Ott v. Asuncion

── Ott v. Asuncion ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 23-APR-2026 10:46 AM Dkt. 66 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI VANESSA OTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRISTINE ASUNCION, Defendant-Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Vanessa Ott, a self-described citizen-advocate for systemic improvement in the Hawaiʻi public education system, appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Christine Asuncion, a special education science teacher at Robert Louis Stevenson Middle School. 1 1 The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided. Ott appeals from both the circuit court's September 11, 2024 "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" and its September 26, 2024 Judgment.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER On appeal, Ott asserts eleven points of error, which we construe as challenging the circuit court's grant of summary judgment. 2 2 As presented, Ott's points of error on appeal are: "1. The Circuit Court erred by deciding disputed issues of material facts normally decided by the 'trier of fact' instead of acknowledging the existence of clear and convincing evidence that disputes exist." "2. The Circuit Court Erred In Its FOF By Fraudulently Altering Defendant's Defamatory Statements To Remove Defendant's False Allegations about Plaintiff." "3. The Circuit Court Erred By Omitting Substantive Material Evidence Of The Actual Punishment Inflicted On Ms. Ott And The Causal Connection Between Ms. Asuncion's False Accusations About Ms. Ott And The Resulting Punishment." "4. The Circuit Court erred in its Conclusions of Law by inserting the words 'or employee' after 'government official' in its cited cases thereby misrepresenting legal precedents which afford qualified privilege immunity to government officials performing discretionary duties, but not to government employees performing operational duties." "5. Because Defendant Is Not A Government Official And Was Not Performing Any Discretionary Duty, The Circuit Court Abused Its Discretion by Granting Qualified Privileged Immunity to Defendant." "6. The Circuit Court Erred In Concluding That Defendant Writing Her Defamatory Declaration Was Part Of Her Job Duties." "7. The Circuit Court Erred In Concluding Defendant's Declaration Written Per The Principal's Request Is The Only Act of Defamation by Defendant." "8. The Circuit Court Erred When Concluding There Is No Evidence Defendant Was Motivated by Ill Will When Defaming Plaintiff For An Improper Purpose." "9. The Circuit Court Abused Its Discretion In Decid