NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
08-AUG-2023
07:55 AM
Dkt. 34 SO
NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
WENJIU LIU, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
MARGARET YU, Respondent-Appellee
(CASE NO. 5DSS-XX-XXXXXXX)
and
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
MARGARET YU, Petitioner-Appellee, v.
WENJIU LIU, Respondent-Appellant
(CASE NO. 5DSS-XX-XXXXXXX)
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
LĪHU#E DIVISION
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
Self-represented Appellant Wenjiu Liu appeals from the:
"Order Dissolving Temporary Restraining Order" entered by the
District Court of the Fifth Circuit, Līhu#e Division, in
Judiciary Information Management System (JIMS) no. 5DSS-21-
0000100, on September 27, 2021; and the "Injunction Against
Harassment" entered by the district court in JIMS no. 5DSS-21-
0000106 on October 22, 2021.1 We consolidated the appeals. For
the reasons explained below, we affirm.
1
The Honorable Robert M. Goldberg presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Appellee Margaret Yu was Liu's landlord. On June 7,
2021, Liu filed a petition for a temporary restraining order
(TRO) against Yu. A TRO was issued on June 8, 2021.
On June 15, 2021, Yu filed a petition for a TRO against
Liu. A TRO was issued the same day. The cases were consolidated
for trial.
Trial was held on August 9, 13, and 16, 2021, before
Judge Stephanie R.S. Char. On August 16, 2021, Liu filed a
letter that the district court treated as a motion to disqualify
Judge Char. The trial was continued. On September 10, 2021, the
parties were informed that Judge Char had recused, and the trial
would continue on September 27, 2021, before a different judge.
On September 27, 2021, the district court explained to
the parties that the trial "will start over from the beginning."
According to the district court's minutes, Yu moved for summary
judgment after Liu finished testifying. The minutes state: "The
Court felt that Mr. Liu did not meet his burden of proof and
therefore [Liu's petition] is dismissed with prejudice." The
Order Dissolving Temporary Restraining Order was filed that day.
Due to time constraints, further proceedings on Yu's petition
were continued to October 22, 2021.
During the continued trial on October 22, 2021, the
district court entered the Injunction Against Harassment in favor
of Yu and against Liu. These appeals followed.
Our review of this appeal is constrained by Liu's
failure to order transcripts of the proceedings as required by
the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP):
When an appellant desires to raise any point on appeal that
requires consideration of the oral proceedings before the
court appealed from, the appellant shall file with the
appellate clerk, within 10 days after filing the notice of
appeal, a request or requests to prepare a reporter's
transcript of such parts of the proceedings as the appellant
deems necessary that are not already on file in the appeal.
HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added).2
2
Liu's briefs cite to a compact disc of proceedings before the
district court, but the compact disc is not part of the record on appeal.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Most of Liu's arguments concern statements he claims
were made by the district court, testimony he claims was given by
Yu, and his own testimony. Liu didn't order the transcripts upon
which his arguments depend. We have no basis to review those
allegations of error.
Liu argues that his exhibit P-3, two video clips, were
"[t]he most important evidence of this case." One clip is less
than a second in length. The other is two seconds long. The
record does not contain testimony by Liu or by Yu about what the
videos purport to show (or not show). Nor does the record
contain any information reflecting what weight, if any, the
district court gave to either video in reaching its decisions.
This court has watched both clips. We cannot say that the
contents of the clips, separately or together, convinces us that
the district court clearly erred.
Finally, Liu argues that he was credible, Yu was not,
and the district court erred by believing Yu and not believing
him. Assessing the credibility of witnesses is a function for
the trier of fact; an appellate court will not weigh credibility
or resolve conflicts in the evidence. State v. Monteil, 134
Hawai#i 361, 368, 341 P.3d 567, 574 (2014).
For the reasons explained above, the "Order Dissolving
Temporary Restraining Order" entered in JIMS no. 5DSS-XX-XXXXXXX
on September 27, 2021, and the "Injunction Against Harassment"
entered in JIMS no. 5DSS-XX-XXXXXXX on October 22, 2021, are
affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 8, 2023.
On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Wenjiu Liu, Presiding Judge
Self-represented
Petitioner-Appellant/ /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Respondent-Appellant. Associate Judge
Melinda K. Mendes, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
for Respondent-Appellee/ Associate Judge
Petitioner-Appellee
Margaret Yu.
3
