Khalil Coleman v. Kentucky General Assembly

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 20-JUN-2025 07:58 AM Dkt. 63 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I MERVINA KAUKINI MAMO CASH-KAEO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUY K. BARRETT; RONETTE BARRETT, Defendants-Appellants, DUSTIN K. BARRETT; SHEENA ANN BARRETT; RICHARD BARRETT; LEZLEY K. BARRETT aka LEZLEY BRADBURY, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT WAI‘ANAE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.) Defendants-Appellants Guy K. Barrett and Ronette Barrett (collectively, the Barretts) appeal from the District Court of the First Circuit's (district court)1 May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. They raise three points of error, contending that the district court abused its discretion when: 1 The Honorable Darolyn H. Lendio entered the Judgment for Possession. The Honorable Michelle N. Comeau presided over the April 26, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff-Appellee Mervina Kaukini Mamo Cash-Kaeo's (Cash- Kaeo) motion for summary judgment (MSJ).  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (1) "it defaulted [the Barretts] for [their] non[-]appearance [at the MSJ hearing] where the facts show [the Barretts had] defended themselves in this action by retaining counsel" who "made eight court appearances at hearings in defense of [the Barretts]"; (2) "it applied the extreme sanctions methodology" by entering default judgment against the Barretts "for the failure of their counsel to appear at the hearing on [Cash- Kaeo's] [MSJ]"; and (3) "it allowed the hearing on [Cash-Kaeo's] [MSJ] to proceed without first addressing [counsel's] non[- ]appearance at this hearing." 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 the Barretts' appeal as follows. The Barretts contend that the district court entered default judgment against them pursuant to District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 55. The record reflects, however, that the district court entered the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession against the Barretts because Cash-Kaeo demonstrated she was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law under DCRCP Rule 56. Pursuant to DCRCP Rule 56(c), a motion for summary judgment may be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Kanahele v. State, 154 Hawaiʻi 190, 201, 549 P.3d 275, 286 (2024). The Barretts point to no evidence in the record indicating a genuine issue of material fact disputing that Cash- Kaeo is the sole surviving lessee of the subject property, and that Cash-Kaeo is therefore entitled to judgment of possession against the Barretts as a matter of law. The Barretts also cite no authority indicating the district court was required to address their counsel's non-appearance at the MSJ hearing before it could grant the MSJ. Even if the district court was required to do so, the Barretts fail to identify any legal theory or issue of fact that could have or would have been presented in opposition to the MSJ to defeat the motion. We therefore conclude the district court did not err in granting the MSJ, and affirm the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 20, 2025. On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Barry L. Sooalo, for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge Jay T. Suemori, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00085-CR Ricardo Sanchez Enriquez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On appeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Thomas C. West, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2008-1925 JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Ricardo Sanchez Enriquez appeals from the trial court’s order that denied his “Constitutional Rights of Object and Right to Allocation Motion” in the above proceedings. By letter from the Clerk of this Court dated March 17, 2025, Appellant was notified that there did not appear to be a final, appealable order and instructed him to file a response to demonstrate jurisdiction. Enriquez has subsequently filed two motions but has not responded to the Clerk’s letter. Our review of the clerk’s record filed in this proceeding does not show an appealable order over which this Court has jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). All pending motions are denied. LEE HARRIS Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 18, 2025 Before Justice Smith, Justice Harris, and Senior Chief Justice Wright 1 Appeal dismissed Do not publish CRPM 1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. Enriquez v. State Page 2

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-24-00248-CV Big Creek Construction, LTD., Appellant v. Jerry Steele Fagan, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Jimmie Edward Fagan, Nikkie Marchant, and Lisa Daves, Appellees On appeal from the 82nd District Court of Robertson County, Texas Judge Rex Davis, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 21-01-21174-CV CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Big Creek Construction, LTD., appealed from the trial court’s interlocutory "Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendant Big Creek Construction, Ltd.'s Amended Motion for No Evidence and Traditional Summary Judgment." On January 3, 2025, the Court was advised that the parties had reached a settlement and requested an abatement in order to execute the terms of the settlement. This proceeding was stayed upon the request of the parties on January 7, 2025. On May 16, 2025, by letter from the Clerk of this Court, the appellant was advised that it “must provide the Court with either a motion to dismiss or a status report within 14 days of the date of this letter or the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution.” Further, the appellant was notified that the failure to respond to the Clerk’s letter would constitute an independent ground for the dismissal of the appeal. No motion to dismiss or other response has been received by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 18, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Appeal dismissed CV06 Big Creek Construction, LTD. v. Fagan Page 2

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § IN RE NATURAL GAS SERVICES No. 08-25-00157-CV GROUP, INC. and CHARLES A. PEREZ, § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING Relators. § IN MANDAMUS § § MEMORANDUM OPINION Relators Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. and Charles A. Perez filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this proceeding indicating that the controversy between the parties has been resolved and the original proceeding is therefore moot. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings[.]”). Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. LISA J. SOTO, Justice June 17,2025 Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS IN RE § 08-25-00147-CV RITA ELIZABETH JONES, § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ESTELA TIBUNI § IN MANDAMUS ROMANO, DECEASED, A/K/ ESTELLA TIBUNI ROMANO, STELLA TIBUNI § ROMANO § Relator. JUDGMENT The Court has considered this cause on the motion to dismiss. We grant the motion and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We further order Relator to pay all costs of this appeal and this decision to be certified below for observance. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of June 2025. MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, J., and Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret) Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment)