EDDIE SOLTREN and NANCY SOLTREN, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Appellants,
EDWIN SMITH, ERLETTE SMITH, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs/Appellees and HENRIETTA PHILLIPS, Defendant/Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE "NON-PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10, and DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 07-1-0165).
Donna E. Richards Mark R. Zenger (Richards & Zenger) for Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Harold Bronstein for Defendants/Appellees.
Nakamura, C.J., Foley and Ginoza, JJ.
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants/Appellants Eddie Soltren (Eddie Soltren) and Nancy Soltren (collectively, the Soltrens) appeal from the March 10, 2010 Judgment (Judgment) and the April 19, 2010 Amended Judgment (Amended Judgment) entered in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (circuit court).
The Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs/Appellees Edwin Smith and Erlette Smith (the Smiths) and Defendant-Appellee Henrietta Phillips (Phillips) (collectively, Defendants/Appellees) and against the Soltrens. The Judgment was granted in accordance with an "Order Granting [the Smiths] and [Phillips'] Motion for Summary Judgment" filed on January 22, 2010 (1/22/10 Order Granting Summary Judgment).
The Amended Judgment further awarded Defendants/Appellees their attorney's fees and costs, in accordance with an order granting fees and costs filed on April 19, 2010 (4/19/10 Order Granting Fees/Costs).
On appeal, the Soltrens contend that the circuit court erred when it: (1) imposed sanctions against the Soltrens that were not commensurate with the Soltrens' discovery and trial setting order offenses, (2) denied the Soltrens' motion to extend pretrial deadlines, and (3) denied the Soltrens' motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.
Based on their first two points of error, the Soltrens contend that this court should vacate the following and remand for further proceedings: (a) an order granting the Defendants/Appellees' motion for sanctions, filed on February 26, 2009 (2/26/09 Sanction Order); (b) an order granting Defendants/Appellees' motion in limine precluding the Soltrens from presenting evidence as to monetary damages, filed on October 5, 2009 (10/5/09 Sanction Order re Monetary Damages); (c) an order granting the Defendants/Appellees' motion in limine precluding the Soltrens and any of the Soltrens' witnesses from testifying at trial, filed on October 5, 2009 (10/5/09 Sanction Order re Witnesses); (d) the 1/22/10 Order Granting Summary Judgment; (e) the Judgment; (f) the 4/19/10 Order Granting Fees/Costs; and (g) the Amended Judgment.
Based on their third point of error, the Soltrens contend this court should remand the case and allow them to file a first amended complaint.
For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Judgment and the Amended Judgment.
Points of Error 1 and 2
As asserted by the Defendants/Appellees, the Soltrens do not raise a point of error contending that the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants/Appellees on the complaint and the counterclaim was erroneous. We thus do not reach the substantive question whether the circuit court's summary judgment ruling was correct. Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) ...