The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case involving Shareen W. Kaheaku and the State of Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez. The court's decision, which was filed on October 23, 2026, addresses the dismissal of Kaheaku's claims against the Attorney General and other officials. This ruling is significant as it impacts how individuals can pursue claims against state officials and the procedural requirements involved.
Kaheaku, who represented herself in court, challenged the dismissal of her complaint against the Attorney General and other officials. The court's opinion clarifies the legal standards for filing and serving complaints, as well as the implications of failing to comply with procedural rules. This ruling is important for anyone considering legal action against state officials, as it highlights the necessity of following proper procedures.
The case began when Kaheaku filed a lawsuit on March 7, 2025, against Attorney General Anne Lopez, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Steven Alm, and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Francisco Valenzuela. Kaheaku alleged that she was a victim of various crimes committed by William Quemado, who had made multiple false criminal filings against her. She claimed that the Attorney General's office refused to prosecute Quemado, which she argued constituted governmental misconduct and disparate treatment.
However, the record showed that Kaheaku did not serve her complaint on Alm, Valenzuela, or Quemado, which is a requirement under Hawaii's Rules of Civil Procedure. The Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the case on March 27, 2025, which was set for a hearing on April 30, 2025. Kaheaku did not oppose this motion but instead sought to amend her complaint. The court allowed her to do so and continued the hearing to July 1, 2025, giving her until June 10, 2025, to file an amended complaint.
Despite these opportunities, Kaheaku did not file an amended complaint nor did she appear at the July hearing. Consequently, the circuit court granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss. The written order for this dismissal was entered on July 28, 2025, leading to Kaheaku's appeal.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the dismissal of Kaheaku's claims against the Attorney General, stating, "The hearing on the AG's motion to dismiss was continued to accommodate Kaheaku's desire to amend her complaint; the circuit court responded to, rather than ignored, Kaheaku's motion to amend." The court emphasized that Kaheaku's failure to file an amended complaint or oppose the motion to dismiss justified the dismissal.
However, the court also addressed the dismissal of claims against the other defendants, stating that Kaheaku had not served her complaint on them within the required timeframe. The court noted, "The record does not reflect that Kaheaku was served with notice of a proposed dismissal for failure to serve her complaint consistent with RCCH Rule 28." As a result, the court vacated the dismissal of claims against Alm, Valenzuela, and Quemado, remanding the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings.
This ruling has implications for how similar cases may be handled in the future. It reinforces the importance of following procedural rules when filing lawsuits and highlights the potential consequences of failing to do so. The court's decision also underscores the need for courts to provide notice to plaintiffs when dismissing claims for failure to serve defendants.
Looking ahead, the case is now remanded to the circuit court, where it will need to address the claims against Alm, Valenzuela, and Quemado. The circuit court is expected to enter an amended judgment for the Attorney General and may take further action consistent with the court's ruling. If Kaheaku fails to comply with the service requirements after being given notice, the court may dismiss her claims against the unserved defendants.
As of now, it is unclear whether Kaheaku will appeal the court's decision regarding the Attorney General. The court filing did not provide details on any related cases pending. However, the outcome of this case could influence how future claims against state officials are approached, particularly in terms of procedural compliance.