430 P.3d 891 (Hawai’i App. 2018), CAAP-16-0000780, Paco v. Myers

Docket Nº:CAAP-16-0000780
Citation:430 P.3d 891, 143 Hawai‘i 330
Party Name:Nathan PACO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary K. MYERS, dba Mary K. Myers, Ph.D., dba Mary Myers, Ph.D., Inc., aka Mary Myers, Trust, Defendant-Appellee, and Does 1-10, Defendants
Attorney:Nathan Paco, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Benedict, (Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel), for Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.
Case Date:November 27, 2018
Court:Court of Appeals of Hawai'i, Intermediate
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 891

430 P.3d 891 (Hawai’i App. 2018)

143 Hawai‘i 330

Nathan PACO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Mary K. MYERS, dba Mary K. Myers, Ph.D., dba Mary Myers, Ph.D., Inc., aka Mary Myers, Trust, Defendant-Appellee, and Does 1-10, Defendants

No. CAAP-16-0000780

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i

November 27, 2018

Editorial Note:

This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition."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 FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 16-1-0842).

On the briefs:

Nathan Paco, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se.

Thomas Benedict, (Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel), for Defendant-Appellee.

By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Nathan Paco (Paco) appeals pro se from the Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the’ First Circuit (Circuit Court) on October 4, 2016 (Judgment). Paco also challenges the Circuit Court’s August 23, 2016 Order Granting Defendant Mary K. Myers, dba Mary K. Myers, Ph.D. dba Mary Myers, Ph.D., Inc., aka Mary K. Myers Trust’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint filed April 29, 2016, filed July 6, 2016 with Prejudice (Dismissal Order).[1]

Paco raises three points of error on appeal, contending that: (1) in an earlier civil suit (Civil No. 14-1-0576-03-KTN) (Prior Suit), a circuit court erred when it dismissed Paco’s complaint therein; (2) in this case, the Circuit Court erred when it refused to relieve Paco of the judgment in the Prior Suit; and (3) the Circuit Court erred when it dismissed this case based on the statute of limitations, rather than applying the doctrine of equitable tolling.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Paco’s points of error as follows:

(1) Both parties request that we take judicial notice of the Prior Suit. It appears that judgment was entered against Paco in the Prior Suit on April 26, 2016, and that no relief from judgment was sought therein and no appeal was taken. Instead, Paco filed another suit raising the same allegations.

Paco seeks a ruling that the court in the Prior Suit erred in...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP