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 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

TBC Koloa Town, LLC v. Pizzetta, Inc.

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-24-0000007

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (4.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
05-MAR-2026
08:07 AM
Dkt. 45 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

TBC KOLOA TOWN, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
PIZZETTA, INC.; JOHN HALTER, Defendants-Appellees, and
CATHERINE M. SHYNE, Defendant-Appellant, and
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Catherine M. Shyne (Shyne) appeals

from the December 4, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiff TBC Koloa Town

LLC's [TBC's] Motion for Order of Contempt, Issuance of Bench

Warrant, and Contempt Sanctions Against Defendants John Halter

and Catherine M. Shyne Filed on October 6, 2023 (Contempt Order)

filed by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court)1

in favor of TBC.

Shyne raises five points of error on appeal, contending

that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) granting TBC's motion for

order of contempt; (2) not applying the rules regarding oral

examination of a non-resident witness in the order to appear for

1
The Honorable Kathleen N.A. Watanabe presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

a debtor's examination issued against a non-resident judgment

debtor; (3) not applying the rules regarding the deposition of a

non-resident witness in the order to appear for a debtor's

examination issued against a non-resident judgment debtor; (4)

compelling a non-resident defendant to personally appear before

the Circuit Court in Hawai i; and (5) exercising jurisdiction

outside Hawai i by compelling a resident of Washington State to

appear before the court for a judgment debtor's examination.

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 Shyne's

points of error as follows:

First, we note that Shyne's Opening Brief – in

particular, the Statement of Points of Error — is woefully non-

compliant with Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule

28(b). Although represented by counsel, Shyne has wholly failed

to identify where in the record the Circuit Court's alleged

errors occurred and where in the record the Circuit Court's

alleged errors were objected to or the manner in which the

alleged errors were brought to the Circuit Court's attention.

See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). The arguments contained in Shyne's

Opening Brief are untethered to the points of error raised,

provide scant and incomplete references to the parts of the

record relied upon, and for the most part, do not identify the

ruling or order professed to constitute reversible error.

See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7). We nevertheless attempt to address the

merits of Shyne's appeal.

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

We begin with points of error 2, 3, and 5, which raise

various arguments that appear to challenge (on appeal) the

Circuit Court's August 8, 2022 Order Granting [TBC's] Ex Parte

Motion for Examination of Judgment Debtor (Order for Judgment

Debtor Exam), which ordered Shyne to appear before the Circuit

Court and to be orally examined on September 13, 2022. A

certificate of service filed by TBC and an electronic notice

filed in the Judiciary Electronic Filing System (JEFS) indicate

that the Order for Judgment Debtor Exam was served on counsel of

record for Shyne through JEFS. Shyne took no action prior to

September 13, 2022, and did not appear.

Pointing to Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)

Rule 69, Shyne argues, inter alia, that "the judgment creditor

may obtain discovery from the judgment debtor in the manner

provided in the rules for taking deposition" and that the Order

for Judgment Debtor Exam was flawed because it ordered her

examination in Hawai i, not Washington State. However, as argued

in TBC's Answering Brief, HRCP Rule 32(e)(1) provides that "[a]ll

errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition

are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the

party giving notice." Here, notwithstanding a series of

additional filings and proceedings related to the Order for

Judgment Debtor Exam, Shyne did not raise any objection based on

the location of the examination until well over a year later. 2

2
On September 20, 2023, Shyne filed a motion to quash the Order for
Judgment Debtor Exam, as well as to quash an order to show cause why she
should not be held in contempt of court (Motion to Quash). The Motion to
Quash came on for hearing on October 25, 2023. The motion was denied, Shyne's
judgment debtor exam was continued to November 2, 2023, and Shyne was allowed
to appear remotely by Zoom, but did not appear. A written order denying the
Motion to Quash was entered on November 2, 2023 (Order Denying Motion to
(continued...)

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

Shyne makes no argument on appeal that she timely

raised written objections to the location noticed for her

judgment debtor exam. We conclude that such arguments were

waived.

We turn to point of error 4, in which Shyne argues that

the Circuit Court erred in compelling a non-resident defendant to

personally appear before the court in Hawai i. As discussed

above, Shyne fails to identify the order or orders challenged in

this point of error or where in the record she raised an

objection or brought the issue to the Circuit Court's attention.

Shyne appears to argue that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction

to require her to appear before the Circuit Court for a judgment

debtor's exam, and cites Hawai i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 603-

21.9(3) (2016). As a party to this action, the Circuit Court has

personal jurisdiction over Shyne and subject matter jurisdiction

to issue orders in aid of its jurisdiction, and to take steps as

may be necessary to carry into full effect the powers given to

the court or for the promotion of justice in pending matters.

See HRS §§ 603-21.9(1) & (6) (2016). The Circuit Court has each

of these powers, and it would be an absurd result to conclude

that the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to make post-judgment,

enforcement-related orders under HRS §§ 603-21.9(1) or (6).

Indeed, the Circuit Court later ordered Shyne to appear for

examination by Zoom, rather than by personal attendance. Shyne

2
(...continued)
Quash). On this appeal, Shyne does not mention, let alone challenge, the
November 2, 2023 Order Denying Motion to Quash, and does not provide a
transcript for the November 2, 2023 hearing. Any challenge to the Order
Denying Motion to Quash is waived. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) & (7).

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

makes no argument that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to

proceed in this manner. We cannot conclude that the Circuit

Court erred in compelling Shyne to appear for a judgment debtor

examination based on a lack of jurisdiction.

Finally, we address point of error 1, in which Shyne

argues that the Circuit Court erred in entering the Contempt

Order.

Shyne first argues that she should not be held liable

for contempt because TBC failed to follow proper procedures in

noticing the judgment debtor exam in Hawai i, rather than

Washington State. As discussed above, Shyne waived her

objections to the Order for Judgment Debtor Exam based on the

location specified in the order. Accordingly, we conclude that

this basis for setting aside the Contempt Order is without merit.

Shyne also argues that TBC is not entitled to

attorneys' fees and costs under HRCP Rule 37(d), as ordered in

the Contempt Order. Shyne submits that the general rule is that

it is presumed that a deposition will take place at the location

of the residence of the person to be deposed or examined, and

therefore, TBC did not follow proper procedure and is not

entitled to attorneys' fees stemming from her failure to appear.

This is simply another facet of the same argument. As discussed

above, Shyne waived her objections to the Order for Judgment

Debtor Exam based on the location specified in the order.

Accordingly, we conclude that this basis for setting aside the

Contempt Order is without merit.

Shyne presents no other discernible argument warranting

the set aside of the Contempt Order.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For these reasons, the Circuit Court's December 4, 2023

Contempt Order is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, March 5, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
David R. Squeri,
Carlo Reyes, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
(Greater Pacific Law Office, Associate Judge
LLLC)
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge
Calvert G. Chipchase,
Michael R. Soon Fah,
(Cades Schutte)
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

6