RAMIREZ v. SANTOS, 25713 (Haw. 9-8-2003)

ALEXANDRA RAMIREZ; AND MIGUEL RAMIREZ, Plaintiffs/Appellees v. ELGIN SANTOS; EDWARD SANTOS; VIOLET-MARIE M. ROSEHILL, Individually and as Trustee under the Violet-Marie M. Rosehill Revocable Living Trust Dated December 23, 1986; and ESTATE OF MICHAEL MACKINNON, by Clerk of the Court Acting as Special Administrator, Defendants/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/Cross-Claim Defendants/Appellees and MARCUS F. ROSEHILL, Individually and as Trustee under the Marcus F. Rosehill Revocable Living Trust Dated December 23, 1986, Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant and THE LANDSCAPE WORKS, INC.; and JAMES ANDREWS, Defendants/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/Cross-Claim Defendants/Appellants and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/ Counterclaim Defendant/Appellant and VERIZON HAWAII, INC., FKA GTE HAWAIIAN TEL CO., INC., a Hawaii Corporation; and HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., a Hawaii Corporation, Defendants/Third-Party Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/ Cross-Claim Defendants/Appellants

25713Supreme Court of Hawaii.
September 8, 2003.

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 00-1-2467)

Jeffrey s. Portnoy Kaiulani E.S. Kidani (Cades Schutte) for third-party defendant-appellant Verizon Hawaii, Inc., fka GTE Hawaiian Tel. Co., Inc.

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, and ACOBA, JJ., and CIRCUIT JUDGE WILSON, IN PLACE OF DUFFY, J., RECUSED

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss appeal filed by Third-Party Defendant/Appellant Verizon Hawaii, Inc., fka GTE Hawaiian Telephone Co., Inc., the papers in support, and the records and files herein, it appears that: (1) Verizon Hawaii, Inc. filed a notice of appeal on March 21, 2003; (2) Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. and the City and County of Honolulu filed joinders in Verizon `s notice of appeal; (3) on August 13, 2003, this court entered an order dismissing the appeals of Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. and the City and County of Honolulu; and (4) Verizon states that the parties have settled the underlying case, the settlement was approved, and Verizon no longer wishes to pursue its appeal. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed.