JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD
Electronically Filed
Honolulu, Hawai’i 96815
JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.;
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC.; )
ELIZABETH DEAR; SHANA M. BUCO;
JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10;
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10;
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10;
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;
DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and
DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10,
Defendants-Appellees
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MOTION TO REMAND, REPLACE JUDGE AND
COMPEL RULE 11 INVESTIGATION
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-22-0000406
07-NOV-2022
10:31 PM
Dkt. 37 MOT
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
) CAAP-22-0000406
) (Appeal)
)
) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MOTION TO
) REMAND, REPLACE JUDGE AND
) COMPEL RULE 11 INVESTIGATION;
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION; ORDER GRANTING
) PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MOTION
) TO REMAND, REPLACE JUDGE AND
) COMPEL RULE 11 INVESTIGATION;
) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
)
)
)
)
)

 Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Hawai’i Rules of Civil Procedure (“HRCP”) and

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FR Civ P”),1 Plaintiff-Appellant Jeffrey Scott Goold (“Mr.

Goold” or “Plaintiff-Appellant”) moves the honorable ICA on its own initiative to enter an order

describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) of this Rule, remand this

matter to the lower court, replace Honorable Judge Dean E. Ochiai, compel Randall C. Whattoff,

partner Cox Fricke LLC, and Defendants-Appellees to file their Rule 11 motion to show cause

why they have not violated subdivision (b) of this Rule with respect thereto, and resolve the

specter of Rule 11 charges hanging over this appeal.

This motion is based on the attached memorandum, the declaration of counsel, the

attached exhibits, and the record and file herein.

Executed November 7, 2022, at Honolulu, Hawai’i.

/s/ Scott Goold

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE

1 Parties agree Isobe v. Sakatani, 127 Hawai‘i 368, 378, 279 P.3d 33, 43 (Ct. App. 2012),
“[B]ecause Hawai’i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 11 is patterned after and substantially
similar to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FR Civ P) Rule 11, we are guided by authorities
addressing and interpreting FR Civ P Rule 11.”

 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD, ) CAAP-22-0000406

) (Appeal)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
vs ) MOTION
)
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.; )
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC.; )
ELIZABETH DEAR; SHANA M. BUCO; )
JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; )
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; )
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; )
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; )
DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and )
DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, )
)
Defendants-Appellees )
)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

On October 24, 2022, pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Hawai’i Rules of Appellant

Procedure, Plaintiff-Appellant moved the honorable ICA to allow an additional 30-day

extension of time to submit his opening brief for good cause.

Plaintiff-Appellant made an error, as Mr. Goold filed an ex-parte motion. Honorable

Associate Judge Derrick H.M. Chan was forced to explain, “The Hawai'i Rules of Appellate

Procedure does not authorize the filing of ex-parte motions. Thus, the motion is not granted on

an ex-parte basis.”

As a self represented party acting pro se, the language of Hawai’i Rules of Appellant

Procedure (“HRAP”) Rule 27 confused Mr. Goold, “Unless another form is elsewhere prescribed

 by these Rules, an application for an order or other relief shall be made by filing a written motion

with proof of service on all other parties.”

A skilled litigant or attorney would know. Plaintiff-Appellant is neither. The self

represented Plaintiff-Appellant delayed proceedings, increased costs needlessly, and congested

an already busy tribunal. Not Mr. Goold’s fault, as the excusable neglect was beyond his control.

Mr. Goold hired competent legal counsel to initiate his instant action on February 25,

2019. On April 6, 2019, Defendants-Appellees served Mr. Goold with a Rule 11(c) motion for

sanctions (“Motion”) and demanded Mr. Goold “withdraw his Complaint by 21 days from the

date of this letter, [or] Hawaiian Electric would have no choice but to file the Motion.” [RA, Dkt

46, Ex 25, 9]

Attorneys withdrew. At hearing May 7, 2021, Honorable Judge Dean E. Ochiai (“Judge”)

directed Mr. Goold to obtain legal counsel. [RA, Dkt 119, 14-15 at G]

The Plaintiff-Appellant placed the action in his name [RA, Dkt 32], and directed

Defendants-Appellees to file their Motion. The Motion was deterring potential legal

representatives.

Mr. Goold repeatedly requested Defendants-Appellees file their Motion. They made

excuses. [RA, Dkt 92, Ex 77, 43] To date, Defendants-Appellees have refused to file their

Motion.

Denying Plaintiff-Appellant due process to address charges stripped Mr. Goold of his

legal council and frightened away prospective representatives. No reasonable attorney wants to

join an action with the specter of Rule 11 sanctions looming over the matter.

 Mr. Goold believes Defendants-Appellees’ refusal to file their Motion delayed legal

proceedings, unnecessarily increased costs of litigation and served to harass Mr. Goold.

Mr. Goold believes denying opposing parties counsel is not an intended purpose of Rule

11. At hearing before Judge on March 3, 2022, Plaintiff-Appellant explained the legal obstacle

the specter of the Motion created. [see Appendix A]

In response to these charges, Mr. Goold believes Defendants-Appellees lied to the court,

misrepresented their actions and intentions, and engaged in fraudulent behavior.

Mr. Goold believes Defendants-Appellees failed to provide reasonable justification why

they neglected to file their Motion with the court, and clear and convincing evidence suggests

Defendants-Appellees never intended to file, which abuses Rule 11.

