The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai’i has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Lonnell Reginald Wideman against Hickam Federal Credit Union (HFCU) and two of its employees. Wideman, representing himself, alleged various claims stemming from his interactions with the credit union.
The Initial Complaint and Amended Complaint
Wideman filed his initial complaint on December 14, 2022, and amended it the following day. The core of his complaint involved an incident at the HFCU Pearl City branch. He claimed that on November 16, 2022, he went to the branch to open a savings account and was assisted by an employee named Elisa. During their interaction, he asked Elisa if she was married. She responded, “I have someone, but I don’t know if it’s for the long term.”
The “Gentleman’s Letter” and Subsequent Events
Later, on November 23, 2022, Wideman contacted Elisa by phone regarding online account access issues. She suggested he visit the branch for assistance, which he did on November 25, 2022. Before leaving the branch that day, Wideman gave Elisa what he referred to as “a gentleman’s letter.”
On November 30, 2022, Wideman received a call from Mark, the branch manager. Mark informed Wideman that his letter to Elisa was unwelcome and requested that he keep future interactions professional. Wideman reportedly responded, “no problem.”
On December 7, 2022, Wideman returned to the Pearl City branch to conduct business and stood in Elisa’s line. Elisa then called Mark, stating Wideman was threatening her. Mark came out and called Wideman out of the line. When Wideman said he could wait, Mark allegedly responded “gruffly,” “no!, [sic] I can help you here.” Wideman was then directed to Mark’s desk.
Mark then allegedly “gruffly” asked Wideman if he was there to close his account. Wideman replied “No,” stating he felt insulted, harassed and discriminated against. He inquired why Elisa would not assist him, to which Mark responded, “she doesn’t feel comfortable helping YOU [sic].” Wideman claimed he felt “insulted, harassed, taunted, discriminated against and challenged” and that he was being falsely accused of being a threat to Elisa. He claimed these actions caused him to suffer intentional infliction of extreme and severe emotional distress.
The Legal Claims
Wideman’s amended complaint included claims under several Hawaii Revised Statutes:
* HRS § 378-2: This statute prohibits discriminatory employment practices.
* HRS § 657-7: This is the statute of limitations for damage to persons or property.
* HRS § 711-1106: This is the criminal harassment statute.
* HRS Chapter 489: This addresses discrimination in public accommodations.
* Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: A common law tort.
The Circuit Court’s Decision and the Dismissal
The Credit Union Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Wideman’s claims under Hawai’i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Circuit Court initially granted the motion in part on February 9, 2023. The court dismissed Wideman’s claims under HRS §§ 378-2, 657-7, and 711-1106 with prejudice (meaning they could not be refiled). The court dismissed his claims under HRS Chapter 489 and for intentional infliction of emotional distress with leave to amend, giving Wideman 30 days to file a second amended complaint.
Wideman failed to file a second amended complaint within the specified timeframe. As a result, the Credit Union Defendants again moved to dismiss the remaining claims. The Circuit Court granted this motion on September 12, 2023, dismissing the HRS Chapter 489 and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. On September 21, 2023, the Final Judgment entered judgment for the Credit Union Defendants and against Wideman as to all claims.
Wideman did not file a motion to amend the Final Judgment or seek relief from the judgment. He then filed a timely notice of appeal.
The Appellate Court’s Findings
The Intermediate Court of Appeals reviewed the Circuit Court’s decision de novo, meaning they reviewed it without deference to the lower court’s findings. The appellate court focused on Wideman’s arguments in his opening brief.
The court found that Wideman’s arguments about the Circuit Court’s dismissal of his claims under HRS §§ 378-2, 657-7, and 711-1106 were without merit.
* HRS § 378-2: The court found that this statute, which concerns employment discrimination, was not applicable because Wideman did not allege that he was an employee or applicant of the Credit Union.
* HRS § 657-7: The court stated that this statute is a statute of limitations, not a cause of action, and therefore the claim was properly dismissed.
* HRS § 711-1106: The court determined that this criminal harassment statute does not provide a private right of action, meaning an individual cannot sue under it.
The appellate court noted that Wideman’s opening brief did not present any other arguments. The court, therefore, affirmed the Circuit Court’s Final Judgment.