APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION. (CIVIL CASE NO. 1SS13-1-660).
Emmanuel G. Guerrero, for Respondent-Appellant.
David A. Fanelli, for Petitioner-Appellee.
NAKAMURA, C.J., FOLEY AND GINOZA, JJ.
[134 Hawai'i 460] FOLEY. J.
Respondent-Appellant Bryan C. Young (Young) appeals from the September 20, 2013 " Injunction Against Harassment" (Injunction) entered in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (district court).
On appeal, Young contends the district court erred in granting the July 3, 2013 " Petition for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and for Injunction Against Harassment" (Petition) of Petitioner-Appellee Kellee Duarte (Duarte). Young argues the conduct upon which the district court relied in granting Duarte's petition (1) did not constitute a " course of conduct" under Hawaii Revised Statute (HRS) § 604-10.5(a)(2) (Supp. 2013) and (2) was not an " threat of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault" under HRS § 604-10.5(a)(1).
Duarte and Young are neighbors who live " right next door" to each other. Duarte lives with her boyfriend, Kimo Woelfel (Woelfel), and her daughters (collectively, Duarte Family). Young lives with his parents, grandmother, girlfriend, and son (collectively, Young Family).
On July 3, 2013, Duarte filed her Petition for harassment pursuant to HRS § 604-10.5, in which she requested a temporary
[134 Hawai'i 461] restraining order (TRO) and an order of injunction against Young.
Duarte's declaration in support of her Petition accuses Young of " [d]rinking, yelling, swearing, obnoxious behavior, loud music and threat[ening] those who would call the Police regarding late night parties held with underage drinking until 3 or 4am in the morning." Duarte included detailed descriptions of multiple verbal altercations that she had with Young between November 11, 2010 and June 30, 2013. Duarte claimed that if she did not obtain a TRO again Young " great harm will occur to [her] pets, [her] family, and [their] property."
Based on Duarte's Petition, the district court found probable cause to believe that " [r]ecent or past acts of harassment by [Young] have occurred" and " [t]hreats of harassment by [Young] make it probable that the acts of harassment may be imminent against [Duarte]." A TRO against Young was subsequently entered.
On July 12, 2013, Young's parents filed a petition for an injunction pursuant to HRS § 604-10.5 against Woelfel. On July 26, 2013, the district court ordered the Young Family and Duarte Family to attend mediation, but the families were unable to resolve their dispute. The district court then consolidated the two petitions for harassment for hearings on August 30, 2013 and September 20, 2013.
During the hearings, the district court acknowledged that " there's a lot of history between everyone" but determined that " most of it is not relevant . . . as to whether or not the petition should be granted or denied." Consequently, the district court limited Duarte's testimony to events that occurred in January 2011, December 30, 2012, and June 29, 2013. In addition, the district court limited the scope of Duarte's ...