The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has ruled in a case involving a personal injury claim filed by Alexa Jacobs against Andrew Cabral. The court's decision, issued on October 6, 2026, affects how service of process is handled in personal injury cases, particularly when a defendant is difficult to locate. The ruling is significant for plaintiffs who may face challenges in serving defendants within the typical time limits.
Jacobs filed her complaint on July 6, 2023, alleging that she suffered personal injuries as a new recruit with the Maui Police Department (MPD) on February 4, 2022. The case, identified as CAAP-24-0000643, reached the appeals court after Cabral, the defendant, sought to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that he had not been served within the required time frame.
The dispute arose when Jacobs was unable to serve Cabral by the original deadline of January 6, 2024, due to his relocation to Missouri. After locating him, Jacobs filed a motion for an extension of time to serve the complaint, which the circuit court granted, allowing her until July 6, 2024. Cabral contested this decision, claiming that Jacobs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations because he was not served within the two-year period following the alleged injury.
The circuit court, presided over by Judge Michelle L. Drewyer, denied Cabral's motion to dismiss on July 15, 2024. Cabral then appealed the ruling, arguing that the court had erred in granting Jacobs an extension and that her claims should be considered time-barred.
In its ruling, the appeals court examined whether the circuit court had abused its discretion in granting the extension for serving Cabral. The court noted that Jacobs had made diligent efforts to locate and serve Cabral, including filing an ex parte motion for an extension after realizing the missed deadline. The court found that Jacobs' attorney had faced challenges, including a staffing disruption in his office, which contributed to the delay.
The court ruled, "Fundamentally, the determination of whether a party has shown excusable neglect is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission."
The appeals court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Jacobs' failure to serve Cabral within the initial six-month period was due to excusable neglect. The court also addressed Cabral's argument regarding the statute of limitations, affirming that Jacobs had filed her complaint within the two-year time limit and had intended to serve Cabral promptly.
The court stated, "Jacobs' timely commencement of her claims against Cabral therefore tolled the statute of limitations pursuant to HRS § 657-7 and § 657-22, and HRCP Rule 3. Jacobs' claims are not time-barred." This ruling reinforces the importance of a plaintiff's intent to serve process and the potential for extensions in circumstances where service is delayed.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the parties involved. It clarifies the standards for what constitutes excusable neglect in the context of serving defendants in personal injury cases. This decision may encourage other plaintiffs facing similar difficulties in serving defendants to seek extensions without fear of dismissal based solely on timing issues.
Moving forward, this ruling sets a precedent that may influence how courts handle service of process in personal injury cases, particularly when defendants are not easily reachable. It emphasizes the court's willingness to consider the circumstances surrounding a missed service deadline and the importance of a plaintiff's intention to pursue their claims.
As for what’s next, Cabral may seek further appeal options, although the court filing did not specify any immediate plans for an appeal. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court's opinion.