The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has upheld a harassment injunction against Stephen R. Kenny. This ruling came from a case involving Nicole Moreau-Brown, who sought protection from Kenny. The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the importance of harassment protections in the state.
The court's ruling, filed on September 29, 2026, relates to a series of legal disputes between Moreau-Brown and Kenny. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to maintain the injunctions against Kenny, which were initially put in place to protect Moreau-Brown from harassment. This case highlights the ongoing challenges individuals face in seeking legal protection from harassment.
In this case, Nicole Moreau-Brown is the petitioner-appellee, while Stephen R. Kenny serves as the respondent-appellant. The dispute arose when Moreau-Brown filed for an injunction against harassment, which the court granted. Kenny later attempted to set aside this injunction, leading to the current appeal. The case reached the Intermediate Court of Appeals after Kenny's appeal of the lower court's decision.
The appeal stemmed from a January 14, 2026 order issued by the District Court of the Second Circuit in Wailuku. This order included three main points: it granted Moreau-Brown's motion to set aside a previous order that had granted Kenny's motion to set aside a default judgment, dissolved an earlier injunction against harassment, and reconfirmed that the existing injunctions against Kenny remained in effect. The Honorable Annalisa M. Bernard Lee presided over the case.
The court ruled that Kenny did not raise any valid points of error in his appeal. The judges noted, "Kenny raises no points of error on appeal... and does not present any arguments relevant to this case." The court found that Kenny's statements did not address the legal issues at hand and did not specify the relief he sought. As a result, the court concluded that Kenny failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.
The court's decision to affirm the lower court's order means that the injunctions against Kenny will remain in place. This ruling emphasizes the court's commitment to upholding protections against harassment. The judges involved in the ruling were Presiding Judge Keith K. Hiraoka, Associate Judge Clyde J. Wadsworth, and Associate Judge Daniel M. Gluck.
This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking protection from harassment in Hawaii. It reinforces the legal framework that allows victims to secure injunctions against their harassers. The decision also sends a message that the courts take harassment claims seriously and will uphold protections when appropriate.
The ruling may also impact future cases involving harassment injunctions. It sets a precedent that individuals must provide clear arguments and demonstrate valid points of error when appealing lower court decisions. This requirement may affect how future cases are presented in court and the strategies that individuals use when seeking to challenge injunctions.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Kenny will pursue further legal action. The court denied Kenny's motion for service of process by the U.S. Marshals Service, indicating that he may face challenges in his attempts to contest the injunctions. Additionally, any other motions filed by Kenny were also denied, suggesting that his options for appeal may be limited at this stage.
In conclusion, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals' decision to uphold the harassment injunction against Stephen R. Kenny marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battle between him and Nicole Moreau-Brown. The ruling reinforces the importance of protecting individuals from harassment and sets a precedent for future cases in the state.