Harlacher v. Lautenbach
Decision Date | 09 November 2018 |
Docket Number | NO. CAAP-16-0000437,CAAP-16-0000437 |
Citation | 429 P.3d 1230 (Table) |
Parties | Michael Anthony Kimo HARLACHER and Roni Lee Du Preez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Andrew LAUTENBACH, Michael Smythe, the Law Firm of Starn, O'Toole, 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 |
Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
On the briefs:
Michael Anthony Kimo Harlacher, and Roni Lee Du Preez, Pro Se Plaintiffs-Appellants
Mark J. Bennett and Orian J. Lee (Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher) for Defendants-Appellees
(
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, O'Toole, Marcus and Fisher (collectively "Defendants"), and awarded attorneys' fees to Defendants and against Plaintiffs under Hawai‘i 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 Hawai‘i 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 the parties, we resolve Plaintiffs' points of error as follows and affirm.
Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for abuse of process because they failed to allege an improper "ulterior purpose" or an improper "wilful act." See Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai‘i 92, 104, 176 P.3d 91, 103 (2008) ; Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., 119 Hawai‘i 403, 413-14, 198 P.3d 666, 676-77 (2008) ( ); Hawkins v. Webster, 337 S.E.2d 682, 685 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985) ( ).
Furthermore, there was a sufficient basis to determine that the lawsuit was frivolous as the abuse of process tort is well-established in Hawai‘i case law, and the Circuit Court's finding of bad faith is supported by the Plaintiffs' initiating a complaint to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and initiating an action against the Defendants' attorneys in another court on another island two weeks before two motions to dismiss and two months before trial where the claims were not supported by law or fact. See Taqupa v. VIPDesk, 135 Hawai‘i 468, 479, 353 P.3d 1010, 1021 (2015) (); Young, 119 Hawai‘i at 412, 198 P.3d at 675 ( ); Coll v. McCarthy, 72 Haw. 20, 28, 804 P.2d 881, 886-87 (1991) ( ).
Finally, the court was under no obligation to sua sponte impose HRCP Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial