FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI°I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
oF THE sTATE oF HAwArI
---oOo---
In the Matter of the Grievance Arbitration Between,
STATE OF HAWAII ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS (SHOPO),
exclusive representative for Bargaining Unit l2, Police,
On behalf Of SHELLY L. RODRIGUES, JAMES A. RODRIGUEZ, and
SHANE Y. SOKEl, Grievants-Appellants,
V .
COUNTY OF KAUAI, and KAUAI POLICE DEPARTMENT
l
Employer-Appellee. .; "W
NO. 3003O
APPEAL FRoM THE c:RcUIT.coURT oF run FIFTH cIRcUIT.ff
s (s.P. No. 09-1-0031) 1;§t ~~
(g:j¢-i
MarCh l9, 2010
NAKAMURA, C.J., FOLEY and FUJISE, JJ.
oRDER DIsMIssINc APPEAL
FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Per Curiam. In an appeal arising out of an arbitration
matter, Grievants-Appellants State of Hawaii Organization of
Police Officers (SHOPO), exclusive representative for Bargaining
Unit l2, Police, on behalf of Shelly L. Rodrigues, James A.
Rodrigues, and Shane Y. Sokei, (Appellant SHOPO) have asserted an
appeal from the Honorable Kathleen N. A. Watanabe's August 6,
2009 order denying Appellant SHOPO's motion to confirm an
arbitration award against Employer-Appellee County of Kauai and
Kauai Police Department (Appellee Kauai County). Appellee Kauai
County contests our appellate jurisdiction over this matter,
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
because the Honorable Kathleen N. A. Watanabe also entered an
August 6, 2009 order that granted in part and denied in part
Appellee Kauai County‘s counter-motion to vacate the arbitration
award and remanded this matter to the arbitrator with
instructions to rehear the issue of what remedy is appropriate.
Based on the remand instructions in the August 6, 2009 order
granting in part and denying in part Appellee Kauai County’s
counter-motion to vacate the arbitration award, Appellee Kauai
County asserts that the appealed order, i;§;, the August 6, 2009
order denying Appellant SHOPO's motion to confirm the arbitration
award, lacks the necessary finality for the purpose of invoking
our appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Hawafi Revised Statutes
(HRS) § 653A-28(a) (supp. 2008>.
The supreme court has acknowledged
the well-settled principle that appellate courts have an
independent obligation to insure they have jurisdiction to
hear and determine each case. . . . This duty arises from
the equally well-settled rule that the legislature may
define and limit the right of appeal because the remedy of
appeal is not a common law right and it exists only by
authority of statutory or constitutional provisions.
Hui Kawdo Aina`Hdopulapulapula v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res.,
ll2 HaWaFi 28, 38-39, l43 P.3d l230, 1240-42 (2006) (CitatiOnS,
internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). HRS § 658A-
28(a)(3) authorizes an appeal from an order that either confirms
or denies an arbitration award:
§ 658A-28. Appeals.
(a) An appeal may be taken from:
(l) An order denying a motion to compel arbitration;
(2) An order granting a motion to stay arbitration;
(3) An order confirming or denying confirmation of
an award;
(4) An order modifying or correcting an award;
(5) An order vacating an award without directing a
rehearing; or
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(6) A final judgment entered pursuant to this
chapter.
(b) An appeal under this section shall be taken as from an
order or a judgment in a civil action.
HRS § 658A-28 (emphases added). However, the language in HRS
§ 658A-28(a)(5) appears to preclude appellate jurisdiction when a
circuit court directs a rehearing, because HRS § 658A-28(a)(5)
authorizes an appeal from an order vacating an arbitration award
only when such an order does so "without directing a
rehearing[.]" HRS § 658A~28(a)(5). v
An appealable order is generally "an order ending the
proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished."
Familian Northwest, Inc. v. Cent. Pacific Boiler & Pipinq, Ltd.,
63 Haw. 368, 370, 714 P.2d 936j 937 (1986>