I. Mr. Goold’s Complaint Has Merit

Defendants-Appellees claim Mr. Goold’s complaint does not have merit and “is merely

one component of a long-running campaign to harass Defendant Hawaiian Electric Company,

Inc. (“Hawaiian Electric”) and its employees.” [RA, Dkt 36, 1]

As the opinion of Defendants-Appellees impacts investigation of Rule 11, Mr. Goold

briefly summarizes the employment and post-termination history.

Defendant-Appellee Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (“HECO”) fired Mr. Goold on

February 25, 2019. Initially recruited as a contract employee to perform IT updates, projects like

rebuilding a core part of the Judiciary Information Management System (JIMS) to address

technical issues, for example. Mr. Goold’s outstanding performance motivated Defendant-

Appellee HECO to offer him a permanent position.

 At all times, Mr. Goold was a disabled employee and prescribed pain medication for his

disability. HECO had not required a pre-employment substance abuse assessment.

Mr. Goold checked corporate code provided by supervisor Lori Yafuso. Policy suggested

his medication was permitted. [RA, Dkt 18, Ex 2, 44 (d)]

To verify, Mr. Goold disclosed his medication use, disability and sought assurances from

Defendant-Appellee HR rep Elizabeth Dear (“Dear”) on February 14, 2019, prior to agreeing to

submit to a pre-employment substance abuse assessment requested by the company.

Dear did not inform Mr. Goold of a corporate restriction; Dear did not direct Mr. Goold to

speak with anyone else. Mr. Goold believes Dear confirmed that his medication would “be fine.”

Defendant-Appellee HECO regulations require their substance abuse policy be made

available to all employees. [RA, Dkt 36, Ex 1, 19, 9.0 Training] Defendants-Appellees failed to

make Mr. Goold aware.

On February 19, 2019, Mr. Goold and Defendant-Appellee HECO learned that Mr.

Goold’s medication indicated positive on their drug assessment. [RA, Dkt 54 Ex 30, 21]

Defendants-Appellees did not make Mr. Goold aware of an issue with his medication.

On February 20, 2019, Defendant-Appellee HECO confirmed Mr. Goold had been

officially selected to begin the new role. Defendant-Appellee HECO directed Mr. Goold to

terminate his relationship with the contractor agency at close of business February 22, 2019, and

report for duty as a permanent HECO employee, Monday morning, February 25, 2019.

Mr. Goold reported that Supervisor Yafuso and coworkers applauded and congratulated

his success in a small ceremony Friday afteroon, February 22, 2019.

 Mr. Goold arrived early for work around 7:15am on February 25, 2019, as he was excited

and motivated to begin the new role as HECO non-safety-sensitive employee.

Busy working on short, medium and long-term projects, Mr. Goold received a phone call

around 11:15am from Defendant-Appellee HR director Shana M. Buco (“Buco”).

Buco fired Mr. Goold and told the disabled employee he was no longer eligible to serve

HECO in any capacity. Mr. Goold reported Buco claimed he presented a danger to coworkers,

company and general public; directed Mr. Goold to immediately cease all work; and exit the

building immediately. Mr. Goold had served as a HECO employee for about four hours.

Defendants-Appellees did not consult with Mr. Goold prior to the termination.

Defendants-Appellees did not discuss the medication or their policy with Mr. Goold. Defendants-

Appellees did not offer Mr. Goold an opportunity to change medication or apply for a waiver.

Mr. Goold claims Defendants-Appellees fired him in a cruel and dehumanizing manner.

Mr. Goold was devastated. Embarrassed by the unexpected termination, humiliated and

traumatized not only for losing an important job, but for letting down his IT “SEAL team” of

non-safety-sensitive professionals, Mr. Goold became distraught and suicidal.

Mr. Goold pleaded that he be allowed to speak with corporate compliance officers.

Defendants-Appellees denied Mr. Goold’s request. Defendants-Appellees refused to speak with

Mr. Goold.

A. Cruel Treatment of Men Hawai’i

Mr. Goold is a legal medical patient suffering a disability, and believes the women of

Hawaiian Electric cared nothing for him — while demonstrating abject cruelty. Hawaiian

Electric pledges to pursue ‘imi pono — strive for righteous, to be fair in all their dealings, and

 states “the Company may waive application of the policies set forth in the Code.” [RA, Dkt 18,

Ex 2, 16, 36 and 39 respectively]

Mr. Goold knows a Korean colleague who was battling breast cancer when he was

terminated. Plaintiff-Appellant believes it doubtful female executives at Hawaiian Electric would

have fired her had she used the same medication as Mr. Goold. Mr. Goold believes the women of

Hawaiian Electric would extend compassion to another woman.

Mr. Goold is a public health professional. [RA, Dkt 40, Ex 18, 32] Mr. Goold is an opioid

addiction specialist trained through a CDC-sponsored program at the University of New Mexico

School of Medicine. [RA, Dkt 40, Ex 19, 35-36] Due to his injuries and disability, doctors

prescribed Mr. Goold opioids, and he was concerned about deadly opioid addiction.

Civil Beat recently reported medical cannabis can reduce the need for opioid painkillers,

as opioid emergency room visits dropped nearly 8% and opioid prescriptions are modestly lower

in states where cannabis is legalized.2

Civil Beat author Neal Milner discussed the disparate treatment between boys and girls in

Hawai’i.3 Hawai’i and the nation face a boy crisis.4 Milner claims, “Boys are not on the radar the

way social class, race, disabilities, and, for that matter, women are.”

