FLINCHBAUGH v. Cates

§§ 3’
NOT F()R PI.FBLICATION IN WT,<IS'I"S HAWAI_‘I REP().RTS AND PACl_FIC `RE_P(`)RTE.R

NO. 29929

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAfI

MIcHAEL P. FLINcHsAUsH, P1ainciff~Appel1ee, § 3i
JOHN R. CATES, Defendant-Appel1ant …'

iii
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT 0F THE FIRST CIRCUIT WM
(ClVIL NO. O5~l~1022)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(By: Nakamura, C.J., Foley and Leonard, JJ.)
Upon review of (1) January 7, 2010 order dismissing
appellate court case number 29929 for lack of jurisdiction,
(2) Defendant~Appe11ant John R. Cates's (Appe1lant Cates)
January 19, 2010 motion to reconsider the January 7, 2010
dismissal order pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawafi Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP), and (3) the record, it appears that
we did not overlook or misapprehend any points of law or fact
when we entered the January 7, 2010 dismissal order, and, thus,
Appellant Cates's January 19, 2010 HRAP Rule 40 motion for
reconsideration lacks merit. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant Cates's January 19,
2010 HRAP Rule 40 motion for reconsideration of the January 7,
2010 dismissal order is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, HawaiUq January 28, 20lO.

') _ 77
di§ajY{j;2%22éi%??@¢L“*--

Chief Judge

p‘»:@
Associate Judge f

,»7$d;igéjW' 7 , /,w
1 1 t /

ssociate J dg