Summary
This Supreme Court of Hawaii opinion dismisses an appeal as premature because the trial court's order striking a reply and entering a default was interlocutory and did not adjudicate all claims. The court clarifies that under the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, setting aside a default entry under Rule 55(c) requires analyzing excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) and emphasizes that defaults are disfavored in favor of trials on the merits. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with these procedural guidelines.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Hawaii has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order denying leave to appeal.
Holdings
- The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order appealed from is interlocutory and the trial court refused to certify it as a final judgment under HRS § 641‑1(b) and Rule 73(a).
Key quotations
“The order appealed from was thus interlocutory in nature, and allowance of the appeal as required by HRS § 641‑1(b) and Rule 73(a), H.R.C.P., having been refused by the trial court, we are without jurisdiction of the appeal.” (at 1149)
“We agree with the reasoning of those decisions which hold that defaults and default judgments are not favored and that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief, so that, in the interests of justice, there can be a full trial on the merits.” (at 1150)
Factual background
The case arose from a stock sale and related agreements. The plaintiff filed a complaint naming seventeen defendants. The appellee filed a counterclaim and cross‑claims, including a claim for $140,000 against the appellants. The trial court entered a default against the appellants and struck their reply to the cross‑claim.
Procedural history
The trial court entered a default against the appellants and struck their reply to a cross‑claim. The appellants moved to dismiss the cross‑claim and to reconsider the striking order; both motions were denied and leave to appeal was refused. The appellants appealed the April 17 and May 30, 1974 orders.
Remand instructions
Remand without determination of the effect of the rules; upon remand the appellants may move under Rule 55(c) to set aside the default and, if set aside, may move under Rule 6(b) for enlargement of time to answer.