The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal filed by Samantha Iopa against Lam Hawaii Inc. The court ruled that Iopa failed to submit necessary documents for her appeal, which has significant implications for her case. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to court deadlines and procedures.

The case, Lam Hawaii Inc. v. Iopa, was filed under docket number CAAP-25-0000833. The court's ruling was issued on July 21, 2026, and it affects Iopa, who represented herself in the appeal process. The dismissal of her appeal means that the lower court's decision will stand, and Iopa will not have the opportunity to challenge it further in this instance.

Background

Lam Hawaii Inc. is a corporation based in Hawaii, and it was the plaintiff in this case. Samantha Iopa was the defendant, and she was involved in an eviction proceeding that was part of the underlying case in the District Court of the Third Circuit. The dispute arose from issues related to her tenancy at a property owned by Lam Hawaii Inc.

The case reached the Intermediate Court of Appeals after Iopa filed an appeal against a decision made by the District Court. However, the appeal process requires certain documents to be filed within specific timeframes, which are crucial for the court to consider the appeal. In this situation, Iopa did not meet those requirements.

The Ruling

The court ruled that Iopa's appeal was dismissed due to her failure to file a statement of jurisdiction and an opening brief by the required deadlines. According to the court, “The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before January 20, 2026, and February 17, 2026, respectively.” The court also noted that Iopa did not request an extension of time to file these documents.

Additionally, the court indicated that a default notice was sent to Iopa, informing her of the missed deadlines and the potential consequences, including dismissal of the appeal. The notice was returned undeliverable, as Iopa had left the property that served as her mailing address without filing a change of address. The judges involved in this ruling were Chief Judge Karen T. Nakasone and Associate Judges Clyde J. Wadsworth and Daniel M. Gluck.

Impact

This dismissal has significant implications for Iopa, as it effectively ends her ability to appeal the lower court's decision regarding her eviction. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of following procedural rules in legal proceedings. Failure to comply with deadlines can lead to the loss of the right to appeal, as seen in this case.

The outcome may also affect other self-represented litigants who may not be fully aware of the legal requirements for filing appeals. It underscores the necessity for individuals involved in legal disputes to understand the processes and timelines involved in their cases.

What's Next

Given the dismissal of her appeal, it is unlikely that Iopa can appeal this decision further. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending. However, Iopa could consider seeking legal advice for any potential next steps regarding her situation.