forum non conveniens for abuse of discretion. UFJ Bank Ltd.
v. Ieda, 109 Hawai#i 137, 142, 123 P.3d 1232, 1237 (2005).

2
See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 10(b)(1)(C).
3
The Honorable Lisa W. Cataldo presided.

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

Caetano does not challenge the circuit court's findings
of fact, including those labeled as conclusions of law,4 or mixed
findings and conclusions. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4)(C). Unchallenged findings of fact
are binding on appeal. Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water
Supply, 97 Hawai#i 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82 (2002).

IV. DISCUSSION

Forum non conveniens gives a court discretion to
decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case that may be more
appropriately tried in another forum. UFJ Bank, 109 Hawai#i at
145, 123 P.3d at 1240. An alternative forum must exist and the
defendant must be amenable to process in the alternative forum
for the doctrine to apply. Id.

A. HA did not waive forum non conveniens.

Caetano argues that HA waived its forum non conveniens
argument because it "waited almost a year to file their instant
motion even though they knew right away all the facts that they
raised in their motion." She relies on Estate of I.E.H. v. CKE
Restaurants, Holdings, Inc., 995 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2021).
There, the motion to dismiss was filed 18 months after
the complaint was filed, after the discovery cutoff. Id. at 662.
CKE knew all facts relevant to its forum non conveniens argument
when the complaint was filed. Id. at 664. Under those
circumstances, the federal court of appeals held that "the motion
should have been filed earlier than 18 months after [the
plaintiffs] filed their complaint and earlier than the end of the
discovery period prior to trial." Id. at 665.
Here, Caetano's complaint was filed on November 2,
2022. HA answered on December 2, 2022, and asserted forum non
conveniens as an affirmative defense. The scheduling conference

4
The label of a finding of fact or a conclusion of law does not
determine the standard of review because the accuracy of the label affixed by
the trial court is freely reviewable by an appellate court. Cf. Kilauea
Neighborhood Ass'n v. Land Use Comm'n, 7 Haw. App. 227, 229, 751 P.2d 1031,
1034 (1988) (concerning administrative agency's findings and conclusions).

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

was set for January 30, 2023, but was continued by stipulation to
March 1, 2023. A settlement conference was set for April 26,
2023. A 4-day jury trial was set for February 26, 2024.
HA's motion to dismiss was filed on October 13, 2023.
The circuit court found, and Caetano does not dispute, that:

28. On April 26, 2023, [Caetano] and Hawaiian
Airlines participated in an early settlement conference.
29. [Caetano] participated remotely in the
settlement conference from California.
30. Hawaiian Airlines made a good faith attempt to
resolve the instant case through participation in the
settlement conference.
31. The parties have propounded no other written
discovery [besides Caetano's initial disclosures] in this
matter, depositions have not been taken and no other motions
practice (other than the instant Motion [to dismiss]) has
occurred.

. . . .

40. As set forth above, in this case, neither party
has propounded written discovery, nor have any depositions
been taken, nor has any motions practice occurred other than
the instant Motion. Accordingly, substantial progress has
not been made in this litigation.

41. Furthermore, the Court holds that Hawaiian
Airlines did not unduly delay in filing its Motion, nor was
there any dilatory intent on the part of Hawaiian Airlines
with respect to the timing of the Motion, because Hawaiian
Airlines made a good faith attempt to resolve the case via a
settlement before filing its Motion, including participating
in a settlement conference with the Court.

42. Consequently, the Court holds that the Motion
was timely filed.

(Citations omitted.)
On this record, the circuit court acted within its
discretion by holding that HA's motion to dismiss had been timely
filed — that is, there was no unreasonable delay that prejudiced
Caetano.

B. An alternative forum was conditionally
available.

Caetano argues that an "alternative forum is not
practically available." "An alternative forum ordinarily exists
when all defendants are amenable to service of process in the
foreign forum." UFJ Bank, 109 Hawai#i at 145, 123 P.3d at 1240.

