Case Details

Court

No. SCAP-24-0000111 (Consolidated with SCAP-24-0000396), originally scheduled for Thursday, January 22, 2026, 10 a.m. has been rescheduled to Monday, March 2, 10 a.m. Scroll down for case details.

No. SCWC-22-0000441, Tuesday, December 16, 2025, 9 a.m.

BOOKING.COM B.V., Petitioner/Pliantiff-Appellant, vs. GARY S. SUGANUMA, in his official capacity as the Director of Taxation, and STATE OF HAWAI‘I Department of Taxation, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali ‘ iōlani Hale, 2 ^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘ Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant BOOKING.COM B.V.:
Nathaniel A. Higa of Chun Kerr LLP

Attorney for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees GARY S. SUGANUMA and STATE OF HAWAI‘I Department of Taxation:
Lauren K. Chun, Deputy Solicitor General

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 09/23/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Jeannette H. Castagnetti, in place of Recktenwald, C. J., recused, filed 09/23/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/01/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Castagnetti, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused.

Brief Description:
The Department of Taxation promulgated Hawai ‘ i Administrative Rule § 18-237-29.53-10(a)(3) (the “Commissioned Agent Rule”), which imposed general excise taxes on on-line transient accommodations or travel-related bookings. Before any taxes from this rule were assessed against it, Booking.com sued the Department of Taxation seeking declaratory relief under Hawai ‘ i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 97-1, a statute governing declaratory judgment on the validity of administrative rules, that the Commissioned Agent Rule was invalid and void based on the federal Internet Tax Free Act (“ITFA”) and the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce and Supremacy Clauses. The Department of Taxation filed a motion to dismiss, arguing HRS § 632-1, a general statute governing declaratory judgments, prohibits declaratory relief “in any controversy with respect to taxes.” The circuit court and Intermediate Court of Appeals agreed and held there was no subject matter jurisdiction.

On appeal, Booking.com alleges HRS § 97-1 allows it to challenge the validity of the Commissioned Agent Rule regardless of HRS § 632-1. Booking.com contends under HRS § 97-1 an interested party is able to seek a declaration from a circuit court on the validity of all administrative rules, including those promulgated by the Department of Taxation that involve a “controversy with respect to taxes.”

No. SCWC-22-0000255, Thursday, December 18, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI‘I,Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HENRY K. TOLENTINO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali ‘ iōlani Hale, 2 nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant HENRY K. TOLENTINO:
Kai Lawrence

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 09/10/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Jordon J. Kimura and Circuit Judge Rebecca A. Copeland in place of Devens, J., recused, and due to a vacancy, filed 10/07/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/13/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., Circuit Judge Kimura, in place of Devens, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Copeland, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This case arises out of a traffic stop where the Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Henry K. Tolentino was arrested and charged with first-degree assault against a law enforcement officer. After the traffic stop, Tolentino ran away and after his arrest, he made an apologetic statement to the arresting police officers. Tolentino filed a pretrial motion in limine to exclude the statement as inadmissible hearsay. During the hearing on the motion, Tolentino also requested a pretrial hearing to determine whether the statement was voluntarily made. The motion and request were denied by the circuit court. During trial, before the statement was introduced, based on the State’s request, the circuit court determined the statement was voluntary and that a hearsay exception applied. Tolentino was convicted on a lesser included offense of second-degree assault against a law enforcement officer. The ICA affirmed Tolentino’s conviction.

The issues on certiorari are whether and under what circumstances pretrial voluntariness hearings may be required.

No. SCWC-22-0000374, Thursday, January 6, 2026, 10:30 a.m.

HYE JA CHOI, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant, vs. TACHIBANA ENTERPRISES LLC, and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents/Appellees-Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali ‘ iōlani Hale, 2 nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘ Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner HYE JA CHOI:
Lance D. Collins of the Law office of Lance D. Collins

Attorneys for Respondent TACHIBANA ENTERPRISES:
Anna Elento-Sneed and Jessica M. Sneed-Wong of ES&A, Inc.

