Keahi v. Agena

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
14-JAN-2026
07:55 AM
Dkt. 34 ORD

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ALVIN K. KEAHI, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AUDREY AGENA; et al., Defendants-Appellees,
and
MILTON K.C. CHING; et al., Interested Parties-Appellees,
and
KONA WONG KAPULE, Interested Person-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Plaintiff-Appellee Alvin K.
Keahi's October 28, 2025 Motion to Dismiss Appeal, the papers in
support and in opposition, and the record, it appears that Keahi
seeks dismissal of the appeal filed by self-represented
Defendant-Appellant Kona Wong Kapule for lack of jurisdiction.
Kapule appeals from the Circuit Court of the Fifth
Circuit's August 28, 2025 oral order (Oral Order) denying his
July 31, 2025 "Special Appearance and Motion to Quash Amended
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Complaint." A minute order is not an appealable order. Abrams
v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai#i 319, 321 n.3, 966
P.2d 631, 633 n.3 (1998). However, even if the Oral Order was
reduced to a written order, this court would nonetheless lack
appellate jurisdiction because the Oral Order is not a decision
that could be reduced to a final judgment, see Hawai#i Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (2016); Hawai#i Rules of Civil
Procedure Rules 54(b), 58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming &
Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994), the
Circuit Court has not granted Kapule leave for an interlocutory
appeal under HRS § 641-1(b), and the Oral Order would not be
independently appealable under the collateral-order or Forgay1
doctrines. See Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawai#i 249, 253, 369 P.3d
832, 836 (2016) (setting forth the requirements for appealability
under the collateral-order and Forgay doctrines); cf. Brown v.
Wong, 71 Haw. 519, 795 P.2d 283 (1990) (holding that an order
denying the State's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity
is not an appealable collateral order).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is
granted, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 14, 2026.

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

1
Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848).

2