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

HA is registered to do business in California and is amenable to
service of process there. California appears to be an
alternative forum.
However, Nubis died on April 8, 2022. The California
statute of limitations on Caetano's tort claims could be three
years. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(c)(1) (2022) (three years
for "action for taking, detaining, or injuring goods or
chattels"). An alternative forum is not available "if the
plaintiff's cause of action would elsewhere by barred by the
statute of limitations, unless the court is willing to accept the
defendant's stipulation that he will not raise this defense in
the second state." Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co., 314 Md. 521,
530, 552 A.2d 29, 33 (1989) (quoting Restatement (Second) of
Conflict of Laws § 84, Comment c (1971)).
In Lesser v. Boughey, 88 Hawai#i 260, 965 P.2d 802
(1998), the supreme court noted that "the trial court guaranteed
an alternative forum by expressly conditioning [its] order upon
Boughey's agreement to accept service of process and waive any
statute of limitations defense in California." Id. at 263, 965
P.2d at 805 (emphasis added).
The statute of limitations issue was not raised with
the circuit court, apparently because a lawsuit by Caetano in
California would not then have been time-barred. We ordered
supplemental briefing on it, under HRAP Rule 28(b)(4).
HA's supplemental brief argued that the minutes of the
November 14, 2023 hearing on its motion to dismiss show the court
orally granted the motion. According to HA, no applicable
California statute of limitations had then expired; Caetano
should have immediately filed suit in California; she instead
filed this appeal and "offers no explanation for her delay in
filing suit in California."
The record reflects a reason for Caetano's apparent
reticence to file a second suit against HA without pursuing this
appeal. The circuit court's order granting HA's motion to
dismiss stated "the case is dismissed in Hawai#i WITH PREJUDICE
on the ground of forum non conveniens." HA argues the words "in
Hawai#i" would "avoid[] any possible confusion on the part of the

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

California court that the action could not be litigated on the
merits in California." But that is just speculation about how a
California court might interpret the ambiguous Hawai#i order.
And the Final Judgment unqualifiedly states the order "dismissed
all claims in the case with prejudice as to all Defendants." The
language of the Final Judgment shows it was a judgment on the
merits of Caetano's claims.
A new case filed in California may also have been
subject to abatement because this appeal is pending. See
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Dep't of Tax'n, 158 Hawai#i 1, 6, 581
P.3d 1232, 1237 (App. 2025) (discussing abatement), cert.
rejected, SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2026 WL 883991 (Haw. March 31, 2026).
The possible three-year California statute of
limitation expired while this appeal was pending. Thus, HA's
proffered alternative forum may only be available if HA waived a
statute of limitations defense.

C. The circuit court appropriately balanced the
private interests of the litigants and the
public interest factors.

Caetano argues "she is a full-time resident of Hawai#i
with limited means and resources and has been since April of
2022." She maintains she "cannot afford to travel to California
nor to litigate the case there." That argument goes to the
"balance of conveniences" analysis. "[A]lthough the plaintiff's
choice of forum is an important factor, if the balance of
conveniences suggests that trial in the chosen forum would be
unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court,
dismissal is proper." Lesser, 88 Hawai#i at 263, 965 P.2d at 805
(quotation marks omitted).
A court deciding a forum non conveniens motion must
balance "the private interest of the litigants and public
interest factors." Lesser, 88 Hawai#i at 263, 965 P.2d at 805.
Private interest factors include:

the relative ease of access to sources of proof;
availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing,
witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be
appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems

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

that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.
There may also be questions as to the enforcibility [sic] of
a judgment if one is obtained. The court will weigh
relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial. It is
often said that the plaintiff may not, by choice of an
inconvenient forum, 'vex,' 'harass,' or 'oppress' the
defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not
necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy. But unless
the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the
plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (footnote
omitted).
Public interest factors include:

Administrative difficulties follow for courts when
litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being
handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not
to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no
relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the
affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the
trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of
the country where they can learn of it by report only.
There is a local interest in having localized controversies
decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in
having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at
home with the state law that must govern the case, rather
than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in
conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.