This trend appears to effect men like Mr. Goold. Women at Hawaiian Electric

disqualified Mr. Goold without discussion. They refused his requests to meet with HECO

2 https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/11/how-cannabis-could-reduce-the-need-for-opioid-painkillers/
3 https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/10/neal-milner-boys-will-be-boys-and-that-isnt-such-a-good-
thing-when-it-comes-to-test-scores/
4Farrell, Warren and John Gray, The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We
Can Do About It, BenBella Books, Inc. Dallas, Texas, 2018: https://boycrisis.org

 compliance officers. They denied Mr. Goold policy information related to his medication, and

failed to disclose to Mr. Goold there was a pathway back to employment.5 [RA, Dkt 36, Ex 1, 18,

4.8 Return to Duty]

Mr. Goold simply wanted to work. Traumatized, he spent weeks contemplating suicide

perched on the ledge of his 25th floor apartment. Cruel and incompetent woman at Hawaiian

Electric offered no kindness or compassion to the employee the company had recruited, offered

employment, and now ostracized like a drug criminal.

B. Mr. Goold Zealously Advocated for His Employment Position

Distraught, angry, depressed, grief-stricken, forlorn and without hope, Mr. Goold spoke

with his doctor about his mental and emotional health. The professional asked if he wanted to

speak with a therapist. Mr. Goold explained he doubted talking about the loss would help him —

Mr. Goold believed he needed to take action to climb out of this deep, dark space.

Mr. Goold pleaded with HECO staff, Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. CEO Constance

Hee Lau, Governor Ige and Lt. Governor Green. Mr. Goold begged his U.S. Congresswoman

Tulsi Gabbard to speak to corporate officials on his behalf. Nobody came to his aid.

Each day, Mr. Goold wrote to representatives or corporate officials zealously advocating

a return to work for himself — and an end to the discrimination more than 25,000+ medical

patients suffered in Hawai’i at the time.6

5Defendants-Appellees did not make available to Mr. Goold the required policy until about April
6, 2021.
6 Number of patients in 2019. About 35,000+ medical patients in Hawai’i at this time.

 Hawaiian Electric denied all these medical patients opportunity to work for company

affiliates. The corporate policy is not based on science or evidence-based medical research, and

defies statute in Hawai’i. Over 90% of Americans approve the use of the medication.

Most importantly, there are some 42 states, territories and districts in the U.S. that permit

Mr. Goold’s medication. No jurisdiction prohibits a patient like Mr. Goold, who medicates in the

evening, from driving a motor vehicle to work or school the next morning. No professional

claims the patient would be impaired or under the influence. The cruelty of Defendants-

Appellees is irrational and inhumane.

C. Defendants-Appellees Serve Mr. Goold Frivolous Rule 11 Motion

Due to Mr. Goold’s efforts to zealously advocate for himself, family and other medical

patients, Defendants-Appellees served Mr. Goold with a Motion for sanctions.

Defendants-Appellees refused to file the Motion, and Mr. Goold believes Defendants-

Appellees were not confident they would prevail if they filed the Motion.

Defendants-Appellees unequivocally expressed intent to file the Motion, which forced

Mr. Goold ethically to disclose the Motion for sanctions to prospective legal representatives.

Mr. Goold believes by maintaining the specter of Motion over his complaint, Defendants-

Appellees stigmatized and isolated Mr. Goold in this small island community and successfully

deterred legal representatives from assisting him.

Mr. Goold believes not filing the Motion was a superior strategy for Defendants-

Appellees, as Defendants-Appellees accomplished their goal of neutering Mr. Goold’s action

without taking risk associated with filing.

 Mr. Goold believes that Defendants-Appellees’ refusal to file the Motion runs counter to

the expressed intent of Rule 11 provisions.

Mr. Goold requested Judge open a sua sponte Rule 11 investigation of Defendants-

Appellees’ behavior, which the Judge denied. [RA, Dkt 119, 12]

Defendants-Appellees notified Mr. Goold initially about April 6, 2021, that they intended

to file their Motion if he did not withdraw his complaint. However, Defendants-Appellees

refused to file the Motion.

Defendants-Appellees defrauded Mr. Goold, failed to engage Mr. Goold in good faith and

abused Rule 11.

II. Points of Error

Defendants-Appellees failed to make Mr. Goold aware of their corporate substance abuse

policy, although Mr. Goold disclosed his medication, disability, and requested assurance he was

compliant with corporate policy. Mr. Goold believes Defendants-Appellees were negligent.

Mr. Goold reported Defendants-Appellees refused to communicate directly with him after

February 27, 2019. [RA, Dkt 40, Ex 23, 69-73] Mr. Goold believes Defendants-Appellees were

unprofessional and cruel.

Mr. Goold reported to the lower court that Defendants-Appellees served him with a Rule

11 Motion for sanctions, but denied his repeated requests that Defendants-Appellees file their

motion. Mr. Goold believes Defendants-Appellees violated his due process, abused Rule 11, and

behaved as corporate bullies and cowards.

 In defense of the allegations made by Mr. Goold, Defendants-Appellees claimed they

were unable to file their Motion because Plaintiff-Appellant had failed to serve his complaint.

