Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 26-OCT-2026 07:59 AM Dkt. 27 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I JOHN DRAGOMANOVICH, Petitioner-Appellee, v. HEATHER BOYD, Respondent-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DSS-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.) John Dragomanovich filed a Petition for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and for Injunction Against Harassment against Heather Boyd in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division. A trial was held. The district court granted the petition. The Injunction Against Harassment was entered on September 12, 2025.1 Boyd, representing herself, appeals. We affirm. Boyd's opening brief does not comply with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). To promote access to justice, we do not automatically foreclose her from appellate review. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). However, her brief argues error without citing to the record, as required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) and (7). We are not obligated to search the record for information that should have been provided by the appellant. Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai#i 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007). 1 The Honorable Doris Lum-Mattos presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Boyd argues trial error but she failed to include the trial transcript in the record on appeal, as required by HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(A). "The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript." Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) (brackets omitted). Boyd makes legal arguments without citing authority, as required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(7). She challenges the district court's jurisdiction based on "double jeopardy." "Double jeopardy protects individuals against: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense." State v. Kalua, 144 Hawai#i 7, 11, 434 P.3d 1202, 1206 (2019). The proceeding below was a civil action in which double jeopardy did not apply. The district court has jurisdiction to enjoin and temporarily restrain harassment. HRS § 604-10.5 (2016 & Supp. 2024). "The law is clear in this jurisdiction that the appellant has the burden of furnishing the appellate court with a sufficient record to positively show the alleged error." Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i at 230, 909 P.2d at 558. Boyd did not sustain her burden. The district court's September 12, 2025 Injunction Against Harassment is affirmed. Boyd's June 8, 2026 motion is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 26, 2026. On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Heather Boyd, Presiding Judge Self-represented Respondent-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge John Dragomanovich, Self-represented /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Petitioner-Appellee. Associate Judge 2