Huls v. Dong

── Huls v. Dong ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 07-MAY-2026 08:10 AM Dkt. 56 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I EDWARD HULS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LANZ DONG, Defendant-Appellee, and DOES 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Edward Huls sued Lanz Dong for injuries he claims to have sustained when Dong hit him with her car. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted Dong's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.1 Huls appeals from the Final Judgment for Dong. We vacate and remand for further proceedings. Huls, represented by counsel, sued Dong on February 23, 2021. He filed his pretrial statement on October 22, 2021. It identified several health care providers as witnesses, and stated: "The parties have conferred over numerous telephonic conferences and have, in good faith, considered the feasibility of settlement and alternative dispute resolution options. At this time, the parties are proceeding through the Court Annexed Arbitration Program [(CAAP)] and have scheduled an arbitration hearing date of February 4, 2022." 1 The Honorable James S. Kawashima presided.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Huls's attorneys withdrew from his representation on November 25, 2022. No substitute counsel appeared. Nothing material happened until March 20, 2024, when Dong moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 41(b). Dong's motion revealed that the scheduled CAAP hearing didn't take place. The arbitrator obtained two extensions of time to submit an award, the last expiring on December 12, 2022. On January 25, 2024, Dong's counsel emailed the arbitrator and Huls to reschedule the arbitration. By letter dated February 27, 2024, counsel followed up with Huls to set a hearing date. A certified mail receipt shows the letter was delivered on March 1, 2024. Dong's motion stated that Huls did not respond to the email or the letter. Huls did not file an opposition to Dong's motion. The motion was heard on July 10, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Huls did not appear when the motion was called. Dong's counsel stated: "Mr. Huls did send me a letter on April 8th, acknowledging that he had received my motion. He indicated he was going to retain new counsel and get back to me, and he never did." After noting Huls's non-appearance and that no opposition had been filed, the circuit court orally granted the motion and recessed. The case was recalled at 9:30 a.m., after Huls appeared. Dong's counsel was also present. Huls read "a one- page statement" to the court. He did not explain why he didn't reschedule the CAAP hearing or otherwise pursue his case. He asked for more time "until I have finished finalizing with my new attorney and counsel," whom he did not identify. The circuit court stood on its ruling. A written order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law was entered on August 5, 2024. The Final Judgment was entered on September 26, 2024. This appeal followed. Huls, now represented by counsel, contends the circuit court erred by granting the motion to dism