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 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Mcaneeley v. Fukushima

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-24-0000298

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (7.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
06-MAR-2026
10:26 AM
Dkt. 63 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

LINDSAY N. MCANEELEY, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
DOREEN FUKUSHIMA, Respondent-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DSS-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Respondent-Appellant Doreen Fukushima (Fukushima)

appeals from the "Injunction Against Harassment" (Injunction)

entered on March 22, 2024 by the District Court of the First

Circuit 1 (district court).

In the underlying case, Petitioner-Appellee Lindsay N.

McAneeley (McAneeley) filed a "Petition for Ex Parte Temporary

1 The Honorable Shellie K. Park-Hoapili presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Restraining Order [(TRO)] and for Injunction Against Harassment"

(Petition) against Fukushima. On March 11, 2024, the district

court granted McAneeley's Petition for a TRO, prohibiting

Fukushima from "contacting, threatening, or physically

harassing" McAneeley. Fukushima was served with the TRO on

March 18, 2024. On March 22, 2024, following a trial on the

Petition at which Fukushima was self-represented, the district

court issued the Injunction. 2

Fukushima asserts three points of error on appeal,

contending that the district court erred by: (1) "violat[ing]

[Fukushima's] constitutional rights to substantive and

procedural due process of law" by not "advis[ing] [Fukushima] at

the commencement of the case that [Fukushima] had a right to be

represented by counsel," and by not "advis[ing] [Fukushima] that

if she needed more time to obtain counsel or prepare for the

hearing she could make such a request"; (2) "violat[ing]

[Fukushima's] constitutional right to freedom of speech when it

allowed [McAneeley's] counsel to introduce two exhibits

(Exhibits 8 and 9) into evidence even though they were not

addressed to [McAneeley] and [Fukushima] stated that her posts

were protected by her right to freedom of speech"; and (3)

"determin[ing] that [McAneeley] had proved by clear and

2 The district court denied McAneeley's request for attorney's
fees, as well as Fukushima's request to be compensated for income lost during
the time she was in court to defend against the Petition.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

convincing evidence that [Fukushima] had committed harassment as

defined by [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)] §[ ]604-10.5(a)(2)

[(2016)]."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we resolve Fukushima's points of error as follows:

(1) Fukushima contends that the district court

violated her due process rights by not advising her "that [she]

had a right to be represented by counsel," and that she could

request a continuance "if she needed additional time to prepare

for the hearing." (Formatting altered.) "We review questions

of constitutional law de novo, under the right/wrong standard."

Jou v. Dai-Tokyo Royal State Ins. Co., 116 Hawaiʻi 159, 164-65,

172 P.3d 471, 476-77 (2007) (cleaned up).

The underlying TRO proceeding is civil in nature. See

Duarte v. Young, 134 Hawaiʻi 459, 463, 342 P.3d 878, 882 (App.

2014) ("[T]he purpose of HRS § 604-10.5 was to prevent

harassment that cannot be effectively controlled by criminal

processes and penalties and to adopt a civil statute that can be

used to interrupt systematic and continuous intimidation that

stops short of assault or threats." (cleaned up)). Parties to a

civil case have no constitutional right to the assistance of

counsel, though courts have acknowledged the right of civil
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

litigants to retain and fund counsel of their choice. See Adir

Int'l, LLC v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 994 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th

Cir. 2021) (recognizing that "courts have generally acknowledged

a civil litigant's Fifth Amendment due process right to retain

and fund the counsel of their choice." (citation omitted)).

Here, the record reflects that the TRO provided notice

to Fukushima that she had the right to retain an attorney to

represent her at the hearing:

Prior to the scheduled hearing date, you or your
attorney may file a written response explaining, excusing,
justifying, or denying the alleged act or acts of
harassment. At the hearing, the parties shall be prepared
to testify, call and examine witnesses, present any
documents, and give legal or factual reasons why the
Injunction should or should not be granted. Each party may
be represented by an attorney and shall be prepared to
proceed at the hearing. IF YOU OR YOUR ATTORNEY FAIL TO
ATTEND AT THE TIME AND PLACE DESIGNATED, AN ORDER GRANTING
PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT WILL BE TAKEN
AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE PETITION.