NOTE: Assigning Circuit Judge Karin L. Holma, due to a vacancy, filed 10/13/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/22/25.

NOTE: Order granting motion for retention of Oral Argument, filed 11/04/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Holma, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:
This case arises from a secondary appeal, in which Petitioner Hye Ja Choi challenges her disqualification from unemployment benefits. In March 2020, Tachibana Enterprises, LLC (“Tachibana”) terminated Choi for alleged work-related misconduct. The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (“DLIR”) determined Choi was terminated for misconduct based on testimony concerning three work-related incidents. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit and Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the DLIR’s determination Choi was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

Before this court, Choi argues the DLIR erroneously concluded that Tachibana met its burden to prove that she was discharged for misconduct. The issue is whether the three work-related incidents constituted workplace misconduct as a matter of law.

NO. SCWC-22-0000698, Thursday, January 8, 2026, 10:30 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Petitioner and Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CURTIS RYAN BEKKUM, Respondent and Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner and Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
Richard B. Rost, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorney for Respondent and Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant CURTIS RYAN BEKKUM:
Hayden Aluli

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 09/30/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Clarissa Y. Malinao, in place of Recktenwald, C. J., recused, filed 09/30/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/02/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Malinao, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused.

Brief Description:
This case arises out of Curtis Ryan Bekkum’s conviction on two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree. Bekkum argued for the first time on appeal that the charging complaint was fatally defective because it did not define the statutory term “compulsion.” The Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) agreed and vacated Bekkum’s conviction. The ICA reasoned the statutory definition of “compulsion” does not comport with its common meaning, and the absence of the statutory definition in the complaint failed to provide Bekkum with fair notice” of the charges against him.

On certiorari, the State of Hawai‘i contends the ICA erred because (1) it did not consider the information provided to Bekkum by the time he raised the insufficiency of the charging instrument on appeal, and (2) it applied an incorrect standard of review.

No. SCWC-22-0000740, Thursday, January 8, 2026, 2 p.m.

DANIEL R. GRANILLO, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant DANIEL R. GRANILLO:
Earl A. Partington

Attorney for Respondent/Respondent-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
Gerald K. Enriques, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Peter K. Kubota, due to a vacancy, filed 10/13/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/21/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Kubota, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:
Daniel R. Granillo (Granillo) was charged with kidnapping a woman from a Maui shopping center and sexually assaulting her in his car. Trial was held in July 1990. The State qualified Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) agent Wayne W. Oakes (Oakes) as an “expert witness in the area of hair and fiber analysis.” Agent Oakes testified that based on microscopic comparison techniques, a hair found in Granillo’s car was consistent with the woman’s hair, and that fibers recovered from the woman’s clothing were consistent with Granillo’s seat cover and car carpeting. The jury found Granillo guilty as charged on all counts, and he was sentenced to forty years imprisonment.

In October 2017, nearly thirty years after Granillo’s conviction, the Maui Department of the Prosecuting Attorney received a letter from the Department of Justice. The letter explained that the FBI had determined that Agent Oakes’ testimony – his expert opinion that the hair sample tested was consistent with originating from the woman – was “inappropriate” because it overstated the science or statistical weight that can be assigned to microscopic hair comparisons.

Granillo filed an Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40 petition. The Rule 40 court concluded that Oakes’ hair analysis testimony “was erroneously admitted because it exceeded the bounds of science.” But based on compelling evidence of physical injury and other corroborative testimony, the court held, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court did not specifically rule on the admissibility of Oakes’ fiber analysis opinion.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) upheld the circuit court’s denial of Granillo’s Rule 40 petition, but for different reasons. It held that the lower court should have applied the State v. McNulty, 60 Haw. 259, 588 P.2d 438 (1978), test for newly discovered evidence instead of the harmless error standard. The ICA held that Granillo failed to establish that the hair evidence was not cumulative of the valid fiber opinion, and thus, he was not entitled to a new trial.

