Gilliam v. Galvin - Appeal Summary Disposition Order

NO. CAAP-24-0000033IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALSOF THE STATE OF HAWAI IWILLIAM H. GILLIAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.SUSAN GALE GALVIN, incorrectly identified asSUSAN GAIL GALVIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OFMICHAEL J. GALVIN, DECEASED; JOAN CHERICE KRUSSEL, NOW KNOWN ASJOAN CHERICE COTE; and MATT COTE, ALSO KNOWN AS MATHEW A. COTE,Defendants-AppelleesAPPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT(CIVIL NO. 5CCV-20-0000024)SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.)Plaintiff-Appellant William H. Gilliam (Gilliam), self-represented, appeals from the February 26, 2024 Judgment enteredagainst him by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court). Gilliam also challenges: (1) the December 13, 2023Order Granting in Part [Defendant-Appellee] Susan Gale Galvin's[(Galvin's)] Motion for Summary Judgment (Partial SJ Order), (2)the December 14, 2023 Order Granting [Galvin's] Motion forSummary Judgment (Further SJ Order), and (3) the February 26,The Honorable Randal G.B. Valenciano (Judge Valenciano) presided.Galvin is the personal representative of Michael J. Galvin,deceased.Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-24-000003320-MAR-202607:59 AMDkt. 60 SO

2024 Order Denying [Gilliam's] Motion for Recusal (Recusal Order). Gilliam raises three points of error on appeal,contending that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) its dismissal ofGilliam's claims because the federal court's dismissal ofGilliam's federal court complaint was not a dismissal on themerits; (2) engaging in ex parte communications with Galvin'scounsel and not recusing; and (3) not providing Gilliam withnotice of the hearing on Gilliam's motion for recusal. Upon careful review of the record and the briefssubmitted by the parties, and having given due consideration tothe arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolveGilliam's points of error as follows:(1) Gilliam argues that the Circuit Court erred whenit granted summary judgment to Galvin because his claims are notbarred by res judicata. Gilliam argues that the rulings of theUnited States District Court for the District of Hawai i (USDC)should not be given preclusive effect because they did notconstitute an adjudication on the merits.Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars subsequent litigation of the same cause of action. E. Sav. Bank, FSB v.Esteban, 129 Hawai i 154, 160, 296 P.3d 1062, 1068 (2013). Incases based on federal question jurisdiction, federal law governswhether res judicata bars subsequent litigation in state court.Wong v. Cayetano, 111 Hawai i 462, 477, 143 P.3d 1, 16 (2006),(citing Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497,507 (2001)).

Under federal law, a party asserting res judicata mustshow "(1) the same parties, or their privies, were involved inthe prior litigation, (2) the prior litigation involved the sameclaim or cause of action as the later suit, and (3) the priorlitigation was terminated by a final judgment on the merits."Cent. Delta Water Agency v. U.S., 306 F.3d 938, 952 (9th Cir.2002). An order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to FederalRules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6) is a final judgment onthe merits entitled to preclusive effect. See, e.g., FederatedDep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981).We first address Gilliam's Lanham Act claim. The USDCdismissed Gilliam's Lanham Act claim pursuant to FRCPRule 12(b)(6). The Lanham Act claim was based on federal law andsubject to federal question jurisdiction. For these reasons, thefinal dismissal of this claim constitutes a final judgment on themerits under federal law. See id. Therefore, it is entitled topreclusive effect in Hawai i courts. Thus, we conclude that theCircuit Court did not err in entering the Partial SJ Order, whichdismissed Gilliam's Lanham Act claim (Count VI of Gilliam'sCircuit Court complaint) on the basis of res judicata. In contrast, Gilliam's remaining claims were state lawclaims. The USDC dismissed these remaining counts for lack ofdiversity jurisdiction because Gilliam failed to establish thathis domicile was outside of Hawai i. Without a basis fordiversity jurisdiction, the USDC declined to exercisesupplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The USDC did not conduct any substantive analysis ofGilliam's state law claims. Rather, the USDC dismissed Gilliam's

claims for want of jurisdiction, declining to exercisesupplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Accordingly, the USDC's dismissal of Gilliam's state law claimsdid not constitute a final judgment on the merits. Therefore, weconclude that the Circuit Court erred in entering the Further SJOrder, which dismissed Count's I, II, III, IV, V, and VII ofGilliam's complaint on the basis of res judicata. (2) Gilliam argues that the Circuit Court erred indenying his motion for recusal because the Circuit Courtcommunicated with opposing counsel ex parte. A motion for therecusal of a trial judge is moot where the judge is no longer onthe bench of the Circuit Court. Poka v. Holi, 44 Haw. 483, 483,357 P.2d 110, 111 (1960).We take judicial notice that Judge Valenciano retiredfrom the Circuit Court in September of 2025. See State v.Maddox, 116 Hawai i 445, 463, 173 P.3d 592, 610 (App. 2007)(taking judicial notice of judge's retirement). Gilliam's secondpoint of error is therefore moot because Judge Valenciano is noton the bench of the Circuit Court.(3) Finally, Gilliam argues that he did not havenotice of the hearing on his motion for recusal. However, thehearing date and time is included on Gilliam's motion, which wassigned by Gilliam. Accordingly, this argument is without merit,as well as moot, for the reasons set forth above.For these reasons, the Circuit Court's February 26,2024 Judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part. TheCircuit Court's December 13, 2023 Partial SJ Order is affirmed. The Circuit Court's December 14, 2024 Further SJ Order is

vacated. Gilliam's appeal from the Recusal Order is dismissed asmoot. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for furtherproceedings consistent with this Summary Disposition Order.DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, March 20, 2026.On the briefs:William H. Gilliam,Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.Leah M. Reyes,Michelle H. Takahashi(Gallagher Kane Amai & Reyes),for Defendant-Appellee SusanGale Galvin, incorrectlyidentified as Susan GailGalvin, as PersonalRepresentative of Michael J.Galvin, Deceased./s/ Katherine G. LeonardPresiding Judge/s/ Keith K. HiraokaAssociate Judge/s/ Kimberly T. GuidryAssociate Judge