Ricci v. Carp

── Ricci v. Carp ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-MAY-2026 08:14 AM Dkt. 110 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I GARY J. RICCI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GERALD CARP M.D.; ALOHA EYE CLINIC; DR. THOMAS KROPP; DR CLAUDIA HOOTEN; BENNETT EYE INSTITUTE, Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1-10, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and Guidry, JJ.) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Gary J. Ricci (Ricci) brought a medical malpractice action against Defendants- Appellees Gerald Carp, M.D. (Carp), Aloha Eye Clinic (AEC), Dr. Thomas Kropp (Kropp), Dr. Claudia Hooten (Hooten), and the Bennett Eye Institute (BEI) (collectively, Medical Providers). After the discovery deadline had passed, the Medical Providers  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER moved for summary judgment. 1 The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court) heard the Medical Providers' motions, and granted summary judgment in favor of the Medical Providers. The circuit court entered the Final Judgment on November 1, 2024. 2 Ricci appealed. Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we affirm the Final Judgment. Ricci's opening brief fails to comply with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). Among other things, the opening brief does not set forth the points of error being raised on appeal, nor does it present clear contentions of error. Nevertheless, "a pro se litigant's failure to state the alleged errors of the lower court in precise compliance with HRAP Rule 28(b) . . . will not foreclose consideration of the appeal, so long as the litigant's argument can reasonably be discerned." Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380, 465 P.3d 815, 827 (2020) (citations omitted). Here, we discern that Ricci 1 The record reflects that Carp is affiliated with AEC, and Hooten is affiliated with BEI. Carp and AEC, Kropp, and Hooten and BEI filed their respective summary judgment motions on August 2, 2024. 2 The Honorable Kirstin M. Hamman presided. 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER challenges the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of the Medical Providers. "On appeal, the grant or denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo." Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawaiʻi 46, 55, 292 P.3d 1276, 1285 (2013) (citation omitted). The court applies the following standard, [S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most