Drapkin v. Department of Health

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-OCT-2026 08:05 AM Dkt. 159 OP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ---o0o--- STEPHEN DRAPKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendant-Appellee NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX) OCTOBER 22, 2026 LEONARD, PRESIDING JUDGE, WADSWORTH AND McCULLEN, JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT BY LEONARD, J. The underlying dispute between the parties to this appeal concerns the placement of an ambulance base on the north shore of the island of Kaua#i. Self-represented Plaintiff- Appellant Steven Drapkin (Drapkin) alleges that Defendant- Appellee Department of Health, State of Hawai#i (DOH), entered into a binding agreement with Drapkin to move the ambulance base from Kīlauea to Princeville, and that DOH breached that  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER agreement. DOH denies that any such agreement was entered into or could have been entered into in the manner alleged by Drapkin. Relevant to this appeal, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court)1 denied Drapkin's motion for partial summary judgment on his breach of contract claim and granted DOH's summary judgment motion. In addition, the Circuit Court denied Drapkin's motion seeking recusal of the presiding judge and entered an order prohibiting Drapkin from contacting any current or former employees of DOH concerning this litigation. Drapkin challenges these rulings, as well as the Circuit Court's handling of certain evidentiary objections, and appeals from the Final Judgment entered by the Circuit Court on July 24, 2023 (Judgment). As more fully discussed herein, we hold that: (1) Drapkin's arguments concerning the Circuit Court's rulings on his evidentiary objections do not warrant appellate relief; (2) in accordance with the mandates of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 321, as a matter of law, DOH lacked the capacity or legal authority to enter into the purported agreement with Drapkin to establish an ambulance base at Princeville in exchange for Drapkin holding off on filing a Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) suit against DOH; (3) in light of the foregoing, we need not reach the issue of whether there is a genuine issue of 1 The Honorable John M. Tonaki presided. 2  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER material fact as to whether the parties mutually assented to enter into a conditional contract to move an ambulance base to Princeville in exchange for Drapkin's forbearance on his UIPA claims; (4) notwithstanding the Department of the Attorney General's broad authority, a deputy attorney general did not have the capacity or legal authority to enter into the purported agreement with Drapkin to establish an ambulance base at Princeville in exchange for Drapkin "agreeing to hold off" filing an UIPA suit against DOH; (5) the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Drapkin's request for recusal or disqualification; and (6) the Circuit Court's order prohibiting Drapkin from communicating with DOH employees failed to meet the requirements of Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 11, was based on an erroneous application of Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) Rule 4.2, and violated Drapkin's federal and state constitutional rights to petition the government. I. BACKGROUND Drapkin is a long-time resident of Ha#ena on the north shore of Kaua#i. DOH is the executive agency that, in consultation with the State Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee (EMSAC), determines which emergency medical services 3  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER will be implemented in each service area.2 In 2018/2019, DOH received funding from the legislature for an additional ambulance base on Kaua#i. Drapkin has been in contact with DOH through its legal representative, Deputy Attorney General Andrea Armitage (Armitage or Deputy AG Armitage), since 2019 to express his desire to relocate an ambulance base from Kīlauea to Princeville in order to better serve communities on the north shore of Kaua#i. It is not entirely clear from the record when Drapkin began communicating with DOH, but as early as August 13, 2019, he met with DOH Branch Chief Dr. Alvin C. Bronstein (Dr. Bronstein) and various other DOH officials to discuss his desire to relocate the ambulance. Drapkin's efforts proved unsuccessful. From August to November 2019, Drapkin filed multiple HRS chapter 92F (2012), UIPA, requests for various DOH records related to the ambulance's location. DOH objected to the majority of these requests. On December 12, 2019, Drapkin filed an appeal with the Office of Information Practices (OIP) contesting those objections. On February 14, 2020, DOH