Case Notes

• Year: 2025
• Citation: Vol. 29 No. 02

CASE NOTES

[Page 28]

Appeal Pointer

In multi-claim or multi-party circuit court cases, a final judgment is not appealable unless it identifies the claims and the parties for which the judgment is entered and unless it resolves, on its face, all claims against all parties. Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115, 119-20, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338-39 (1994).

Intermediate Court of Appeals Civil Procedure

Donnelly v. Barrientos, No. CAAP-21-0000019, December 11, 2024, (Wadsworth, J.). Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Peter R. Donnelly (Donnelly) went to the De Luz Chevrolet dealership in Hilo to order a custom truck. He claims that there, he and Defendant-Appellee Juan M. Barrientos (Barrientos) agreed on the terms of sale, including price. Donnelly put down a substantial deposit, and the truck was ordered for delivery to the dealership. Later, Donnelly was told that the truck had arrived at the dealership but was sold to another customer. Donnelly sued Barrientos, as well as Defendants-Appellees Jacqueline De Luz Watanabe (De Luz Watanabe), and De Luz Automotive, LLC dba De Luz Chevrolet (collectively, Defendants) for failing to deliver the truck. He sought a court order requiring delivery of the truck to him or alternatively, money damages. Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that they could not deliver the truck that Donnelly wanted because it was no longer manufactured, and the damages he sought were unfairly high. The case was dismissed. Donnelly appealed. Donnelly contended that the District Court erred in refusing to properly apply the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to his replevin and breach of contract claims, and in granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The ICA held that the District Court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings, where genuine issues of material fact precluded judgment in Defendants' favor as a matter of law. In particular, Defendants had the burden to produce admissible evidence supporting their impossibility defense, i.e., that the particular vehicle Donnelly wished to purchase was no longer manufactured. They failed to meet that burden. The District Court further erred in concluding that "the doctrine of unjust enrichment" precluded Donnelly's damages claim as a matter of law. Donnelly's complaint, which sought replevin pursuant to Hawaii's version of the UCC, also stated a claim for breach of contract, and sought damages measured...