[RA, Dkt 119, 31, lines 16-20]

1. Defendants-Appellees (a) spoke falsely before the lower court, (b) knew or should

have known their statement was false, and (c) spoke falsely for the purpose of deceiving the

lower court about their alleged abuse of Rule 11.

2. Defendants-Appellees’ abuse of Rule 11 (a) delayed proceedings before the lower

court, (b) increased costs associated with this litigation action, and (c) resulted in harassing Mr.

Goold.

3. Defendants-Appellees’ abuse of Rule 11 (a) delayed proceedings before the ICA

court, (b) increased costs associated with this litigation action, and (c) resulted in harassing Mr.

Goold.

4. Defendants-Appellees failed to deal with Mr. Goold in good faith

5. Defendants-Appellees engaged in fraudulent behavior

6. Judge Dean E. Ochiai displayed a lack of professional knowledge regarding Rule

11 and failed to behave impartially in this matter.

III. Standard of Review

Point of Error #1
Defendants-Appellees (a) spoke falsely before the lower court, (b) knew or should have

known their statement was false, and (c) spoke falsely for the purpose of deceiving the lower

court about their alleged abuse of Rule 11.

(a) False statement by Defendants-Appellees:

10

 “So because plaintiff has never served his complaint on Hawaiian Electric
or any of the other defendants, they have been unable to file a Rule 11
motion or take other action to address the allegations.”
[RA, Dkt 98, Ex 4, 27, lines 16-20]

False. Defendants-Appellees were not banned, prohibited or prevented from filing their

Rule 11 motion prior to Mr. Goold serving Defendants-Appellees with the complaint.

Mr. Goold cited U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) decision in 1990, 110 S.Ct. at

2454-57, and articulated in Bryant v. Brooklyn Barbecue Corp, 932 F.2d 697 (8th Cir. 1991):

“Plaintiff’s counsel argues the court lacked jurisdiction to impose

sanctions because defendants in this case were never served with the
original complaint, and hence could not be ‘parties’ entitled to an award of
expenses under Rule 11. We find the Supreme Court’s decision in Cooter
resolves this issue in favor of the court’s authority to award sanctions even
though the original complaint was dismissed prior to service on the
defendants.”

(b) Defendants-Appellees knew or should have known their statement was false, as

they stated previously:

“We do still plan on filing the Rule 11 motion. For the purposes of
efficiency, our plan was to file it at the same time as the response to the
complaint so that the issues can be decided at the same time. We can give
that some further thought, but my inclination is to hold off until service
occurs and we respond to the complaint.” [RA, Dkt 98, 4] (emphasis
mine)

Rule 11 has been amended numerous times for the specific purpose of requiring lawyers

to act more responsibly toward the court, rather than as mere narrow-minded adversaries, with

appropriate sanctions, including attorneys’ fees, looming as the stick.7

7 See Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 97 F.R.D. 165, 190-92 (1983), as
cited in Vairo, Georgene, “Rule 11 and the Profession”, Fordham Law Review, Article 12,
Volume 67, Issue 2, 1998, p593.

11

 An attorney’s conduct must be held to an objective test, and, to counter reluctance to

impose sanctions, the amendments required courts to impose sanctions whenever an attorney

violated provisions to prevent abuses and streamline the civil litigation process by dispelling

apprehension that efforts to obtain enforcement under the rules would be fruitless.8

There appears to be broad consensus that Rule 11 has accomplished the principle

objective of its drafters: to lead litigants to “stop, think and investigate more carefully before

serving and filing papers.”9

Moreover, the language of Rule 11 changed significantly to govern not simply the

certification of the paper as a whole, “but extends to separate claims, defenses, and legal

contentions it contains; and certification of compliance occurs, not only upon the initial filing of

a paper, but also upon the later presenting or advocating of its contents.”10

A core element of professionalism in litigation is the lawyer’s duty of candor, and the

existence of such a duty is not in dispute. As an officer of the court, a lawyer is “obligated not to

make false or misleading statements to the court.” 11

“A court has a right to expect that counsel will state the controlling law
fairly and fully; indeed, unless that is done the court cannot perform its
task properly. A lawyer must not mistake the law, fail to disclose adverse
authority (not disclosed by his opponent) or omit facts critical to the
application of the rule of law relied upon.” Golden Eagle Distrib. Corp. v.
Burroughs Corp., 103 F.R.D. 124, 127 (N.D. Cal. 1984).

8 Id., p598.
9Schwarzer, William W., “Rule 11 Entering a New Era”, UC Hastings Scholarship Repository,
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, 1994, p11.
10 Id., p13
11 Id., p24.

12

 Although there is tolerance for “matters arising for the first time during oral presentations

to the court,” 12 the 1993 Notes also “emphasizes the duty of candor by subjecting litigants to

potential sanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable.”13

(c) Mr. Goold believes Defendants-Appellees spoke falsely for the purpose of

deceiving the lower court about their alleged abuse of Rule 11.

Mr. Goold notified the lower court of a possible lack of candor on March 14, 2022, in his

ex-parte motion to enlarge time to serve and deliver objections of proposed findings and

conclusions per RCCH Rule 21(a). [RA, Dkt 69, 3-4]

Defendants-Appellees did not file their Motion after being made aware SCOTUS had

clarified they were not required to wait until Mr. Goold served his complaint.