received a letter from Attorney Brian Black (Black), who represented Drapkin on some of his UIPA claims. The letter stated that if Black did not hear from DOH by 2 On June 4, 2026, the Hawai#i Legislature enacted Act 85, which amended HRS chapters 46 and 321. The amendments do not affect our analysis. EMSAC has been renamed the Hawaii Emergency Medical Systems of Care Advisory Council. See Act 85 (Jun. 4, 2026) (to be codified at HRS § 321-225). For purposes of this Opinion, we refer to the pre-Act 85 name. 4  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER February 28, 2020, he would "assume that the [(DOH)] has no interest in resolving this matter without judicial intervention." Deputy AG Armitage agreed to meet with Drapkin. Armitage, Dr. Bronstein, Tiffany Lightfoot (Lightfoot), and Dan Galanis (Galanis) (the latter two being DOH employees) met with Drapkin and Black on March 10, 2020. Drapkin contends that at this meeting, he entered into an agreement with DOH, subject to several conditions, that DOH would move the ambulance to Princeville in exchange for his forbearance in bringing an UIPA suit. The conditions included the approval of DOH "higher ups," ensuring that the Makana Urgent Care site that Drapkin had selected would be appropriate, and that the decision would be brought up at the April 15, 2020 EMSAC meeting. DOH contends that the meeting attendees did not enter into an agreement to move the ambulance, but did discuss the possibility of the move and steps that would be necessary to determine if that move were feasible. The main evidence of what occurred at the March 10, 2020 meeting is the declarations attached to the parties' HRCP Rule 56 motions for summary judgment and oppositions thereto. After the meeting, Drapkin continued to communicate with Armitage and Lightfoot. On July 3, 2020, Drapkin sent an email to Armitage asking if she acknowledged "that on March 10, we reached an understanding that EMS would relocate the ambulance to Kilauea 5  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER [sic] subject only to contingencies as to physical space and financial feasibility and for objectors to have an opportunity to present their views via a mechanism of an EMSAC hearing?" On July 6, 2020, Armitage replied: [Y]our understanding of a March 10th agreement is misconstrued. To my knowledge, the only issue EMS agreed with you on is that, all things being equal, Princeville was a better location for that particular ambulance than Kilauea with respect to response times. But all things are not equal at all, to my knowledge. The space they are in now has 3 bedrooms, a full kitchen, and a carport for the ambulance. The Princeville site only has 2 bedrooms (which means there is no room for storage) and an uncovered parking space. And it's considerably more expensive than their current location with respect to rent. No one agreed to move the ambulance to the Princeville urgent care clinic as of this writing. Drapkin maintains that this email was a repudiation of their verbal agreement. On May 19, 2022, Drapkin withdrew his OIP administrative appeal. On May 24, 2022, (former) DOH Deputy Director Danette Tomiyasu (Tomiyasu) sent a letter to Representative Nadine Nakamura (Rep. Nakamura). The letter states in relevant part: KFD is considering building a new fire station in the Kilauea area. The project is in the discussion phase. When resources are available, then the Kilauea ambulance station could be moved to Princeville. First response would then be available from the new KFD Kilauea station. The group agreed with the findings of the two Optima reports and the recommendations listed in the second report to not relocate the ambulance until a viable first response provider is available to serve the Kilauea area. On July 12, 2022, Drapkin filed a complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief for breach of contract. He amended his complaint on July 21, 2022, to add three UIPA claims. 6  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The First Amended Complaint states five counts: breach of oral contract (Count I); breach of written contract as a third party beneficiary (Count II); and violations of UIPA stemming from three of Drapkin's UIPA requests (Counts III - V). On August 2, 2022, Drapkin filed an HRCP Rule 56 motion for partial summary judgment (UIPA MPSJ) on counts III & IV of the First Amended Complaint. DOH filed a motion to continue the hearing on the motion. A hearing was held on August 18, 2022, and the Circuit Court continued the hearing to December 15, 2022. Drapkin withdrew the UIPA MPSJ, and instead sought production of the documents through discovery. On August 30, 2022, Drapkin filed discovery notices seeking to depose DOH officials. On September 11, 2022, he moved to compel the depositions of five DOH employees. On September 7, 