January 23, 2013
Melvin McAULTON, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
CAMBRIDGE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, and John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; Doe Corporations 1-10; Doe' Partnerships 1-10; Doe Non-Profit Entities 1-10; and Doe Governmental Entities 1-10, Defendants.
This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition." in the Pacific Reporter. See HI R RAP RULE 35
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Civil No. 08-1-2620).
Melvin McAulton, on the briefs, pro se, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Sidney K. Ayabe, Gary S. Miyamoto, Ayabe, Chong, Nishimoto, Sia & Nakamura, on the briefs, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
FOLEY, Presiding Judge, LEONARD and REIFURTH, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee Melvin McAulton (McAulton) appeals pro se from an April 18, 2011 Judgment (Judgment) entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) in favor of Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant Cambridge Management, Inc. (Cambridge). Cambridge cross-appeals from the same judgment.
In various sections of the Opening Brief, McAulton prefaces numerous statements, issues, and/or arguments with the phrase " Point of Error" . However, these points, and other parts of McAulton's brief, in many significant ways do not comply with the requirements of Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) 28(b) and are otherwise indiscernible. It appears that McAulton seeks a determination by this appellate court concerning the merits of his tort claim against Cambridge. The Circuit Court, however, did not enter its judgment against McAulton and in favor of Cambridge based on the merits of the parties' claims and defenses. Rather, the Circuit Court granted Cambridge's motion to dismiss McAulton's Complaint with prejudice for want of prosecution and for attorneys' fees and costs. On appeal, McAulton failed to raise any discernible point of error concerning the dismissal of the Complaint and/or the award of attorneys' fees and costs. 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 by the parties, we conclude that the Circuit Court's judgment in favor of Cambridge and against McAulton must be affirmed.
Accordingly, we need not reach the issue raised by Cambridge on its cross-appeal.
For these reasons, the Circuit Court's April 18, 2011 Judgment is affirmed.