429 P.3d 1230 (Hawaii App. 2018), CAAP-16-0000437, Harlacher v. Lautenbach
|Citation:||429 P.3d 1230, 143 Hawaii 301|
|Party Name:||Michael Anthony Kimo HARLACHER and Roni Lee Du Preez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Andrew LAUTENBACH, Michael Smythe, the Law Firm of Starn, OToole, Marcus and Fisher, Defendants-Appellees, and John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Entities 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10, and Doe Governmental Entities 1-10, Defendants|
|Attorney:||Michael Anthony Kimo Harlacher, and Roni Lee Du Preez, Pro Se Plaintiffs-Appellants Mark J. Bennett and Orian J. Lee (Starn OToole Marcus & Fisher) for Defendants-Appellees|
|Judge Panel:||By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, and Reifurth and Chan, JJ.|
|Case Date:||November 09, 2018|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Hawai'i, Intermediate|
This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition."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 SECOND CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 15-1-0475)
On the briefs:
Michael Anthony Kimo Harlacher, and Roni Lee Du Preez, Pro Se Plaintiffs-Appellants
Mark J. Bennett and Orian J. Lee (Starn OToole Marcus & Fisher) for Defendants-Appellees
By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, and Reifurth and Chan, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Plaintiffs-Appellants Michael Anthony Kimo Harlacher and Roni Lee Du Preez, husband and wife, (collectively "Plaintiffs") appeal from the May 18, 2016 Judgment and the June 17, 2016 Amended Judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit ("Circuit Court").1 The judgments dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint claiming abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and vicarious liability against Michael Smythe, Andrew Lautenbach, and the Law Firm of Starn, OToole, Marcus and Fisher (collectively "Defendants"), and awarded attorneys fees to Defendants and against Plaintiffs under Hawaii Revised Statutes section 607-614.5 (2016).
On appeal, Plaintiffs raise the following points of error, contending that the Circuit Court: (1) erred by dismissing the abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and vicarious liability claims; (2) erred by determining that Plaintiffs complaint was frivolous and imposing sanctions; and (3) abused its discretion by failing to sua sponte sanction defendant attorneys under Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure ("HRCP") Rule 11.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues raised and the arguments advanced by...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP