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 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Pacific Hawaii Food Service LLC v. Yang

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-24-0000078

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (17.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
02-MAR-2026
07:46 AM
Dkt. 67 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

PACIFIC HAWAII FOOD SERVICE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JIN QUAN YANG, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Jin Quan Yang appeals from three orders entered by the
Circuit Court of the Second Circuit.1
We lack jurisdiction to review the January 12, 2024
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike Defendant's Answer and the January 26, 2024 Order Denying
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings because they are
interlocutory orders not appealable under the collateral order or
Forgay doctrines, see Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawai#i 249, 254, 369
P.3d 832, 837 (2016), and they are not appealable under HRS
§ 641-1(b) (2016).

1
The Honorable Michelle L. Drewyer presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The January 26, 2024 Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion
for Attorney Fees and Sanctions, and Further Order to Show Cause
(Attorney Fee Order) is an appealable collateral order because it
directs payment of a sum certain by a date certain and is
enforceable through contempt proceedings, Harada v. Ellis, 60
Haw. 467, 480, 591 P.2d 1060, 1070 (1979), and it imposes
sanctions against Yang's counsel, Fujimoto v. Au, 95 Hawai#i 116,
126 n.8, 19 P.3d 699, 709 n.8 (2001).
Pacific Hawaii Food Service LLC sued Yang. Pacific
moved to compel discovery from Yang under Hawai#i Rules of Civil
Procedure (HRCP) Rule 37(a) (Motion to Compel). The motion was
supported by copies of Pacific's discovery requests, copies of
Yang's responses, and a declaration of Pacific's counsel that
complied with HRCP Rule 37(a)(2).
The Circuit Court granted the Motion to Compel in part.
It ordered Yang "to fully and appropriately respond to
[Pacific]'s document demands, interrogatories and requests for
admissions[.]"
Pacific moved for attorney's fees (Fee Motion). It
sought fees of $3,278.33 under HRCP Rule 37(a)(4)(A), which
provides:

If the motion [to compel discovery] is granted or if the
disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the
motion was filed, the court shall, after affording an
opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose
conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney
advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving
party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,
including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the
motion was filed without the movant's first making a good
faith effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery without
court action, or that the opposing party's nondisclosure,
response, or objection was substantially justified, or that
other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

(Emphasis added.)
The Fee Motion was supported by a declaration of
Pacific's counsel and an exhibit documenting the claimed fees.

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

Yang filed an opposition to the Fee Motion.
According to the minutes, the Fee Motion was heard on
January 25, 2024, with Yang's motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The minutes state: "[Pacific]'s Motion for Sanctions
- GRANTED, with amended amount to be submitted as state[d] on
record." The record on appeal does not contain a transcript of
the January 25, 2024 hearing.
The Attorney Fee Order stated that Yang and his counsel
"are hereby jointly sanctioned in the sum of $3,078.53, payable
to [Pacific] within 30 days following the date of this order[.]"
Yang argues that the Fee Motion violated HRCP
Rule 37(a)(4)(A) because it was filed as a non-hearing motion.
Exhibit B to the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of
Hawai#i (RCCH) lists motions for attorney fees (except as an HRCP
Rule 11 sanction or in a foreclosure case) as non-hearing
motions.
Yang argues "surprisingly, the Trial Court, sue [sic]
sponte called out a hearing on this Motion for Attorney Fees over
the objection of Yang's counsel." RCCH Rule 7.2(c) (eff.
Oct. 28, 2019) allows a circuit court to sua sponte hear a non-
hearing motion. Yang's opposition to the Fee Motion had been
filed three days before the hearing. The Circuit Court could
have ruled without a hearing, but appears to have afforded Yang
an additional chance to be heard. Yang did not order a
transcript of the hearing for the record on appeal.
Yang presents no cogent argument that the Circuit Court
erred by granting Pacific's Motion to Compel. When a circuit
court grants an HRCP Rule 37 motion to compel discovery, it
"shall" grant the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the moving
party, "unless the court finds that the motion was filed without
the movant's first making a good faith effort to obtain the
disclosure or discovery without court action, or that the

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

opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was
substantially justified, or that other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjust." HRCP Rule 37(a)(4)(A).
The declaration supporting the Motion to Compel showed
that Pacific's counsel conferred with Yang's counsel twice to
resolve the discovery dispute. Yang cites nothing in the record
that would make the award of attorney fees unjust. Yang does not
challenge the amount of the fee award.
The January 26, 2024 Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion
for Attorney Fees and Sanctions, and Further Order to Show Cause
is affirmed. Yang's appeal from the January 12, 2024 Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
Defendant's Answer and the January 26, 2024 Order Denying
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 2, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Wen Sheng Gao, Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant
Jin Quan Yang. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge
James D. DiPasquale,
for Plaintiff-Appellee /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Pacific Hawaii Food Associate Judge
Service LLC.

4