The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal filed by Tong Jin Su, who is seeking to represent Dae Han Shipping Agency, Inc. The dismissal occurred on November 6, 2026, due to Su's failure to pay the required filing fees. This decision affects the ongoing legal disputes involving Su and several defendants, including Youngjae Jung and James Kim, Inc.

This case, identified by docket number CAAP-26-0000531, highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules in the appellate process. The court's ruling emphasizes that failure to comply with financial obligations can lead to the dismissal of an appeal, regardless of the merits of the case.

The dispute began when Su filed a notice of appeal following a decision in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. The appeal was complicated by a joint notice involving multiple parties, which raised specific points of error for each. The appellate court had previously ordered Su to pay the filing fees within fourteen days of the case being opened. However, Su did not comply with this requirement, leading to the dismissal.

According to the court's ruling, "An appeal may be dismissed where the record on appeal has not been prepared because the appellant failed to pay the required fees or obtain an order allowing the appellant to proceed in forma pauperis." This statement underscores the court's strict adherence to procedural rules.

The judges involved in the ruling were Chief Judge Karen T. Nakasone, Associate Judge Clyde J. Wadsworth, and Associate Judge Daniel M. Gluck. Their decision reflects a common practice in appellate courts to ensure that all procedural requirements are met before considering the merits of an appeal.

The dismissal of Su's appeal means that the lower court's decision remains in effect. This outcome could significantly impact Dae Han Shipping Agency, as the company may not be able to contest the previous ruling without Su's appeal. The court's ruling serves as a reminder to all parties involved in legal disputes about the importance of following court orders and meeting deadlines.

Looking ahead, Su may have limited options for recourse. The court filing did not specify whether Su intends to appeal the dismissal or if there are any related cases pending. However, it is clear that the failure to pay the necessary fees has halted any further proceedings related to this appeal.

In conclusion, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals' dismissal of Tong Jin Su's appeal illustrates the critical nature of procedural compliance in the legal system. As parties navigate the complexities of the law, timely adherence to financial obligations is essential to ensure that their cases are heard and considered.