The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to grant an injunction against harassment in the case of John Dragomanovich v. Heather Boyd. The court ruled on October 26, 2026, affirming the injunction that was originally entered on September 12, 2025. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal framework surrounding harassment cases in Hawaii.

John Dragomanovich, the petitioner in this case, sought a Temporary Restraining Order and an Injunction Against Harassment against Heather Boyd. The district court granted his request after a trial, which led to Boyd's appeal. The court's decision is crucial for individuals seeking protection from harassment, as it clarifies the responsibilities of parties involved in such cases.

In this case, Heather Boyd, who represented herself, contested the district court's ruling. However, her appeal faced challenges due to procedural issues. The court noted that Boyd's opening brief did not comply with the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP). Specifically, she failed to cite the record properly and did not include the trial transcript, which is essential for demonstrating any alleged errors during the trial.

The dispute began when Dragomanovich filed his petition for the restraining order, claiming harassment by Boyd. After a trial in the District Court of the First Circuit, the court found sufficient grounds to issue the injunction. Boyd's appeal raised several arguments, including a claim of trial error and a challenge to the court's jurisdiction based on double jeopardy. However, the court clarified that double jeopardy, which protects against multiple punishments for the same offense, does not apply in civil actions like this one.

The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the appellant—in this case, Boyd—to provide adequate documentation to support her claims. The court stated, "The law is clear in this jurisdiction that the appellant has the burden of furnishing the appellate court with a sufficient record to positively show the alleged error." As Boyd did not meet this requirement, the court affirmed the district court's decision.

The ruling from the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals is significant for several reasons. It reinforces the importance of following procedural rules in appellate cases, particularly for self-represented litigants. The court's decision highlights that failure to provide necessary documentation can lead to the dismissal of appeals, regardless of the underlying issues being raised.

This case also underscores the legal protections available for individuals seeking relief from harassment in Hawaii. The court confirmed that the district court has the jurisdiction to issue injunctions against harassment under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604-10.5. This statute allows individuals to seek protection from harassment and provides a legal framework for addressing such issues.

Going forward, this ruling may impact how future harassment cases are handled in Hawaii. It serves as a reminder to individuals seeking legal protection that they must adhere to procedural requirements and provide adequate evidence to support their claims. Failure to do so could result in unfavorable outcomes, as seen in Boyd's case.

As for what’s next, Boyd's options appear limited following this ruling. The court affirmed the injunction and denied her motion filed on June 8, 2026. It is unclear if she will pursue further legal action or if there are related cases pending. However, the court's decision stands as a precedent for similar cases involving injunctions against harassment in the state.