To the contrary, the statement of position filed by Defendants-Appellees three (3) days

later claimed, “There is nothing improper regarding Hawaiian Electric waiting until after it was

served with the Complaint or the First Amended Complaint before filing its Rule 11 Motion.”

[RA, Dkt 73, 2]

Plaintiff-Appellant argued Defendants-Appellees’ response was a red herring. [RA, Dkt

83, 4-5] As of this date, Defendants-Appellees continue their refusal to file their Motion.

Egregiously, Defendants-Appellees reported to the lower court that there is “no merit to

any of [Plaintiff-Appellants’s] allegations, and that this lawsuit is merely one component of a

long-running campaign harass Defendant Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.” [RA, Dkt 36, 2]

12 Id., p15
13 Id., p16.

13

 A party claiming harassment has an obligation to file a motion for sanctions as soon as

practicable after discovery of a Rule 11 violation. Divane v. Kroll Elec. Co., 200. F.3d 1020,

1027 (7th Cir 1999); XCO Int’l, Inc. v. Pacific Scientific Co., No. 01-C-6851, 2003 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 7286 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2003).

Further, it is outrageous that Defendants-Appellees refused to file their Motion after they

reported Mr. Goold’s complaint was injuring their own employees. [see Appendix B]

Defendants-Appellees expressed intent to file their Motion beginning April 6, 2021.

Defendants-Appellees delayed and refused to file knowing the delay was harming their own

employees, although Mr. Goold requested they file the Motion on numerous occasions.

Defendants-Appellees defrauded Mr. Goold failing to serve their Motion, denying him

due process to respond to the allegations and obstructing his search for legal counsel.

Point of Error #2
Defendants-Appellees’ abuse of Rule 11 (a) delayed proceedings before the lower court,

(b) increased costs associated with this litigation action, and (c) resulted in harassing Mr. Goold.

Through attorneys, Mr. Goold filed the initial complaint February 25, 2021. The legal

strategy of the team was to retrieve a ruling or Right to Sue letter from the Hawai’i Civil Rights

Commission (“Commission”), as the Commission filed a charge of discrimination against

Defendants-Appellees August 2019.14

14 Mr. Goold’s complaint before the Commission languishes to this date. Mr. Goold claims the
Commission refuses to investigate the charge as volunteer Commission chair Liann Ebesugawa
is currently employed and compensated by Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., and formerly by
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.

14

 (a) Defendants-Appellees served Mr. Goold with their Motion on April 6, 2021. The

attorneys representing Mr. Goold withdrew, and legal action has been delayed as Mr. Goold

searched Hawai’i, California, Oregon and other regions for an attorney willing to assist.

(b) Mr. Goold was required to pay $1,000 to attorney Eric T. Krening, Esq. to analyze

the merits of the initial complaint, as well as $1,500 to review Defendants-Appellees’ Motion.

Legal costs increased due to the service of Defendants-Appellees’ motion.

(c) Mr. Goold notified Defendants-Appellees numerous times that he considered the

specter of the Rule 11 Motion to be intimidation and harassment, as Defendants-Appellees

denied the Plaintiff-Appellant a due process opportunity to respond to their allegations. [see

Appendix C]

Point of Error #3
Defendants-Appellees’ abuse of Rule 11 (a) delayed proceedings before the ICA, (b)

increased costs associated with this litigation action, and (c) resulted in harassing Mr. Goold.

(a) Absent competent legal representation, Mr. Goold requested extension to submit

his opening brief pursuant to Rule 29(a) of HRAP.

Absent competent legal representation, Mr. Goold filed an ex-parte motion to extend the

time to submit his opening brief pursuant to Rule 29(b) of HRAP.

(b) Mr. Goold made an error of excusable neglect by filing an ex-parte motion

requiring Honorable Associate Judge Derrick H.M. Chan to file a memo clarifying the process

(rather than simply granting Mr. Goold’s order), which increased costs.

15

 Clerk of the ICA was forced to correct the record October 26, 2022, after Defendants-

Appellees incorrectly labeled their response to Mr. Goold’s ex-parte motion October 25, 2022,

which increased costs.

(c) Plaintiff-Appellant reports that the specter of the Rule 11 Motion harasses Mr.

Goold to this day, as Defendants-Appellees deny him a due process opportunity to address

and respond to their allegations.

Point of Error #4
Defendants-Appellees failed to deal with Mr. Goold in good faith pursuant to provisions

of HRS §490:5-102 — “Good faith” means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction

concerned.

Beginning on April 6, 2021, and continuing still today, Defendants-Appellees expressed

intend to file their Motion. Defendants-Appellees did not file their Motion and have not been

honest in fact with Mr. Goold.

Point of Error #5
Defendants-Appellees engaged in a strategy of Threat & Retreat. Defendants-Appellees

changed their justification numerous times why they neglected to file the Motion with the court.

As of today, Defendants-Appellees have not filed their Motion. [RA, Dkt 92, 13-19]

Behavior by Defendants-Appellees to deceive Mr. Goold is malicious, injured Plaintiff-

Appellant, and constitutes intent to defraud under provisions of HRS §708-800.

16

 Mr. Goold states a property right claim to employment.15 A party alleging fraud must

prove fraud by “clear and convincing evidence.” Iddings v. Mee-Lee, 82 Hawaiʻi 1, 14, 919 P.2d

263, 276 (1996)

The clear and convincing standard means the evidence is highly and substantially more

likely to be true than untrue. In other words, the fact finder must be convinced that the contention

is highly probable. Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984).

