JERRE PSAK v. KEITH KARDASH (2026)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Self-represented Respondent-Appellant Keith Kardash appeals from the District Court of the First Circuit's November 26, 2024 summary denial of his post-judgment “Expedited Non-Hearing Ex Parte Motion for an Order Staying Enforcement of First Amended Injunction Against Harassment Filed on 11/1/23 Pending a Court Hearing on Respondent's Non-Hearing Motion for an Order Clarifiying [sic] the Vague and Ambiguous Special Conditions 1 and 2 of the First Amended Injunction Against Harassment Filed on 11/1/23, Filed on 7/30/24, and on Respondent's Non-Hearing Motion for a Court Order Allowing Respondent to Play the Violin” (Order Denying Motion to Stay).¹ (Formatting altered.) The First Amended Injunction Against Harassment was entered in favor of his neighbor, Petitioner-Appellee Jerre Psak, on November 1, 2023, pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 604-10.5 (2016 & Supp. 2023).²

Kardash's opening brief consists of two sentences:

Judge Chris A.K. Thomas and Judge David Hayakawa were biased, failed to support their decisions with evidence, testimony or legal basis, abused their power and violated the Hawaii Revised Code of Judicial Conduct. This Honorable Court should reverse Judge Thomas’ and Judge Hayakawa's decisions, vacate Petitioner-Appellee JERRE PSAK'S injunction and award Respondent-Appellant KEITH D. KARDASH with attorney's fees and costs.

See Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b) (setting forth opening brief requirements); HRAP Rule 1(d) (“Attorneys and pro se parties are deemed to be aware of, and are expected to comply with, all of the provisions of these rules.”). No answering brief was filed.

Kardash appears to seek reversal of the district court's various orders, vacatur of the First Amended Injunction Against Harassment, and an award of attorneys’ fees. However, Kardash appeals from the Order Denying Motion to Stay and presents no discernible argument upon which this court can conclude the district court abused its discretion as to that order. See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368, 380, 465 P.3d 815, 827 (2020) (requiring self-represented filings to be liberally construed “so long as the litigant's argument can reasonably be discerned”).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's November 26, 2024 Order Denying Motion to Stay.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 31, 2026.

On the briefs:

Keith Kardash, Self-represented Respondent-Appellant.

Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge

Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable David M. Hayakawa entered the November 26, 2024 Order Denying Motion to Stay.

2.   The Honorable Chris A.K. Thomas entered the November 1, 2023 First Amended Injunction Against Harassment. There was no appeal from this injunction. Thus, we have no jurisdiction to review the First Amended Injunction Against Harassment.