Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Gilliam v. Galvin

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-24-0000033

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (37.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
20-MAR-2026
07:59 AM
Dkt. 60 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

WILLIAM H. GILLIAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
SUSAN GALE GALVIN, incorrectly identified as
SUSAN GAIL GALVIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
MICHAEL J. GALVIN, DECEASED; JOAN CHERICE KRUSSEL, NOW KNOWN AS
JOAN CHERICE COTE; and MATT COTE, ALSO KNOWN AS MATHEW A. COTE,
Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

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 entered

against him by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit

Court).1 Gilliam also challenges: (1) the December 13, 2023

Order Granting in Part [Defendant-Appellee] Susan Gale Galvin's

[(Galvin's)2] Motion for Summary Judgment (Partial SJ Order), (2)

the December 14, 2023 Order Granting [Galvin's] Motion for

Summary Judgment (Further SJ Order), and (3) the February 26,

1
The Honorable Randal G.B. Valenciano (Judge Valenciano) presided.
2
Galvin is the personal representative of Michael J. Galvin,
deceased.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

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 of

Gilliam's claims because the federal court's dismissal of

Gilliam's federal court complaint was not a dismissal on the

merits; (2) engaging in ex parte communications with Galvin's

counsel and not recusing; and (3) not providing Gilliam with

notice of the hearing on Gilliam's motion for recusal.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve

Gilliam's points of error as follows:

(1) Gilliam argues that the Circuit Court erred when

it granted summary judgment to Galvin because his claims are not

barred by res judicata. Gilliam argues that the rulings of the

United States District Court for the District of Hawai i (USDC)

should not be given preclusive effect because they did not

constitute 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). In

cases based on federal question jurisdiction, federal law governs

whether 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)).

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Under federal law, a party asserting res judicata must

show "(1) the same parties, or their privies, were involved in

the prior litigation, (2) the prior litigation involved the same

claim or cause of action as the later suit, and (3) the prior

litigation 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 Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6) is a final judgment on

the merits entitled to preclusive effect. See, e.g., Federated

Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981).

We first address Gilliam's Lanham Act claim. The USDC

dismissed Gilliam's Lanham Act claim pursuant to FRCP

Rule 12(b)(6). The Lanham Act claim was based on federal law and

subject to federal question jurisdiction. For these reasons, the

final dismissal of this claim constitutes a final judgment on the

merits under federal law. See id. Therefore, it is entitled to

preclusive effect in Hawai i courts. Thus, we conclude that the

Circuit Court did not err in entering the Partial SJ Order, which

dismissed Gilliam's Lanham Act claim (Count VI of Gilliam's

Circuit Court complaint) on the basis of res judicata.

In contrast, Gilliam's remaining claims were state law

claims. The USDC dismissed these remaining counts for lack of

diversity jurisdiction because Gilliam failed to establish that

his domicile was outside of Hawai i. Without a basis for

diversity jurisdiction, the USDC declined to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

The USDC did not conduct any substantive analysis of

Gilliam's state law claims. Rather, the USDC dismissed Gilliam's

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

claims for want of jurisdiction, declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Accordingly, the USDC's dismissal of Gilliam's state law claims

did not constitute a final judgment on the merits. Therefore, we

conclude that the Circuit Court erred in entering the Further SJ

Order, which dismissed Count's I, II, III, IV, V, and VII of

Gilliam's complaint on the basis of res judicata.

(2) Gilliam argues that the Circuit Court erred in

denying his motion for recusal because the Circuit Court

communicated with opposing counsel ex parte. A motion for the

recusal of a trial judge is moot where the judge is no longer on

the 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 retired

from 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 second

point of error is therefore moot because Judge Valenciano is not

on the bench of the Circuit Court.

(3) Finally, Gilliam argues that he did not have

notice of the hearing on his motion for recusal. However, the

hearing date and time is included on Gilliam's motion, which was

signed 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. The

Circuit Court's December 13, 2023 Partial SJ Order is affirmed.

The Circuit Court's December 14, 2024 Further SJ Order is

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

vacated. Gilliam's appeal from the Recusal Order is dismissed as

moot. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for further

proceedings consistent with this Summary Disposition Order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, March 20, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
William H. Gilliam,
Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Leah M. Reyes,
Michelle H. Takahashi /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
(Gallagher Kane Amai & Reyes), Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellee Susan
Gale Galvin, incorrectly
identified as Susan Gail
Galvin, as Personal
Representative of Michael J.
Galvin, Deceased.

5