A litigant may file a Rule 11 motion after final judgment has been entered, as long as the

21-day safe harbor period required by the rule has run. Huggins v. Lueder, Larkin & Hunter,

LLC, 39 F.4th 1342 (11th Cir. July 12, 2022).

Clear and convincing evidence confirms it is highly and substantially more likely to be

true than untrue that Defendants-Appellees never intended to file their Motion, because

Defendants-Appellees never did file their Motion.

Point of Error #6
Judge Dean E. Ochiai displayed a lack of professional knowledge regarding Rule 11 and

behaved partially in this matter to favor local, prestigious Hawaiian Electric et al.

As discussed previously, Defendants-Appellees stated falsely, “So because plaintiff has

never served his complaint on Hawaiian Electric or any of the other defendants, they have been

unable to file a Rule 11 motion or take other action to address the allegations.”

(a) Judge made an error of law supporting Defendants-Appellees’ statement:16

15DePaul College of Law, “Employment as a Protected Property Right”, 8 DePaul L. Rev. 54

(1958). https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol8/iss1/5
16The 1993 rule makes anyone who signs, files, or submits a paper without complying with the
rule potentially liable, and overrules Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entm’t Group, 493 U.S. 120
(1989).

17

 “But [Defendants] could not file [Rule 11 motion] because they’re not a
party to the case yet. If he had filed it prior to being a party to this case,
he would have been hit with Rule 11. And I’m talking about Mr.
Whattoff.”
[RA, Dkt 98, 32, lines 1-4]

(b) Judge demonstrated unprofessional bias disputing Mr. Goold’s

claim of Rule 11 abuse. His complaint was properly filed, and Mr. Goold
demonstrated the contained allegations have merit:

“And I have — I don't know what went on between you and your prior
counsel, but if a complaint is properly filed, contains allegations that can
withstand being summarily dismissed on a motion to dismiss, I'm not
seeing attorneys scared off by the threat of a Rule 11.”
[RA, Dkt 98, 32, lines 19-24]

(c) Judge demonstrated unprofessional bias expecting Mr. Goold to

accept Defendants-Appellees offered to waive service. The offer only
applied to Defendant-Appellee Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., which
was not advantageous to pro se Mr. Goold:

“That's why [Mr. Whattoff] is specially appearing today to say, We

offered to waive service, you declined, and you never properly served.”
[RA, Dkt 98, 32, lines 4-7]

(d) Judge made an error of law claiming Plaintiff-Appellant’s behavior was “most

troubling.” Defendants-Appellees offered wavier of service only for Defendant-Appellee HECO,

and Plaintiff-Appellant still had some 60 days to secure competent legal counsel:

“What the Court finds most troubling with respect to the plaintiff's failure
to serve within the time period allowed by the rule is that the defendant
offered to waive services and for tactical purposes, the plaintiff elected to
refuse the offer of waiver of service.”
[RA, Dkt 98, 37, lines 1-5]

(e) Judge appeared confused about the nuance of Rule 11 provisions:

“In fact, it may well be a Rule 11 to file an improper Rule 11.”

[RA, Dkt 98, 32, lines 24-25].

18

 Filing a motion for sanctions is itself subject to the requirements of the rule and can lead

to sanctions.17 Mr. Goold believes this is the reason Defendants-Appellees refused to file.

(e) Judge made error of law relative to Rule 11, as specially appearing parties are

formally part to the action:

“All right. The Court's ready to rule. The Court finds that movant, who is
appearing specially as they are not yet formally a party to this action …”
[RA, Dkt 98, 36, 15-18]

(f) Judge ignored his errors of law at the first hearing. Defendants-Appellees’ statements

were not accurate:

“Accordingly the first amended complaint will be dismissed. I will do it

without prejudice. The Court finds that the statement of facts, citation of
the rule and law are accurate …”
[RA, Dkt 98, 37, lines 6-9]

(g) Judge refused to open Rule 11 investigation sua sponte. [see Appendix D]

(h) Judge made an error of law demanding Mr. Goold provide

declarations from attorneys. [Id., 58, lines 6-9] Attorneys are not always willing

to explain why they turn down a case. May simply say “too busy,” for example.

(i) Judge stated Mr. Goold needed counsel. [see Appendix E]

(j) Defendants-Appellees again misled and deceived the lower court

in the final hearing. [see Appendix F]

(h) Judge claimed he would hold all parties equally responsible to comply with the

law. It is undeniable that Judge was not impartial and favored Defendants-Appellees:

17“Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1993 Amendment,” Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court;
Sanctions, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/ frcp/rule_11

19

 “… the Court must hold all parties equally responsible to comply with all
the applicable laws and rules. There are not two sets of rule books — one
for self-represented parties and one for represented parties. I cannot treat
anyone less fairly than the other.” [RA, Dkt 98, 33, lines 20-24]

IV. Prayer For Relief

Based on the preceding Plaintiff-Appellant requests the Intermediate Court of Appeals of

the State of Hawai’i provide the following relief:

• Remand this matter to the lower court,

• Replace Honorable Judge Dean E. Ochiai,
• Due to the specific conduct described herein that appears to violate subdivision (b) of
Rule 11, compel sua sponte investigation of Defendants-Appellees’ Motion, and
• Pause this appeal process until Defendants-Appellees’ Rule 11 Motion is resolved.

