NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
24-SEP-2026
08:06 AM
Dkt. 62 ODSLJ
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
DAVIS PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., POLYNESIA KINGDOM OF
ATOOI, INC., SYLVIA HUSSEY, INDIVIDUALLY, LAWRENCE DABALUZ, INDIVIDUALLY, RHEECE KAHAHAWAI, INDIVIDUALLY, JORDAN FALETOGO,
INDIVIDUALLY, SADHU BOTT, INDIVIDUALLY, ENE FALETOGO,
INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants-Appellees,
and
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Gluck, JJ.)
Upon review of the record, it appears that selfrepresented Plaintiff-Appellant Davis Price appeals from the
November 19, 2025 Order Granting Defendant Securitas Security
Services USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution,
Lack of Service, and Abandonment of Claims [Dkt. 213], entered
by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court). On
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
April 24, 2026, the court temporarily remanded the appeal to the
Circuit Court in accordance with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 602-57(3) (2016) and Waikiki v. Hoʻomaka Village Association of
Apartment Owners, 140 Hawaiʻi 197, 398 P.3d 786 (2017), to enter
an amended order that either dismisses all claims against all
Defendants or states which claims remain pending against which
Defendants, and if it intends to dismiss all claims against all
Defendants, to enter a final, appealable judgment. See HRS
§ 641-1(a) (2016); Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule
58; Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawaiʻi 115,
119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994).
On April 27, 2026, the Circuit Court entered an
Amended Order dismissing all claims against Defendant-Appellee
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., and stating that all
claims against the other Defendants remain. The Circuit Court
has not reduced the Amended Order to an HRCP Rule 54(b) judgment
or indicated it intends to do so. The Amended Order is not
independently appealable under the collateral-order or Forgay 1
doctrines, nor has the Circuit Court granted leave for
interlocutory appeal under HRS § 641-1(b) (2016). See Greer v.
Baker, 137 Hawaiʻi 249, 253, 369 P.3d 832, 836 (2016) (setting
forth the requirements for appealability under the collateral1 Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848).
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
order doctrine 2 and the Forgay doctrine); HRS § 641-1(b)
(specifying requirements for leave to file interlocutory
appeal).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 24, 2026.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
Associate Judge
2 The Amended Order is not an appealable, collateral order because it does not resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, nor is it effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Greer, 137 Hawaiʻi at 253, 369 P.3d at 836.
3