Wideman v. Penhall Construction Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
29-JUL-2025
07:09 AM
Dkt. 51 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

LONNELL REGINALD WIDEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PENHALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; JIMBO GOMES,
Defendants-Appellees

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.)
This appeal arises out of the dismissal of self-
represented Plaintiff-Appellant Lonnell Reginald Wideman's
(Wideman) employment discrimination complaint against
Defendants-Appellees Penhall Construction Company (Penhall) and
Penhall project supervisor, James "Jimbo" Gomes (Gomes)
(together, Appellees), arising out of Wideman's approximately
two-week employment with Penhall. We affirm.
Wideman appeals from the March 20, 2023 "Order
Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss All Claims Alleged in
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Plaintiff's Complaint, Filed February 9, 2023" (Dismissal Order)
and December 22, 2023 Final Judgment, both filed and entered by
the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court). 1
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Wideman's contentions as follows.
Wideman's January 17, 2023 Complaint alleged nine
discernable causes of action that were dismissed following a
March 7, 2023 hearing on Appellees' motion to dismiss the
Complaint. On appeal, Wideman's Opening Brief 2 challenges the
dismissal of three claims: claim 6 under the Hawaiʻi Employment
Relations Act, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 377 (HRS
Chapter 377 claim); claim 8 under HRS § 657-7; and claim 9 for
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).
We review a ruling on a motion to dismiss de novo.
Flores v. Logan, 151 Hawaiʻi 357, 366, 513 P.3d 423, 432 (2022).
HRS Chapter 377 Claim
Wideman's Opening Brief references HRS § 377-6(6) and
377-7(3), but the latter subsection applies to "Unfair labor
practices of employees" (emphasis added) and appears
inapplicable. HRS Chapter 377 is the Hawaiʻi Employment

1 The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.

2 Wideman's Opening Brief contains no points of error as required
by Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4). To promote
access to justice, we liberally interpret pleadings prepared by self-
represented litigants and do not automatically foreclose them from appellate
review because they fail to comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego,
147 Hawai‘i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). While we address
Wideman's discernible arguments, we do not consider Wideman's exhibits
attached to the Opening Brief, as they were not part of the record below and
the record on appeal. HRAP Rule 10(a); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawaiʻi
225, 229 n.2, 909 P.2d 553, 557 n.2 (1995) (holding that matters outside the
record on appeal may not be appended to an appellate brief).

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

Relations Act. HRS § 377-6(6) (2015), applicable to "Unfair
labor practices of employers," provides: "It shall be an unfair
labor practice for an employer individually or in concert with
others to: . . . (6) Violate the terms of a collective
bargaining agreement . . . ."
Referencing and quoting from the exhibits appended to
the Opening Brief that are not contained within the record on
appeal and may not be considered, see HRAP Rule 10(a), Wideman
argues that Appellant's reduction of Wideman's pay "from
$40/hour down to $37.40/hour was an unfair labor practice and a
violation of the collective bargaining agreement [(CBA)] between
the Hawaiʻi's Labor Union and the Contractors Association of
Hawaii (Penhall)."
Here, the Complaint alleges a violation of the "Hawaii
Laborers" CBA but does not allege that Wideman, or the "Local
368 Labor Union" in which Wideman was a member, was a party to
the CBA. The Complaint does not state how the CBA was violated,
or reference the specific provisions of the CBA that Appellees
allegedly violated under HRS § 377-6(6). On this record, the
Circuit Court's dismissal of the HRS Chapter 377 claim "pursuant
to [Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)] Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" --
was not erroneous. See Flores, 151 Hawaiʻi at 366, 513 P.3d at
432.
HRS § 657-7 claim
Wideman's contention that the Circuit Court erred in
dismissing his HRS § 657-7 3 claim lacks merit. HRS § 657-7 is a
statute of limitations to bar a claim, and does not provide for

3 HRS § 657-7 (2016), entitled "Damage to persons or property,"
provides for a two-year statute of limitations for actions to recover
"compensation for damage or injury to persons or property."

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

a cause of action. The Circuit Court's HRCP Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal of this claim was not erroneous. See id.
IIED claim
Wideman's contention that the Circuit Court's
dismissal of the IIED claim was erroneous because Appellees'
actions were "outrageous" and "unreasonable," is unpersuasive.
"The elements of IIED are: (1) that the act allegedly
causing harm was intentional; (2) that the act was unreasonable
or outrageous; and (3) that the actor should have recognized
that the act was likely to result in illness." Lee v. Aiu, 85
Hawai‘i 19, 34, 936 P.2d 655, 670 (1997) (cleaned up). "The
terms 'unreasonable' and 'outrageous' have been used
interchangeably and have been construed to mean 'without just
cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency.'" Id. at 34
n.12, 936 P.2d at 670 n.12 (quoting Chedester v. Stecker,
64 Haw. 464, 468, 643 P.2d 532, 535 (1982)). IIED does not
include "mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty
oppressions, or other trivialities." Young v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 119 Hawai‘i 403, 425, 198 P.3d 666, 688 (2008) (quoting
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 comment d (1965)).
We must assume the facts alleged in the Complaint are
true and view them in the light most favorable to Wideman to
determine if they warrant relief under any legal theory. Bank
of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawai‘i 249, 257, 428 P.3d 761,
769 (2018). As Wideman is self-represented, his pleadings
"should be interpreted liberally." Waltrip v. TS Enters., Inc.,
140 Hawai‘i 226, 239, 398 P.3d 815, 828 (2016) (citation
omitted).
Here, Wideman's allegations in the Complaint do not
support that Appellees engaged in conduct "without just cause or
excuse and beyond all bounds of decency." See Lee, 85 Hawaiʻi at

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

34 n.12, 936 P.2d at 670 n.12 (citation omitted). Wideman
alleged that Gomes told him, after Wideman had worked at Penhall
"for almost two weeks," that "I'm reducing your pay from labor I
to labor II ($37.40 per hour) because you don't have your
certifications"; Gomes then said, "I don't know why the union
sent you guys over here without your certs [sic]"; and that
Gomes then said "either you sign this or I send you back to the
union." Wideman alleged he "signed the document not fully
understanding at the time that the document was a re-dispatch
form from the labor union for [Wideman] to work as labor II."
Wideman asserts the foregoing events left him feeling
"humiliated and mistreated" by Appellees. Viewing the Complaint
in the light most favorable to Wideman, Appellees' alleged
conduct did not rise to the level of outrageousness or "beyond
all bounds of decency" required for an IIED claim. See id.
(citation omitted). The Circuit Court did not err in its HRCP
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of this claim. See Flores, 151 Hawai‘i
at 366, 513 P.3d at 432.
Wideman's November 24, 2023 motion for oral argument
under HRAP Rule 34(a), is respectfully denied.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the March 20,
2023 Dismissal Order and December 22, 2023 Final Judgment, both
filed and entered by the District Court of the First Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, July 29, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Lonnell Reginald Wideman, Chief Judge
Self-Represented Plaintiff-
Appellant. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge
Mark G. Valencia,
for Defendants-Appellees. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

5