2022, DOH filed a Motion for Protective Order Re: Plaintiff's Notice of Taking Deposition Upon Oral Examination (Dr. Elizabeth Char) (Motion for Protective Order). On September 19, 2022, DOH filed an HRCP Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Partial Dismissal. On September 26, 2022, Drapkin filed a motion to compel production of documents. On September 30, 2022, DOH filed a motion to stay discovery (Motion for Stay). The Circuit Court held a hearing on some of the discovery motions on October 25, 2022. The Circuit Court denied DOH's deposition-related motion for a protective order, but 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER limited Drapkin's time to take Dr. Char's deposition to one hour. The court granted DOH's Motion for Stay and denied Drapkin's Motion to Compel. On December 13, 2022, the Circuit Court held a hearing on the substantive motions and dismissed Counts II, IV, and V of the First Amended Complaint. Subsequently, Drapkin voluntarily dismissed Count III. The Circuit Court also denied Drapkin's motion to compel production of documents. The Circuit Court reasoned that: Plaintiff is, uh, attempting to use the discovery process to obtain documents which are the subject of the UIPA claims in the instant case. Uh, as [DOH's attorney] has said, some of these documents have already been turned over but some of them are being contested as to whether they can legitimately be withheld under the UIPA provision. So those issues will therefore have to be litigated. Trial was set for October 2023. On December 27, 2022, Drapkin filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Count I, breach of oral contract (Drapkin's MSJ). Drapkin argued that DOH repudiated the oral agreement that was purportedly entered into on March 10, 2020. In support of this argument, Drapkin attached his declaration, which states in relevant part: a. The meeting proceeded, as scheduled, on March 10, 2020. Armitage acted as chief spokesperson for DOH/EMS Branch; she was accompanied by Bronstein, Lightfoot and Galanis. Black attended the meeting with me. Bronstein did not even attempt to abide with the agreed agenda. Instead, after much talk with little benefit, Armitage stated that they could cut through everything and offer a solution that she said she thought would resolve things to my satisfaction. She stated that subject to several conditions, DOH would agree to move the ambulance from Kilauea to Princeville. 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER b The stated conditions were that DOH would need to negotiate a lease for space in Princeville -- either in the optimal Princeville location, Makana Urgent Care, adjacent to the main highway and the County's fire and police stations, or another location. The other conditions were that: (a) higher up approval would be required if there was a need to pay higher rent; (b) the Makana premises had to be deemed satisfactory to be used as an ambulance base; (c) there not be any significant financial obstacle to terminating the rental or lease obligation for the rental house in Kilauea; and (d) the decision to relocate the ambulance would be placed on the agenda of a then-upcoming April 15, 2020 EMSAC meeting (later changed to July 15, 2020 due to the COVID-caused cancellation of the April 15 meeting). . . . . e I understood that DOH's expectation was that in exchange for the conditional agreement to relocate the ambulance, I would agree to hold off filing the UIPA suit that Black was prepared, and had threatened, to bring. I understood Black confirmed to Armitage I would hold off bringing the suit as well to communicate about the ambulance issue/dispute with legislators, the press and my community at large and, over the following months, I did so forbear. (Footnote omitted). In January 2023, Drapkin filed multiple "non-hearing" motions to compel discovery (Non-Hearing Motions). On February 3, 2023, DOH filed a cross-motion for summary judgment (DOH's MSJ). DOH attached the declarations of Deputy AG Armitage, Lightfoot, Galanis, and Dr. Bronstein. Armitage's declaration states in relevant part: 9. On March 5, 2020, I received an e-mail, with an attached document titled "Notes and Questions for 3-10-20 Meeting" from [Drapkin]. In his document titled "Notes and Questions for 3-10-20 Meeting" [Drapkin] explained his understanding of the purpose of the March 10, 2020 meeting. He wrote, "[i]t is my understanding that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss ambulance placement criteria and data relating to that, not to debate the proper conclusion(s) that should be drawn or the declination of DOH to provide responses to the UIPA requests. I will adhere to that understanding in my discussion." Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of [Drapkin's] e-mail dated March 5, 2020. 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER 10. A meeting was held on March 10, 2020. The attendees were [Drapkin], [Black], three DOH officials, and me. The DOH employees were [Dr. Bronstein, Galanis, and Lightfoot]. [Drapkin] shared his concerns and insisted that the ambulance station should be relocated from Kilauea to Princeville. It was explained to [Drapkin] some of the different factors the State would need to consider when determining the possibility of an ambulance station relocation. 11. The factors discussed with [Drapkin] included: (a) evaluating any legal and financial issues with executing a new lease and terminating an existing lease; (b) locating and determining a feasible location (cost and appropriateness of facility); (c) collaborating and cooperating with stakeholders; (d) obtaining a recommendation from the State's emergency provider, [American Medical Response (AMR)]; and (e) obtaining advice from the [EMSAC]. The factors discussed were not meant to be an exhaustive list and were not intended as terms to a contract. Dr. Bronstein's declaration states in relevant part: 8. I attended [a] meeting on March 10, 2020 with [Drapkin, Black, Lightfoot, Galanis and Armitage]. 9. It was my understanding that the purpose of the March 10, 2020 meeting was to discuss the State's denial of [Drapkin's] record requests. At the meeting, [Drapkin] shared his concerns and opinions of relocating the Kilauea ambulance station to Princeville. [Drapkin] suggested that the ambulance station should be relocated to Makana Urgent Care Clinic in Princeville. 10. It was explained to [Drapkin] at the March 10, 2020 meeting that before any decision was made to relocate the ambulance station, the State needed to consider and evaluate several factors to ensure any relocation of an ambulance station will best serve the emergency health needs of all residents of the County of Kauai, including all people of the State. 11. Several examples of the different factors were shared with [Drapkin]. These included, but were not limited to: cost, appropriateness of facilities, existing lease obligations, consultation with [EMSAC], consultation with AMR, and stakeholders. These factors were not intended to be exhaustive or conditions to a contract, rather were shared to explain such decision involved much thought and evaluation. 12. After the March 10, 2020 meeting, EMSPISB evaluated the possibility of relocating the ambulance station to Princeville, including Makana Urgent Care Clinic. The State evaluated costs and budget restraints, evaluated the feasibility of Makana Urgent Care Clinic, conferred with AMR, consulted with County and other stakeholders, and 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER conducted a modeling study. It was determined that the Kilauea ambulance would not be relocated until a viable first response provider is available to serve the Kilauea area. 13. I did not have authority to enter into any contract or agreement with [Drapkin] on behalf of the State and/or DOH. 14. There was no agreement entered with [Drapkin] during, before or after the meeting on March 10, 2020 to relocate the ambulance station from Kilauea to Princeville. 15. There was no promise that DOH would relocate the Kilauea ambulance station in exchange for [Drapkin's] forbearance of a [UIPA] action. Galanis's declaration states in relevant part: 6. I attended a meeting on March 10, 2020 with [Drapkin, Black, Dr. Bronstein, Lightfoot, and Armitage]. 7. It was my understanding that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss [Drapkin's] record requests. At the meeting, Drapkin shared his concerns of the Kilauea ambulance station and his desire that the ambulance station be relocated to Princeville. 8. It was explained to [Drapkin] that before any decision was made to relocate the ambulance station, the State needed [to] consider certain factors. 9. Examples of the different factors were shared with [Drapkin]. These included, but were not limited to cost, appropriateness of facilities, existing lease obligations, consultation with [EMSAC], consultation with [AMR] and stakeholders. These factors were not intended to be conditions to a contract. 10. I am not authorized to enter into any contracts on behalf of the DOH. 11. There was no agreement entered with [Drapkin] during, before or after the meeting on March 10, 2020 to relocate the ambulance station from Kilauea to Princeville. 12. At no time, was there a promise to relocate the Kilauea ambulance station in exchange for [Drapkin's] forbearance of a UIPA action. Lightfoot's declaration states in relevant part: 7. I attended a meeting on March 10, 2020 with [Drapkin, Black, Dr. Bronstein, Galanis, and Armitage]. 