I do declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed November 7, 2022, at Honolulu, Hawai’i.

/s/ Scott Goold

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE

20

 Appendix A

Mr. Goold believes denying opposing parties counsel is not an intended purpose of Rule 11. At

hearing before Judge on March 3, 2022, Plaintiff-Appellant explained the legal obstacle the

specter of the Motion created.

MR. GOOLD: “Your Honor, the defendant mentioned -- the defendants

have mentioned that they have filed a Rule 11 that has -- they had served
us with a Rule 11(c) motion on April 6, 2021. At that point I asked them to
file -- to serve us with the complaint with the motion because the Rule 11
threat prevents me from obtaining legal counsel. I have not moved forward
because they have not filed the Rule 11. And without filing the Rule 11, I
don't have an opportunity to answer to their charges. And without being
able to answer the charges, I am not able to -- I am not able to obtain legal
counsel.

So I am sitting here being -- being punished by defendants denying me

legal representation before this Court. I have not moved forward because
they want me to move forward pro se. This Court in my opinion, from
what you have told me previously, does not prefer me to be here pro se. I
would like to be here with proper representation. I am not capable of
representing myself properly in this situation. And their Rule 11 motion is
not to be used for the purpose of denying opposing party's counsel.

There are four specific reasons to use it, such as harassment, such as lack
of merit. There's -- this case clearly has merit. They do not file a Rule 11
simply to prevent me from having counsel. And without counsel, I don't
know when I should file with you or make the request on you. I'm not
prepared to do that. I'm not competent to know those strategies. They have
held the -- the Rule 11(c) motion above me to prevent me from having
counsel.”
[RA, Dkt 119, Ex 86: 34, lines 14-25; 35, lines 1-19]

 Appendix B

Further, it is outrageous that Defendants-Appellees refused to file their Motion after they

reported Mr. Goold’s complaint was injuring their own employees.

“Plus the existence of the complaint is also causing real harm to the
individuals named therein. Shana Buco and Elizabeth Deer [sic], these are
regular folks who have not done anything wrong but who have had these
allegations hanging over their head for more than a year. This has caused
them real stress and real anxiety. If you do a courts records search of these
individuals, what you get now is a fraud claim that's been hanging out
against them for all of this time. That's utterly improper.”
[RA, Dkt 89, Ex 4, 27, lines 1-10]

Defendants-Appellees continued:

“Instead, their inclusion was part of Mr. Goold’s continuing efforts to

badger and harass Hawaiian Electric’s individual employees, officers, and
contractors, including those like Ms. Dear who no longer have anything to
do with Hawaiian Electric.”
[RA, Dkt 98, 15]

Defendants-Appellees included expressed frustration from Ms. Dear:

“It was very disturbing to be named as a defendant in a lawsuit. I no

longer work for Kumabe or Hawaiian Electric, or even live in Hawai’i.
My husband is deployed overseas, and I am presently alone raising our
infant son. I have never been involved in a lawsuit or experienced
anything like this before.

The fact that Mr. Goold named me personally as a defendant has caused
me significant distress and has been very upsetting. It has caused me stress
and I have lost sleep because of these allegations.”
[RA, Dkt 98, 15-16]

ii

 Appendix C

(c) Mr. Goold notified Defendants-Appellees numerous times that he considered the specter

of the Rule 11 Motion to be intimidation and harassment, as Defendants-Appellees denied the

Plaintiff-Appellant a due process opportunity to respond to their allegations.

1. May 7, 2021: “I ask you now to file your Rule 11 Motion. I’ll
address this pro se. Might as well get this out of the way at this time.”
[RA, Dkt 83, 13 at 39]

2. June 16, 2021: “Apparently your clients are no longer interested in

filing the Rule 11 motion? I thought that would be useful for all of us. I’ll
let Mr. Tani and Harada [Rush Moore Attorneys] know.”
[Id., 14 at 48]

3. June 23, 2021: Mr. Goold claimed Defendants-Appellees were

“weaponizing the Rule 11 procedure to intimidate and bully. As I
mentioned some time ago, if a player can dunk on another, they do!”

“If the Rule 11 motion had merit, you would file the motion to hopefully
end this conflict. Defendants do not, as the Rule 11 motion is frivolous and
without merit.”

… “However, defendants continue to threaten a Rule 11 motion but refuse

to file. This impedes my ability to secure competent representation.” [Id.,
15 at 51]

4. November 23, 2021: “Your threat of a CR 11 motion prevents us

from obtaining professional representation. It appears to me your clients
are insecure and afraid to engage me in a fair legal challenge. This
massive corporation and team of lawyers prefers to battle me without
counsel. I consider this further example of their bullying and abusive
behavior. I have asked you to file the motion and let me defend myself. I
believe you refuse, as you are not confident in your claims.

