Preview:

* * * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * *
NO. 24192 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I LEROY R. ZOOK, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. GWENDOLYN SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. (CIV. NO. 1SS00-1507) ----------------------------------------------------------------SANDRA L. ZOOK, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. GWENDOLYN SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. (CIV. NO. 1SS00-1503) APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CIV. NO. 1SS00-1507/1SS00-1503) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy JJ.) Defendant-appellant Gwendolyn Smith appeals from the February 7, 2001 order denying her motion for reconsideration of the temporary restraining orders (TROs) of the District Court of the First Circuit.1 court erred by: On appeal, Smith contends that the district

(1) refusing to grant Smith a continuance of the

hearing; (2) denying Smith sufficient time to contact and arrange for alternative legal representation; (3) denying Smith

1 The Honorable David Lo presided over the December 29, 2000 motion for continuance and the Honorable David Fong presided over the hearing and motion for reconsideration.

* * * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * *
sufficient time to obtain the services of an attorney to represent her at the hearing, conduct discovery, obtain documents and testimony, gather witnesses, and prepare a defense to the allegations in the petitions; (4) granting the injunctions against harassment without clear and convincing evidence; (5) refusing to consider evidence that the alleged harassment was neither systematic nor continuous; (6) failing to apply an objective standard of proof in granting the injunctions; (7) instructing Smith to carry the burden of proving that the allegations were untrue; (8) depriving her of her due process, constitutional, first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendment rights because: (a) the district court improperly heard and

granted the injunctions against harassment, (b) the district court improperly refused to grant her petition for a protective injunction, (c) the district court failed to notify her of her right to file a response or set a response due date or evidentiary hearing and only allowed her to give "reasons" why the TROs should not be granted, and (d) the district court refused to entertain her motion for reconsideration containing new evidence from witnesses. For the purposes of this order,

Smith's arguments have been reorganized to reflect the five main issues that she presents on appeal. Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted, we hold as follows: (1) there is no evidence that the 2

* * * NOT FOR PUBLICATION * * *
district court denied Smith's request for a continuance of the hearing. Regarding Smith's allegation that the continuance

granted was not adequate, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Smith a three-day continuance for a hearing on the TROs. Sanders v. Point After, Inc., 2 Haw. App.

65, 70, 626 P.2d 193, 197 (App. 1981); see also Sapp v. Wong, 62 Haw. 34, 41, 609 P.2d 137, 142 (1980); (2) the district court correctly applied a clear and convincing standard of proof in granting the injunctions.

Download Zook v. Smith.pdf

Hawaii Law