Granillo appealed. This court accepted cert as to Granillo’s first question presented challenging the ICA’s affirmation of his conviction based on Agent Oakes’ fiber opinion.

No. SCAP-24-0000461, Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 10:30 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSHUA NAHULU, ERIK SMITH, JAKE RYAN BARTOLOME, and ROBERT GUS LEWIS, III, Defendants-Appellants.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant JOSHUA NAHULU:
Richard H.S. Sing of Law Office of Richard H.S. Sing

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ERIK SMITH:
Doris D. Lum

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant JAKE RYAN BARTOLOME:
Pedric Arrisgado of Law Office of Pedric Arrisgado

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ROBERT G. LEWIS, III:
Benjamin R.C. Ignacio

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 03/31/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Matthew J. Viola, in place of Devens, J., recused, filed 04/14/25.

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 04/21/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Brian A. Costa, due to a vacancy, filed 11/05/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Viola, in place of Devens, J., and Circuit Judge Costa, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:
This case arises from a motor vehicle collision involving a police pursuit of a Honda Civic in Makaha. The State of Hawai‘i (“the State”) charged Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) Officer Joshua Nahulu (“Nahulu”) with violating Hawai‘i’s law that requires that “[t]he driver of any vehicle involved in a collision resulting in injury to or death of any person . . . shall render to any person injured in the collision reasonable assistance[.]” (“fled scene charge”). Co-defendants, HPD Officers Erik Smith, Jake Ryan Bartolome, and Robert Gus Lewis III, were charged with hindering prosecution in the first degree and conspiracy to commit hindering prosecution in the first degree of Nahulu’s fled scene charge.

In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Nahulu and his co-defendants moved to dismiss the fled scene charge, arguing that (1) the statute is unconstitutionally vague as “involved in a collision” is not defined in such a way that is understandable by a person of ordinary intelligence; and (2) the State violated defendants’ constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation because the State did not define the phrase “involved in a collision.” The State filed a bill of particulars clarifying that it was not relying on a theory that Nahulu’s vehicle actually came into contact with the Honda Civic.

The circuit court denied the motions to dismiss. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted the State’s application for transfer of the appeal to it from the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Defendants argue that the circuit court fled scene charge should be dismissed.

No. SCWC-24-0000619, Thursday, January 15, 2026, 10:30 a.m.

IN THE INTEREST OF T.J., I.T., A.T.1, and K.T.2.
IN THE INTEREST OF L.T.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Father-Appellant K.T.:
Leigh Woodruff

Attorneys for Respondent/Petitioner-Appellee DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES:
Eric J. Alabanza, Julio C. Herrera, Ian T. Tsuda, Erin K. Torres, and Lauren K. Chun, Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Appellee Guardian Ad Litem MAKIA MINERBI:
Jamie L. Demello, Jessica C.M. Uchida, and Scott K.D. Shishido of Legal Aid Society of Hawaii

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 09/09/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Fa‘auuga To‘oto‘o, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, filed 09/09/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/15/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge To‘oto‘o, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused.

Brief Description:
The Department of Human Services (DHS) filed two petitions for foster custody of Father’s children after receiving reports of sexual abuse by Father.

Prior to trial, DHS submitted family service plans (collectively, Service Plan) recommending sexual abuse treatment services for Father. In relevant part, the Service Plan required Father to admit that he engaged in sexual abuse.

Following a two-day trial, the family court awarded DHS foster custody and incorporated the Service Plan into the family court’s final “Orders Concerning Child Protective Act.”

Father appealed the family court’s decision and orders to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). The ICA affirmed the family court. Father subsequently appealed to this court.

There are two issues before the court:

• Does the Service Plan implicate and infringe on Father’s right to free speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 4 of the Hawai‘i Constitution?
• Does the Service Plan implicate and infringe on Father’s right against self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution?

No. SCWC-23-0000017, Tuesday, January 20, 2026, 9 a.m.