At this time, I offer two options: (1) engage in ho’oponopono

negotiations or (2) file your CR 11 motion. If you choose the latter, I will
stand pro se to defend my career and family. Let the court decide. If you
prevail, the court may sanction me for my actions to seek relief. If I
prevail, I will be able to secure qualified legal representation.”
[RA, Dkt 83, 60 at 60]

iii

 Appendix D

(g) Judge refused to open Rule 11 investigation sua sponte

Judge: “The Rule 11 matter was ancillary. The central core of the issue of the motion was
to dismiss your complaint. I'm not going to get sidetracked by discussing Rule 11. It
matters not to the Court.”
[RA, Dkt 119, Ex 87, 53, lines 15-18]

Mr. Goold, “The good cause to reinstate this case is we have documented
evidence now. Because of the March 3rd hearing, we have documented
evidence that the defendants testified, spoke falsely, and they spoke falsely
to defend their abusive action of the Rule 11.”
[Id., 54, lines 9-13]

Judge: “Mr. Goold, what did I say about Rule 11?”

[Id., 54, lines 15-16]

Mr. Goold: “They abused Rule 11.”

[Id., 54, line 17]

Judge: “Rule 11 is irrelevant to the Court because I didn’t issue any Rule
11 sanctions.”
[Id., 54, lines 20-21]

Judge, “If the Court finds that any party has lacked candor with the Court
or misrepresented to the Court, the Court sua sponte can issue a Rule 11
order.”
[Id., 54, lines 24-25; 55, line 1]

Mr. Goold, “Well, but they have spoke falsely to you. Why haven’t you
issued then a Rule 11 order against them?”
[Id., 55, lines 2-4]

Judge Ochiai, “Well, because the Court did not find that they spoke
falsely. That may be your belief. But you're entitled to your own beliefs.
The Court rules on the facts and law presented to it.”
[Id., 55, lines 5-8]

The law is clear that Defendants-Appellees did not need to wait to file

their Motion. Defendants-Appellees spoke falsely to the lower court.

iv



 Appendix E

(i) Judge stated Mr. Goold needed counsel.

Judge: “Mr. Goold, that is the reason why you needed counsel. You clearly
do not understand the evidence code, but go ahead.”
[RA, Dkt 98, 61, lines 12-15]

Mr. Goold: “I said, thank you for confirming why I need counsel, Your
Honor.”
[Id., 62, lines 5-6]

Mr. Goold: “Well, that's why I wanted to have counsel, Your Honor.”
[Id., 66, lines 19-20]

Judge: “Then go and get some.”

[Id., 66, line 21]

 Appendix F

(j) Defendants-Appellees again misled and deceived the lower court in the
final hearing.

Defendants-Appellees: “We thereafter clearly communicated to Mr. Goold

that our intent was simply to wait until the complaint was served so that
we could file our Rule 11 motion at the same time as our motion to
dismiss. That was clearly and directly communicated to Mr. Goold. So
there’s been no miscommunication with him. We have always clearly
communicated with him with that process.”
[RA, Dkt 98, 67, lines 22-25; 68, lines 1-4]

Mr. Goold: “Mr. Whattoff — Mr. Whattoff just moments ago said that
they assumed that I would do something. That’s not true. I had told him
exactly what I was planning to do.

He then said that they told me that they intended to file [their Motion] at
the same time as something. They never intended to file their motion.
They could file their motion even today. Rule 11 motion could be filed
today after your decision was made on the order. They never intended.
That is fraud. They kept telling me over and over, we’re going to file,
we’re going to file a little later we’re going to file. They had led me to
believe that. I had to tell other attorneys they were going to file. They
never were going to file. That is fraud. And he just did it again right here.
He committed fraud before you, Your Honor.”
[Id., 68, lines 15-25; 69, lines 1-5]

vi

 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD, ) CAAP-22-0000406

) (Appeal)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF-
vs ) APPELLANT MOTION TO
) REMAND, REPLACE JUDGE AND
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.; ) COMPEL RULE 11 INVESTIGATION
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC.; )
ELIZABETH DEAR; SHANA M. BUCO; )
JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; )
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; )
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; )
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; )
DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and )
DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, )
)
Defendants-Appellees )
)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT MOTION TO REMAND, REPLACE

JUDGE AND COMPEL RULE 11 INVESTIGATION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellant’s request is GRANTED.

• Remand this matter to the lower court,

• Replace Honorable Judge Dean E. Ochiai,
• Due to the specific conduct described herein that appears to violate subdivision (b) of
Rule 11, compel sua sponte investigation of Defendants-Appellees’ Motion, and
• Pause this appeal process until Defendants-Appellees’ Rule 11 Motion is resolved.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i ______________________ , 2022.

JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT

 JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD

Honolulu, Hawai’i 96815

Plaintiff-Appellant

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD, ) CAAP-22-0000406

) (Appeal)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
vs. )
)
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) (RE: MOTION REMAND AND
INC.; HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC ) REPLACE JUDGE)
INDUSTRIES, INC.; ELIZABETH DEAR; )
SHANA M. BUCO; JOHN DOES 1-10; )
JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS )
1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE )
ENTITIES 1-10; AND DOE )
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, )
)
)
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
)
)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on on this date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

document was duly served upon the following parties via the means and on the date indicated

below:

NAME(S) E-MAIL HAND JEFS

BY STIPULATION DELIVERY

RANDALL C. WHATTOFF  
800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com
Telephone: (808) 585-9440
Facsimile: (808) 275-3276

Specially Appearing Attorney for

Defendant-Appellee HAWAIIAN
ELECTRIC Co., Inc. and All
Unserved Parties

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, November 7, 2022.

/s/ Scott Goold

JEFFREY SCOTT GOOLD

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE