Erum v. Llego.

Summary

The Hawai'i Supreme Court held that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting Llego's ex parte oral motion to dismiss Erum's personal-injury suit with prejudice at a pretrial conference Erum did not attend, because the record showed no deliberate delay or contumacious conduct causing actual prejudice, the court made no supporting findings, and it never explained why lesser sanctions were inadequate. The court reaffirmed that motions must be made in writing and served under HRCP Rules 7(b)(1) and 5(a) unless made during a hearing or trial, that the safeguards governing dismissal with prejudice apply whatever rule authorizes the dismissal, and that pro se filings — including Erum's procedurally deficient certiorari application and his emergency motion to reschedule trial — must be liberally construed. Announcing a new rule, it held that henceforth trial courts must make essential findings of deliberate delay or contumacious conduct, actual prejudice, and lesser-sanction inadequacy whenever involuntarily dismissing a case with prejudice. Finding all five monetary sanction orders devoid of stated authority, bad-faith findings supported by clear and convincing evidence, and reasonableness or resources analysis, the court vacated them along with the judgments and remanded; Justice Nakayama, joined by Chief Justice Recktenwald, dissented, contending among other things that the dismissal standard does not reach HRCP Rule 16(f) dismissals and that Erum's cumulative conduct justified dismissal.