8. It was my understanding that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss [Drapkin's] record requests. At the meeting, [Drapkin] shared his concerns of the Kilauea 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ambulance station and his desire that the ambulance station be relocated to Princeville. I do not recall whether any UIPA issues were discussed at the meeting. 9. During the meeting, [Drapkin] suggested the Makana Urgent Care Clinic in Princeville as a possible location for an ambulance base for the Kauai North Shore. 10. It was explained to [Drapkin] that certain factors need to be considered before any decision were made to relocate the ambulance station. Some of the different factors shared with [Drapkin] were appropriateness of facilities, existing lease obligations in Kilauea, consultation with [EMSAC], [AMR], community members, and other stakeholders. These factors were not intended to be exhaustive or conditions to a contract. 11. After the meeting, I personally followed up on the evaluation of Makana Urgent Care Facility as an ambulance base. Upon consideration, the Makana Urgent Care facility was determined unsuitable for a variety of reasons. 12. I am not authorized to enter into any contracts on behalf of the DOH, and did not have authority to enter into any agreements with [Drapkin]. 13. There was no agreement entered with [Drapkin] during, before or after the meeting on March 10, 2020 to relocate the ambulance station from Kilauea to Princeville. 14. There was no promise that DOH would relocate the Kilauea ambulance station in exchange for [Drapkin's] forbearance of a [UIPA] lawsuit. On February 23, 2023, Drapkin filed an opposition to DOH's MSJ. He attached Black's declaration which states in relevant part: 20. [Armitage] then mentioned the possibility of moving the ambulance. After some discussion, Dr. Bronstein stated that moving the ambulance to Princeville was possible based on the data and that DOH was open to making that move if it were feasible. In response, [Drapkin] stated that he would be willing to stand down from his current anticipated actions if DOH made a commitment to moving the ambulance. 21. Dr. Bronstein and [Armitage] outlined the conditions that would need to be met before a move of the ambulance. 22. [Drapkin] requested confirmation that DOH was committed to moving the ambulance to Princeville if the conditions are met. 23. [Armitage] stated that Princeville is the preferable location and that DOH would immediately start 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER working on cost estimates for a possible move. And Dr. Bronstein reiterated that the issue would need to be presented to an advisory council to consider neighborhood concerns. 24. At the conclusion of the meeting, [Drapkin] stated to the group that he was happy that there was an agreement in principle on the issue. 25. My description of the March 10, 2020 meeting is what I remember at this time. Many things were said in that meeting, and, without further opportunity to refresh my recollection, I don't recall everything after three years. But I do have a clear recollection of the foregoing. 26. After the meeting on March 10, I notified Mr. Jayaram that [Drapkin] would not be filing a lawsuit imminently based on the productive conversation in the meeting with DOH. Drapkin also attached 28 evidentiary objections to his opposition to DOH's MSJ, primarily arguing that the averments made in the declarations submitted by DOH were legal conclusions, irrelevant statements of subjective intent, or conclusory assertions, and that the exhibits thereto were also irrelevant, conclusory, or hearsay. On March 3, 2023, the Circuit Court held a hearing on the summary judgment motions. Drapkin inquired about the objections attached to his opposition: MR. DRAPKIN: Um, Your Honor, um, are you — have you ruled on the evidentiary objections? THE COURT: Which evidentiary objections? MR. DRAPKIN: Uh, well, I presented, um, 29 separate evidentiary objections, um, relating to several exhibits and portions of each of the, um, declarations submitted by DOH. . . . . THE COURT: Well, the court will not, uh — if there are statements that are legal conclusions, of course the court — those are for the court to make. So the court will not consider those, but any factual assertions that are made in, uh, the affidavits, just as you have made factual 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER assertions in your affidavit, Mr. Drapkin, the court will consider those. The Circuit Court denied Drapkin's MSJ and granted DOH's MSJ. The Circuit Court reasoned that Deputy AG Armitage did not have authority to contract on behalf of DOH under HRS §§ 321-224 & 321-228. The court further concluded that even if Armitage had such authority, the preconditions to relocation of the ambulance base, as attested to by both sides, demonstrated a lack of mutual assent. The court noted that to agree to move the ambulance, DOH would need "higher up" approval, DOH would have to negotiate a lease, DOH would have to determine that the Makana Urgent Care was a suitable alternative to the Kīlauea site, and any relocation of the ambulance would have to be placed on the agenda of an upcoming EMSAC meeting. The Circuit Court noted the July 6, 2020 email from Armitage to Drapkin stating that no agreement had been reached and no promises had been made at the March 10, 2020 meeting and reporting that there were problems with his proposed Princeville site. The court further noted the May 24, 2022 letter from Tomiyasu to Rep. Nakamura that memorialized a January 21, 2022 meeting between the State and County of Kaua#i stakeholders where the attendees agreed not to move the ambulance to Princeville. On April 12, 2023, the Circuit Court entered its written order, i.e., the Order Denying [Drapkin's] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I of the 14  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER First Amended Complaint and Granting [DOH's] Cross-motion for Summary Judgment on Count I (Summary Judgment Order). On March 22, 2023, Drapkin filed an affidavit requesting the recusal by or disqualification of the presiding judge (Recusal Affidavit), which the court treated as a nonhearing motion. On April 28, 2023, DOH filed a motion for HRCP Rule 11 sanctions against Drapkin, contending that the Recusal Affidavit was filed for an improper purpose, that Drapkin's factual contentions misrepresent the record, and that Drapkin's behavior throughout the case was unprofessional. On May 24, 2023, the Circuit Court entered an order denying Drapkin's request for recusal or disqualification. On July 19, 2023, the Circuit Court granted in part and denied in part DOH's Rule 11 motion (Rule 11 Order). The Circuit Court ordered that: 1. Pursuant to HRCP Rule 11(c)(2) the Court orders a directive of a nonmonetary nature and orders [Drapkin] to comply with the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2. [Drapkin] is prohibited from contacting any current or former employees of the [DOH] concerning this litigation. Communication must be through Counsel for DOH. 2. The Motion requesting monetary sanctions is DENIED. The Circuit Court entered the Judgment on July 24, 2023. The Judgment states, inter alia: 1. Final Judgment is hereby entered in favor of [DOH] and against [Drapkin] on Counts I through V of the First Amended Complaint. 2. [DOH] is awarded the amount of $1,332.50 in costs against [Drapkin]. 3. [Drapkin] is ordered to comply with the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2. [Drapkin] is 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER prohibited from contacting any current or former employees of the [DOH] concerning this litigation. Communication must be through Counsel for DOH. This Final Judgment is entered as to all claims raised by all parties, and it resolves all claims by and against all parties in the above-entitled case. There are no remaining parties, claims or issues. All other claims are hereby dismissed. Drapkin timely appealed. II. POINTS OF ERROR Drapkin raises five points of error on appeal, contending that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) failing to rule upon and sustain Drapkin's evidentiary objections; (2) denying Drapkin's MSJ; (3) granting DOH's MSJ; (4) denying Drapkin's request for recusal or disqualification of the presiding judge; and (5) prohibiting Drapkin from communicating with DOH. III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW "As a general rule, the appellate court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion." State v. Acacio, 140 Hawai#i 92, 98, 398 P.3d 681, 687 (2017) (cleaned up). "However, when there can only be one correct answer to the admissibility question, or when reviewing questions of relevance under Hawai#i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rules 401 and 402, the appellate court applies the right/wrong standard of review." Id. The appellate court applies the right/wrong standard of review to questions of hearsay. State v. Ortiz, 91 Hawai#i 181, 189-90, 981 P.2d 1127, 1135-36 (1999). 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The grant or denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Villaver v. Sylva, 145 Hawai#i 29, 34, 445 P.3d 701, 706 (2019). "[S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (citation omitted). The grant or denial of a motion to disqualify a judge is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Walter, 156 Hawai#i 65, 73-74, 569 P.3d 1249, 1257-58 (2025) (citation omitted). "'Decisions on recusal or disqualification present perhaps the ultimate test of judicial discretion and should thus lie undisturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion.'" Id. at 74, 569 P.3d at 1258 (citing State v. Ross, 89 Hawai#i 371, 375, 974 P.2d 11, 15 (1998)). All aspects of an HRCP Rule 11 determination should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gap v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 106 Hawai#i 325, 331, 104 P.3d 912, 918 (2004). "The trial court abuses its discretion if it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law[.]" Id. 