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. CSMC MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-6, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BONNIE I. SWINK and JACK SWINK, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants, and DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioners BONNIE I. SWINK and JACK SWINK:
Keith M. Kiuchi

Attorneys for Respondents US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. CSMC MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-6:
Charles R. Prather, Robin Miller, Sun Young Park, and Peter T. Stone of TMLF Hawaii LLLC

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Wendy M. DeWeese, due to a vacancy, filed 11/24/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/04/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge DeWeese, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:
This is the second appeal in this case, in which Petitioners/Defendants Bonnie and Jack Swink (the Swinks) challenge a foreclosure decree and judgment granted in favor of Respondent/Plaintiff US Bank National Association, as Trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corporation CSMC Mortgage-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-6 (US Bank). In the first appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit’s (Circuit Court) foreclosure decree and judgment, determining there was no admissible evidence that US Bank was in possession of the original, blank-endorsed note at the time US Bank filed its complaint on December 9, 2014.

On remand, US Bank filed an amended complaint and a declaration stating it possessed the note at the time it filed the amended complaint on September 8, 2021. The Circuit Court thereafter granted summary judgment in favor of US Bank, permitting US Bank to foreclose on the Swinks’ property, by concluding that US Bank was the holder of the note at the time it filed the amended complaint. The ICA affirmed based on Hanalei, BRC Inc. v. Porter, 7 Haw. App. 304, 760 P.2d 676 (App. 1988), an action for nonpayment of a note where the plaintiff cured the error of a premature filing of the original complaint by filing an amended complaint after obtaining possession of the note.

The central issue is whether a foreclosing plaintiff can remedy a defect in standing by filing an amended complaint and establishing possession of the note when the amended complaint was filed. Alternatively, should a trial court be required to dismiss the case without prejudice when a foreclosing plaintiff cannot establish possession of the note at the time the action was originally commenced.

No. SCAP-25-0000531, Tuesday, January 27, 2026, 10:30 a.m.

NOVA BURNES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc. dba HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Intervenor Subrogation Plaintiffs-Appellants.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali ‘ iōlani Hale, 2 nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘ Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for the Intervenor Subrogation Plaintiffs-Appellants ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.:
Vincent G. Raboteau of Grotefeld Hoffmann, LLP, Normand R. Lezy of Cox Wootton Lerner Griffin & Hansen LLP, Mark S. Anderson of Cozen O’Connor, David R. Denton of Denenberg Tuffley, and Michael F. O’Connor and Richard A. Ing of Ogawa Lau Nakamura & Jew

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees NOVA BURNES, et al.:
Patrick Kyle Smith of Law Office of Kyle Smith, Terrance M. Revere and Paul V. Smith of Revere & Associates, LLC Richard E. Wilson of Law Offices of Richard E. Wilson, LLC, Kenneth S. Kasdan and Christopher K. Hikida of Kasdan Turner Thomson Booth LLLC, Graham B. LippSmith, MaryBeth LippSmith, Celene Chan Andrews, and Jaclyn L. Anderson of LippSmith LLP

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees HAWAIIAN ELCECTRIC COMPANY, INC. dba HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC, et al.:
Joachim P. Cox and Randall C. Whattoff of Cox Fricke LLP

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF BERNICE PAUAHI BISHOP:
Paul Alston, Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Wendy F. Hanakahi, Nathan P. Shimodoi, and Catelin K. Aiwohi of Dentons US LLP

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee COUNTY OF MAUI:
Thomas Kolbe, Deputy Corporation Counsel and David J. Minkin, Jordan K. Inafuku, Micah H. Miyasato, and Sabrina N. Gouveia of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
Michael L. Lam, Steven E. Tom, Kaonohiokala J. Aukai, IV, and Kenneth V. Go of Case Lombardi and Amanda J. Weston, Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee HAWAIIAN TELCOM, INC.:
Eric H. Tsugawa, Alan K. Lau, and Tedson H. Koja of Tsugawa Lau & