SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
This consolidated appeal stems from four proceedings in the Honolulu Division of the District Court of the First Circuit (District Court). In CAAP-24-0000056, Respondent-Appellant Indira Lopez-Ruiz (Lopez-Ruiz), appearing pro se, appeals from a January 17, 2024 Injunction Against Harassment entered by the District Court
1
against her and in favor of Petitioner-Appellee Rianne Sanchez (Sanchez). In CAAP-24-0000135, CAAP-24-0000137, and CAAP-24-0000138, Lopez-Ruiz, as Petitioner-Appellant, appeals from various requests for temporary restraining orders and/or other relief against Sanchez and others, all of which were denied by the District Court on various dates.
2
Lopez-Ruiz filed an Opening Brief in each of these appeals, all of which we have carefully reviewed. However, Lopez-Ruizs Opening Briefs do not comply with the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) in numerous and important ways. See HRAP Rules 28(b)(4), (7). We focus on the important infirmities because they hamper our review of her appeals. Lopez-Ruiz does not include any points of error or arguments that the District Court erred in its rulings. Lopez-Ruiz does not include any citations to the record in these cases, including where she contends that the District Court erred and where she raised her arguments or objections in the trial court. Lopez-Ruiz does not explain how the legal authorities that she recites support her contentions that she is entitled to relief from the District Courts rulings. Most fundamentally, Lopez-Ruiz makes no cogent argument that the District Court erred in any way in these cases. Hawai‘i courts have long adhered to the policy of affording litigants the opportunity to be heard on the merits whenever possible. Morgan v. Plan. Dept, 104 Hawai‘i 173, 180-81, 86 P.3d 982, 989-90 (2004) (quoting OConnor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai‘i 383, 386, 885 P.2d 361, 364 (1994)). In view of this longstanding policy, self-represented litigants like Lopez-Ruiz do not automatically have their access to appellate review foreclosed because of failure to conform to requirements of the procedural rules. Id. In that light, we have carefully reviewed Lopez-Ruizs statements to the extent they can be discerned. We nevertheless conclude that no relief can be granted in these appeals. 3
For these reasons, the District Courts orders entered in the proceedings underlying CAAP-24-0000056, CAAP-24-0000135, CAAP-24-0000137, and CAAP-24-0000138 are affirmed.
Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge
Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge
Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Ronette M. Kawakami presided.
2
. The Honorable Shellie K. Park-Hoapili presided.
3
. We have reviewed the document filed by Lopez-Ruiz on August 14, 2024, and determined that no further action by this court is warranted.