Id. at 508–09.
Here, the circuit court conducted a lengthy analysis of
the parties' relative ease of access to sources of proof;
availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling
witnesses, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing
witnesses; the possibility of a jury view; administrative
difficulties; jury duty burden and local interest; and court
congestion.
The circuit court found and concluded that Caetano
claimed to be a Hawai#i resident, but her declaration "is devoid
of any actual facts that would establish residency, such as a
residential address or employment information."
Caetano's initial disclosures showed the only evidence
she had that HA did not have, or that was not in California, were
the crates in which her cats were stored at LAX.
Other than Caetano herself, every potential witness
identified was in California. HA would incur substantial lodging
and incidental costs for its California-based witnesses if the

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

case were tried in Hawai#i,5 while it would be relatively
inexpensive for Caetano to try the case in California because
she'd be the only witness required to travel to California and
she's shown an ability to do so (when she participated in the
settlement conference by Zoom from California).
The circuit court rejected Caetano's argument that
witness costs could be resolved by allowing testimony by Zoom,
stating, "It is well-recognized that in-person testimony is
preferable to videoconferencing or other remote means of
testifying. . . . [HA]'s concerns regarding its key witnesses
testifying remotely in this case are amplified given that
[Caetano] has demanded a jury trial."
Given the case facts — Nubis escaping from his kennel
and making his way to the LAX tarmac, HA "and several airport
agencies" conducting "an intensive search for the cat" which,
while airport police were trying to collect him, "darted in front
of a bus and was hit and did not survive" — the circuit court
noted a jury site visit could be appropriate.
On the public interest factors, the circuit court
stated "the origin of this dispute is in California at LAX. As
such, litigation concerning a California dispute would, under the
instant circumstances, be better handled in California and
Hawai#i courts should not be burdened with such a California-
centric dispute." The court also stated, "Dismissing this case
so that it may be tried in California will serve the interests of
avoiding unnecessary court congestion in Hawai#i, and of not
imposing jury duty on the people of Hawai#i, who have no relation
to, or interest in, this litigation. Additionally, California
has an interest in resolving this localized controversy arising
out of an incident that occurred at LAX."
The circuit court's mixed findings and conclusions were
supported by substantial evidence in the record, and were not

5
HA's Los Angeles Station General Manager Daniel Castro submitted a
declaration stating, "Myself, Hawaiian Airlines' LAX Manager Chasity Wills,
and LAX Operations Manager Maritza Leanos, and Darren Horio, the Hawaiian
Airlines' [sic] agent who checked in Plaintiffs [sic] cats at the Hawaiian
Airlines LAX special services counter, are all based at LAX and reside in
California."

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

clearly erroneous. See Cowan v. Exclusive Resorts PBL1, LLC, 156
Hawai#i 268, 272, 574 P.3d 288, 292 (2025) (stating that a
conclusion presenting mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed
under the clearly erroneous standard because it implicates the
facts and circumstances of that case).
On this record, we conclude the circuit court acted
within its discretion by dismissing Caetano's lawsuit based on
forum non conveniens, but acted outside its discretion by
dismissing the action with prejudice, and by not conditioning the
dismissal on HA's agreement to waive any statute of limitations
defense provided Caetano filed suit in California within a
reasonable time. Lesser, 88 Hawai#i at 263, 965 P.2d at 805.

D. The order awarding HA attorney fees is
vacated.

Because we are vacating the Final Judgment, we also
vacate the September 27, 2024 Order Granting Defendant Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees. See Ass'n of Owners
of Kalele Kai v. Yoshikawa, 149 Hawai#i 417, 420, 493 P.3d 939,
942 (2021) (stating that "an award of attorneys' fees is
inappropriate where the underlying judgment is vacated"). We
express no opinion about whether HA was or is a prevailing party.

V. CONCLUSION

The February 6, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Order granting HA's motion to dismiss Caetano's
complaint, the August 13, 2024 Final Judgment, and the
September 27, 2024 Order Granting Defendant Hawaiian Airlines,
Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees are vacated, and this case is
remanded to the circuit court.
On remand, if HA agrees to waive any potential statute
of limitations defense for an amount of time reasonable to allow
Caetano to file suit in California, the circuit court should
enter an amended order dismissing Caetano's complaint without
prejudice based on forum non conveniens. Because the order would
not be a decision on the merits of Caetano's claims, the Hawai#i
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 58 judgment should state only that

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

all claims in Caetano's complaint are dismissed without prejudice
based on forum non conveniens; it should not be entered for or
against any party.
If HA does not agree to waive any potential statute of
limitations defense for a reasonable period of time, the circuit
court should enter an order denying HA's motion to dismiss.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 5, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Bosko Petricevic, Chief Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant
Allison Caetano. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Joachim P. Cox,
Robert K. Fricke, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Abigail M. Holden, Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellee
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

10