LAWHJBRARY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN VVEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REP()RTER
§ §§
N0. 2s576 #'. §§
d § g
1N THE INTERMED1ATE c0URT 0F APPEALs Wz;z as
. "°
0F THE sTATE 0F HAwArI H;;§
Y§f§ xv
§!"\’; g
1§§H re
"" 0
ALI E. JABALI, P1aintiff-Appe11ant, § §§
VS.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, and
TRENT UENO, as an individual, Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.
APPEAL FRoM THE c1RcUIT coURT oF THE FIRsT cIRcUIT
(cIvIL No. 02-1-2329)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakamura, Chief Judge, Leonard, and Reifurth, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Ali E. Jabali (Jabali) appeals pro
se from the Judgment filed on May 23, 2007, in the Circuit Court
of the First Circuit (circuit court),y in favor of Defendants~
Appellees City and County of Honolulu (City) and Trent Umeno
(Umeno)W and against Jabali on all causes of actions raised in
Jabali's complaint.
Jabali filed a complaint in the circuit court against
the City and Umeno, a Honolulu police officer, alleging that
Umeno and/or the City: 1) violated Jabali's rights under the
Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution; 2) violated Jabali's rights under
F The Honorable Gary W.Bl Chang presided.
9 Defendant-Appellee Trent Umeno's last name is misspelled in Jabali's
complaint as "Ueno," and this misspelling also appears in various pleadings
including the circuit court‘s Judgment. In answering the complaint, Umeno
acknowledged that he was the person named in the c0mplaint, and he pointed out
the misspelling of his name in pleadings filed with the circuit court. We
will refer to Umeno by his correct name in this summary disposition order.
CI3`1LJ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAVVAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapters 368 and 378; and 3) were liable
for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Jabali also asserted that the City was liable under a theory of
respondeat superior. The City and Umeno filed answers to
Jabali's complaint, and they subsequently moved for summary
judgment on all claims raised in the complaint. On March 23,
2007, the circuit court filed its order granting the City and
Umeno's motion for summary judgment, and the court also filed its
Judgment on the same day.
Jabali's opening brief does not comply with the
requirement of HawaFi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule
28(b)(2006). It does not contain a subject index, table of
authorities, a concise statement of the case, a concise statement
of the points of error, or a section setting forth the applicable
standards of review. These deficiencies alone provide a
sufficient basis for this court to reject Jabali's appeal and
affirm the circuit court's Judgment. See O'Connor v. Diocese of
Honolulu, 77 Hawai'i 383, 385, 885 P.2d 361, 363 (1994)
("[F]ailure to comply with HRAP [Rule] 28(b)(4) is alone
sufficient to affirm the judgment of the circuit court."); HRAP
Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may be deemed waived.").
In addition, Jabali's opening brief fails to inform
this court with any reasonable clarity or coherence of the
specific errors Jabali is claiming on appeal or the reasons, with
citations to relevant legal authority, that this court should
overturn the circuit court. These additional deficiencies are of
greater concern because they burden and impede this court by
forcing us to guess at the substance of and basis for Jabali's
appeal.
Although we endeavor to decide cases on the merits,
especially in the case of pro se litigants, Jabali's opening
brief is deficient to such a degree that we are unable to do so
in this appeal. Jabali has failed to present this court with
_discernable or coherent arguments upon which a decision can be
rendered. See Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 HawaiH_
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
438, 478, 164 P.3d 696, 736 (2007) (stating that "an appellate
court is not obliged to address matters for which the appellant
has failed to present discernible arguments"); KahoEManohano v.
Dep't of Human Services, 117 HawaiH.262, 297 n.37, 178 P.3d 538,
573 n.37 (2008) (concluding that the appellant had failed to
raise a discernible argument regarding whether the trial court's
findings of fact were clearly erroneous when appellant shifted
the burden to the appellate court to comb through the trial
court's factual findings and determine which of them were
erroneous); Exotics Hawaii~Kona, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours
& co., 116 Hawai‘i 277, 238, 172 P.3d 1021, 1032 (2007) moving
that the appellate court could decline to address a claim for
which appellants failed to provide any "discernible argument or
cite to any authority with respect to their position"); Laeroc
Waikiki Parkside, LLC v. K.S.K. (Oahu) Ltd1 P'ship, 115 HawaiU_
201, 212, 166 P.3d 961, 972 (2007) (concluding that the appellant
made no discernible argument because it "cite[d] no authority,
present[ed] no analysis as to this argument, and d[id] not
explain the relevance of" the identified omission). Accordingly,
we are compelled to reject Jabali's appeal.
The May 23, 2007, Judgment of the circuit court is
affirmed. d
DATED; Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 21, 2010.
Chief Judge
_~1.'.¢ ~-~
1 l' `
ON THE BRIEFS:
Ali E. Jabali
Plaintiff-Appellant
Pro Se
Carrie K.S. Okinaga
Corporation Counsel
Sharon Lam Blanchard
Deputy Corporation Counsel
for Defendants-Appellees
3 Associate Judge