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER IV. DISCUSSION A. Drapkin's Evidentiary Objections Drapkin first argues that the Circuit Court improperly failed to rule on his evidentiary objections. This argument is without merit. As stated above, when Drapkin inquired as to the Circuit Court's ruling on the evidentiary objections, the court orally ruled that the court would not consider statements that were legal conclusions, as those were for the court to make, but that the court would consider factual assertions made in DOH's affidavits or declarations, as well as Drapkin's. On appeal, Drapkin further argues that the Circuit Court's ruling was, in essence, incomplete because the Circuit Court failed to rule expressly on each of his specific evidentiary objections. However, on appeal, Drapkin makes no specific arguments of error, instead referring this court to his 28 objections made below, the majority of which have two or three subparts, without discernment between the ones arguably falling within or without the Circuit Court's ruling, and without any argument or citation to legal authority. Attempts to incorporate by reference arguments made before a trial court in violation of the 35-page limit set forth in Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(a) will be disregarded.3 Kapiolani Comm. Ctr. v. A&S P'ship, 68 Haw. 580, 584, 723 P.2d 181, 185 (1986); see 3 Drapkin's Opening Brief is already 35 pages long. 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER also Exotics Haw.-Kona, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 116 Hawai#i 277, 288, 172 P.3d 1021, 1032 (2007) (appellate courts are "not oblig[ated] to address matters for which the appellants have failed to present discernible arguments") (citations omitted). B. The Summary Judgment Motions The Circuit Court cited multiple grounds for denying Drapkin's MSJ and granting DOH's MSJ including, inter alia, that Deputy AG Armitage did not have authority to enter into the purported agreement and that there was a lack of mutual assent to enter into an agreement. To prove the existence of a contract, a party must show that there was capacity to enter the contract, an offer, an acceptance that evinced a meeting of the minds, and consideration. Calipjo v. Purdy, 144 Hawai#i 266, 280, 439 P.3d 218, 232 (2019). The first element is central to Drapkin's challenge to the Circuit Court's conclusion that neither DOH nor Deputy AG Armitage had the legal authority to enter into the purported agreement with Drapkin to establish an ambulance base at Princeville, and close the base at Kīlauea. The latter three elements are implicated in the Circuit Court's conclusion that Drapkin failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the parties mutually assented to enter into a conditional agreement 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER to move an ambulance base to Princeville in exchange for Drapkin's forbearance on his UIPA claims. 1. Authority to Enter the Purported Agreement Drapkin challenges the Circuit Court's conclusion that neither DOH nor Deputy AG Armitage had the legal authority to enter into the purported agreement with Drapkin to establish an ambulance base at Princeville, and close the base at Kīlauea. We hold that, as a matter of law, neither DOH nor Deputy AG Armitage had the legal authority to enter into the purported agreement with Drapkin to establish an ambulance base at Princeville in exchange for Drapkin holding off on filing an UIPA suit against DOH. Accordingly, for the reasons explicated below, we conclude that the Circuit Court did not err in concluding that neither DOH nor Deputy AG Armitage had authority to enter into the purported agreement with Drapkin. HRS chapter 321 is composed of 47 parts that govern the wide-ranging powers and duties of DOH. Part I of HRS chapter 321 sets forth its general and administrative provisions, beginning with HRS § 321-1 (2022), which states in part: § 321-1 General powers and duties of the department. (a) The department of health shall have general charge, oversight, and care of the health and lives of the people of the State, and shall pursue as a goal, the achievement of health equity. The department shall consider social determinants of health in the assessment of state needs for health. . . . . (j) As used in this section: 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER "Health equity" means assuring equal opportunity for all people in the State to attain their full health potential.