At the hearing on the Petition, the district court

asked Fukushima whether she had received a copy of the TRO (she

had), and whether she agreed to an injunction (she expressed

that she wanted to challenge the Petition). At that time, the

district court raised the option of a continuance, informing the

parties that "[it] can either continue -- the TRO's in place

until -- it's certified till June." Fukushima indicated that

she wished to proceed with trial that day, and that she was

willing to wait until the district court could recall the case

for trial later that day. Following an hour-long recess, during

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

which the district court addressed other matters to which it had

referred, the district court recalled the case, and asked the

parties if they were ready for trial. Fukushima replied, "[d]id

my best, Your Honor."

In Luat v. Cacho, upon which Fukushima relies, this

court clarified that "a TRO, in view of its emergency remedial

nature, may be granted ex parte," but "a respondent who, either

orally or in writing, denies or controverts the material

allegations contained in a petition for injunction under HRS

§ 604-10.5 is statutorily and constitutionally entitled to a

prior evidentiary hearing before a three-year injunction order

may issue." 92 Hawaiʻi 330, 346, 991 P.2d 840, 856 (App. 1999).

We therefore held that, "[g]iven the serious consequences that

may flow from such an injunction order, a respondent must be

given a reasonable time to obtain the services of a lawyer,

conduct discovery, obtain documentary and testimonial evidence,

and prepare a proper defense to the allegations raised in the

petition." Id. This court also noted that "[t]he TRO served on

[the respondent] also failed to inform [the respondent] that he

was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on [the petitioner's]

petition if he contested or denied the allegations in the

petition." Id. at 345, 991 P.2d at 855.

Luat is distinguishable from the present case. In

Luat, the respondent informed the presiding judge that he was
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

not aware he could introduce witness testimony at the hearing,

and that there were witnesses not present at the hearing who

would testify on his behalf. Id. at 334-35, 991 P.2d at 844-45.

We held that, under those circumstances, "the district court

should have sua sponte continued the TRO and the hearing in

order to allow [the respondent] the opportunity to adduce

evidence and witnesses critical to his defense." Id. at 346,

991 P.2d at 856.

Here, the TRO served on Fukushima advised that an

evidentiary hearing would be conducted and that Fukushima or her

attorney should be "prepared to testify, call and examine

witnesses, present any documents, and give legal or factual

reasons why the Injunction should or should not be granted."

Fukushima appeared at the hearing, did not indicate any need or

desire for a continuance, and proceeded to introduce her

evidence at trial. Fukushima submitted twenty-four exhibits;

the district court admitted all of Fukushima's exhibits except

for Exhibit 13, which was stricken. She also testified at trial

and cross-examined McAneeley.

On this record, we conclude that Fukushima's due

process rights were not violated.

(2) Fukushima contends that the district court's

admission of McAneeley's Exhibits 8 and 9 violated her right to

free speech. Exhibits 8 and 9 are social media postings by
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Fukushima. When asked, Fukushima did not object to the

admission of these exhibits at trial. In any event, Fukushima

contends on appeal that she "had a constitutionally protected

right to express," via social media, her "dissatisfaction with

the performance of an attorney who had undertaken to represent

her."

Fukushima posted the following message on social media

on January 30, 2024, which was introduced as McAneeley's

Exhibit 8:

I celebrated my birthday last week and my crazy staff
surprised me with balloons, decorations and cup cakes. I
owe them for staying with me through all of the challenges
our practice has faced since last year. I tried to reason
with a law firm that has done so much wrong to me and they
have made it clear that they have no interest in
reconciliation. It's a shame because lawyers usually tell
you that settlement is the best option but I guess that
goes out the window when they're personally involved. I
have chosen to fight this battle but I wish the one
attorney whose actions I feel were misguided would have the
strength to come forward and admit her wrongdoing. If she
did, then I would be willing to accept her apology and move
forward because once I start down this road I won't stop
which is likely going to result in outcomes that will
change the lives of everyone involved. I have made my
peace with that and know I'm justified in doing what I have
to do because now my ex law firm has become goliath but I'm
still David. This time I won't lose because I never give
up without a fight.

(Emphasis added.)

