In Re Cynthia Arteaga v. the State of Texas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 25-JUN-2025 08:09 AM Dkt. 56 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I MEILING K. AKUNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDY STEHL and JIM FALK MOTORS OF MAUI, Defendants-Appellees APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT WAILUKU DIVISION (CASE NO. 2DRC-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Meiling K. Akuna (Akuna) appeals from the District Court of the Second Circuit's (district court)1 May 3, 2023 Judgment, entered in favor of 1 The Honorable Blaine J. Kobayashi presided.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Defendants-Appellees Andy Stehl (Stehl) and Jim Falk Motors of Maui (Falk Motors) (collectively, the Defendants). Akuna raises three issues on appeal,2 contending that the district court: (1) "erred in giving nominal concern in [Akuna's] case"; (2) "erred on the manner in which the trials were conducted"; and (3) "applied the wrong legal standard in finding [Akuna's] case unmerited." Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Akuna's appeal as follows. In August 2021, Akuna filed the operative Amended Complaint, alleging that the Defendants committed fraud by selling her a "truck [that] was previously damaged in a rollover accident" that had been represented as being "a new truck." The case proceeded to a bench trial. After Akuna rested her case, the Defendants moved for a directed verdict. The district court ruled as follows, Ms. Akuna, the [c]ourt in this case has listened to the testimony of the witnesses that you've called to support your claim. 2 We note that Akuna's opening brief does not, among other things, include a statement of points of error or arguments on appeal as required by Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28. We will nevertheless address Akuna's contentions of error to the extent they are discernible. See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Wright, Nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, & CAAP-20- 0000364, 2023 WL 4104953, at *2 (Haw. App. June 21, 2023) (SDO) ("[W]e interpret pleadings prepared by self-represented litigants liberally and attempt to afford them appellate review even though they fail to comply with court rules.") (citation omitted). 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Ah, the [c]ourt has also had the opportunity to review the exhibits which were received in evidence. You know, unfortunately the [c]ourt [cannot] see or find any evidence of your claim that the vehicle that was sold to you on April 4th, 2013 was, in fact, a used vehicle as opposed to a new vehicle. Ah, because of that, your claim fails and you have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence the claim set forth in your complaint. So unfortunately, at this time the [c]ourt has no alternative but to rule in favor of the [D]efendant[s]. The [c]ourt is granting the defense's motion for directed verdict. Judgment is entered in favor of the [D]efendants and against [Akuna]. (Emphasis added.) A motion for a directed verdict in a district court trial shall be considered as a motion to dismiss under District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 41(b).3 Cf. Ontai v. Straub Clinic & Hosp. Inc., 66 Haw. 237, 252, 659 P.2d 734, 745 (1983) ("A motion for a directed verdict [under Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 50(a)4] in a nonjury case will be 3 DCRCP Rule 41(b) states, in relevant part, After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant, without waiving the defendant's right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth No. 02-25-00085-CV GREGORY S. THOMAS AND T-4 FARM, § On Appeal from the 17th District LLC, Appellants Court § of Tarrant County (17-360705-25) V. § June 19, 2025 BRIAN C. THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY § Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice AND ON BEHALF OF POST OAK OIL & Sudderth GAS, LP AND POST OAK OIL & GAS GP, LLC, Appellee JUDGMENT This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It is further ordered that Gregory S. Thomas and T-4 Farm, LLC shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS COLLIN McCLEARY, § No. 08-24-00116-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v. § 109th District Court CTL CORP., § of Winkler County, Texas Appellee. § (TC# DC20-17766) JUDGMENT The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee recover from Appellant all costs of appeal, and that this decision be certified below for observance. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of June 2025. MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ. Palafox, J., concurring without written opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 27, 2025 NO. 03-24-00835-CV Farrah Agahi, D.M.D; Scott Law Ortho Corp., P.C.; and Julie Avalos, Appellants v. Jeffrey Flynt, Appellee APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES TRIANA, THEOFANIS, AND CRUMP REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE CRUMP This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on December 3, 2024. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the court’s order. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s order and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.

J-S18039-25 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 CARMINE JOSEPH BLOISE, JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : CHRISTINA JOY DADEY : No. 281 WDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered February 7, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD 24-011676 BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: August 15, 2025 Appellant, Carmine Joseph Bloise, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s order which, upon petition of Appellee, Christina Joy Dadey, denied and struck Appellant’s praecipe to discontinue while simultaneously discontinuing the matter with prejudice. After careful review, we affirm in part and dismiss the appeal in part as moot1. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 Appellant has also filed before this Court an “Application for Relief Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 430(a) AND Pa.R.A.P. 2185, in which he seeks a “special order under Pa.R.C.P. 430(a) declaring that service of appellate papers upon Appellee via the court-approved OurFamilyWizard platform constitutes valid service and shall not be deemed ‘harassment’”. As no such charges have been filed in the instant case, and therefore this request is in effect a petition for an advisory opinion, Appellant’s application is DENIED. See Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford, 923 A.2d 482, 489 (Pa. Super. 2007)(“[T]his Court is precluded from rendering advisory opinions.”). J-S18039-25 In his complaint filed on October 21, 2024, Appellant averred that he and Appellee were involved in a romantic relationship which came to an end during the period of time between July and December of 2022. The couple have one child together, A.B., custody of whom is the subject of an active case in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County and is also the subject of an appeal currently pending before this Court. Appellant also has a child from a prior relationship to whom he avers Appellee developed a relationship akin to a stepparent. On August 8, 2022, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County issued a Protection from Abuse Final Order against Appellant which altered the structure of Appellant’s custody of A.B. This Order is also the subject of a separate currently pending appeal before this Court. With that in mind, in the instant matter Appellant alleged that on October 22, 2022, Appellee: “initiated a series of text messages asking for [Appellant’s] help with the children and proposed a trip to Target, despite the day being outside of the scheduled custody arrangement. [Appellee] coordinated the day's activities and explicitly requested [Appellant’s] presence at her residence. During the morning of October 22, [Appellee] indicated no objection to [Appellant’s] presence at her residence. Instead, [Appellee] actively engaged in coordinating the day's activities, referencing [Appellant’s] prior visits to her home that week []. Later, [Appellee] explicitly requested via phone call that [Appellant] come to her residence.” Appellant’s Complaint at 6-7. Appellant avers that a disagreement ensued at the residence which resulted in Appellant using his phone to record Appellee making potentially incriminating statements. Appellant alleges that Appellee threatened to “put -2- J-S18039-25 [him] in jail,” if he did not erase the recording. Id. He then avers that Appellee made a false report to the police wherein she indicated that on October 22, 2022, he had instead “entered [Appellee’s] home during a custody exchange, pushed past her, refused to leave for two hours, and filmed her;” this report resulted in the filing of criminal charges for indirect criminal contempt. Id. at 8. Appellant alleged that these accusations caused him “significant emotional distress, reputational damage, and financial losses.” Id. at 9. He contends that Appellee’s actions “were part of a calculated scheme to manipulate the legal system for personal revenge,” and were “intended to intimidate [him] and harm his relationship with his children and his reputation.” Id. at 10. Based upon these allegations, Appellant’s complaint sets forth three causes of action: abuse of process, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. Appellant also filed, on October 21, 2024, a motion in limine concerning