“when an order is properly certified pursuant to HRCP Rule 54(b), the certification ‘necessarily render[s] every preliminary ruling upon which it was predicated final and appealable as well’ ” Id. at 46, 890 P.2d at 283 (quoting S. Utsunomiya Enters., Inc. v. Moomuku Country Club, 75 Haw. 480, 495, 866 P.2d 951, 960 (1994)); see also Cook v. Surety Life Ins., Co., 79 Hawai'i 403, 409, 903 P.2d 708, 714 (App.1995) (“Irrespective of whether the Order was a collateral order or an order certified pursuant to HRCP Rule 54(b), this court will only consider other orders which were preliminary rulings upon which the subject Order was predicated or were part of the series of orders which collectively led to that Order.”); Riethbrock v. Lange, 128 Hawai'i 1, 17-18, 282 P.3d 543, 559-60 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
holding that the appeal was properly before the court where the appellant appealed from an order amending a prior order without appealing from the prior order holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court recognizing the rulings in cook and weinberg and holding that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review an order that was not a preliminary ruling upon which the appealed order was predicated holding that an appellate court may not exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review a nonfinal district court order where the merits of the nonfinal order are not inextricably intertwined with the properly appealed collateral order or where review of the former is not necessary to ensure meaningful review of the latter holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order