Fukushima posted the following message on social media

on February 1, 2024, which was introduced as McAneeley's

Exhibit 9:

I went out with my mother and friend to get some much
needed support and advice during this tough time. They
both agree that I'm doing the right thing by taking legal
action against my ex law firm for how horrendously they've
treated me. I am definitely going to keep blasting them on
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

social media because people should see how they treat their
clients and how incompetent they are. However I have held
off because I'm giving one last chance to the female
attorney who started all this to right her wrong by coming
to me, taking accountability and apologizing for what she
has done. In case she's got brain damage and doesn't know
who she is, her initials are LM. If she doesn't come by
tomorrow (2-2-24), then I will air all of her dirty laundry
to the public and pursue a complaint to the Hawaii Bar and
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel which will likely result
in her disbarment. If she values being honest and wants
any chance to still be a lawyer in the future, she has
until tomorrow to own what she has done. I've given her
more than enough chances for redemption, so if she passes
this up for the 20th or so time, then maybe she needs to
lose her license because she's too foolish to do what's
right. She should know where i work since she did defend
my practice when she was my attorney and i will be there
tomorrow all day working until 4 pm when I end and get
ready to cheer on the UH Men's volleyball at 7 pm. [sic]
At this point I haven't found anyone to come with me so
I'll be going solo which doesn't bother me but it would be
fun for someone to laugh and have a good time to start off
the weekend.

(Emphasis added.)

McAneeley alleged that Fukushima harassed her through

an intentional and knowing course of conduct that included

unwelcome communications and romantic overtures, unwanted gifts,

and uninvited appearances at her home. Fukushima testified that

the messages in McAneeley's Exhibits 8 and 9 referenced and were

directed towards McAneeley, and that Fukushima was "trying to

get [McAneeley] to see the error of her ways." When asked if

her postings were "an invitation for [McAneeley] to reach out to

[her]," Fukushima replied, "[y]es, if she'd like." On this

record, we conclude that Fukushima's social media postings were

admitted for the purpose of establishing Fukushima's pattern of

harassing conduct towards McAneeley, and not to punish Fukushima

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

for expressing her opinion regarding McAneeley's legal

representation. See Justo v. Kauka, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2023

WL 6804757, at *5 (Haw. App. Oct. 16, 2023) (SDO) (citing Moysa

v. Davies, No. 28753, 2009 WL 1178659, at *2 (Haw. App. May 4,

2009) (SDO)) ("Courts may properly restrict statements made with

the intent to harass." (citations omitted)).

We therefore conclude that the district court did not

violate Fukushima's free speech rights by permitting the

admission of Exhibits 8 and 9 into evidence.

(3) Fukushima contends that the district court erred

by finding that McAneeley met her burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that Fukushima committed harassment pursuant

to HRS § 604-10.5(a)(2). 3 "Whether there was substantial

evidence to support an injunction against an alleged harasser is

3 HRS § 604-10.5(c) (Supp. 2023) permits "[a]ny person who has been
subjected to harassment" to "petition the district court for a temporary
restraining order and an injunction from further harassment." The statute
defines "[h]arassment" as, in relevant part,

(2) An intentional or knowing course of conduct directed at
an individual that seriously alarms or disturbs
consistently or continually bothers the individual and
serves no legitimate purpose; provided that such course
of conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer
emotional distress.

HRS § 604-10.5(a)(2).

"Course of conduct" is defined as "a pattern of conduct
composed of a series of acts over any period of time evidencing a
continuity of purpose." HRS § 604-10.5(a) (2016).

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard." Duarte, 134

Hawaiʻi at 462, 342 P.3d at 881 (cleaned up).

There is substantial evidence in the record to support

the Injunction. McAneeley testified that she and another

attorney had represented Fukushima in a litigation matter, and

that, during the course of the representation, Fukushima had

expressed interest in a romantic relationship with McAneeley.

McAneeley told Fukushima "that would not be possible" because

McAneeley was not interested in women, and that a romantic

relationship would be inappropriate given her role as

Fukushima's counsel.

The litigation matter ended. Fukushima sent a gift

and thank you note to McAneeley, and McAneeley sent Fukushima an

email thanking her and "wishing her well." McAneeley testified

that she did not expect further contact with Fukushima.

The record reflects that Fukushima continued to pursue

communication with McAneeley by voicemail and email.

Fukushima's email message, with the subject line "Strike 2",

dated October 15, 2023, invited McAneeley to play "walking

soccer" with Fukushima, and said "[i]t's supposed to be light

contact but I won't cry too hard if you slap me around a

little." Fukushima's email message, with the subject line

"Strike 3", dated October 17, 2023, invited McAneeley to travel

with her to Disneyland, and communicated to McAneeley that,
10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"unless you serve me with a restraining order, . . . I'll assume

you still are looking for me to send an email with whatever

it'll take to get you to hit the reply button on your email."

McAneeley did not respond to Fukushima's email messages.

Fukushima twice showed up uninvited and unannounced at

McAneeley's home. McAneeley testified that she did not tell

Fukushima where she lived, that she did not know how Fukushima

found her address, and Fukushima's appearance at her home was

"[a]bsolutely unwelcome." During the first encounter, Fukushima

was accompanied by three other individuals, and McAneeley

testified that she found the experience "absolutely terrifying."

Fukushima testified that McAneeley "look[ed] petrified."

Following Fukushima's first uninvited visit,

McAneeley's law firm sent an email message to Fukushima,

requesting that Fukushima cease all contact and communication

with McAneeley:

We've . . . been made aware of some communications you've
sent to [McAneeley] over the past couple of months that
have made her uncomfortable. We understand that over the
weekend, you showed up at [McAneeley's] home uninvited.
These contacts were not welcomed by [McAneeley]. As a
result of these actions, we are writing to request that you
cease communicating with [McAneeley] and that you not
attempt to come to the firm's offices. . . . The firm will
not be taking on any new engagements for you[.]

(Emphasis added.)

Notwithstanding the clear request that Fukushima cease

contact and communications with McAneeley, Fukushima went to

McAneeley's home a second time. McAneeley testified that,
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

during that encounter, um -- [Fukushima] said she had
brought bail money because she knew that it was -- I may
call the police on her and that she may have to go to jail
for coming, that people had told her not to come, but that
she wanted -- she felt that she needed to come because I
was her twin flame, that a psychic had told her, that I was
her twin flame, and that, uh -- we share one soul.

Fukushima acknowledged that she went to McAneeley's

home for the second time after receiving the "banning email."

Fukushima described the second encounter as follows,

And I said, you know what? I will take a gamble. I told
my mother, I said, I'm gonna go one more time. And, you
know, I might get a restraining order on me. And jokingly
I said I had bail money on me.

And when I got there, [McAneeley] panicked again, and
I said, look, [McAneeley]. I said, give me a minute. I
said, you know, I take a risk that by coming here today you
could call the police and have a restraining order on me.
And I -- I guess I was right.

So I do own that I went there. And I went there with
a job offer for [McAneeley]. The job offer I came in
November to offer her, which was for her to start her own
firm and I would help her. Because I said, I don't feel
like you're respected in your law firm. I would never bark
or yell at you. I think you're a very good attorney. And
I actually jokingly said, hey, why don't you sue your law
firm with me? Wrongful termination, uh -- hostile work
environment. Because once upon a time I was a worker's
comp, uh -- evaluator.

And, you know, just seeing [McAneeley] panic, and
when I offered her the job, her response is -- three times
is I am not gay.

And I'm like, that's not a job qualification is to be
gay.

But [McAneeley] kept saying that. Which means to me,
she is probably suppressing whatever her feelings are.

(Emphasis added.)

Fukushima also, in an attempt to communicate with

McAneeley, posted the social media messages at issue in section

(2), supra. At around the same time, McAneeley received a

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

delivery of roses, a stuffed teddy bear, candy, and a balloon,

accompanied by a note. Although the note was unsigned,

McAneeley testified that she knew it was from Fukushima because

it asked McAneeley to "bring[] those 51 fingers and toes to

where they're supposed to be," referencing a phrase that

Fukushima had said to McAneeley in prior communications.

The substantial record evidence supports that

Fukushima engaged in "[a]n intentional or knowing course of

conduct directed at [McAneeley] that seriously alarm[ed] or

disturb[ed] consistently or continually bother[ed] [McAneeley]"

and that "such course of conduct would cause a reasonable person

to suffer emotional distress." See HRS § 604-10.5(a)(2). We

therefore conclude that the district court's Injunction was not

clearly erroneous.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Injunction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 6, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Francis T. O'Brien,
for Respondent-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Kirk M. Neste,
for Petitioner-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

13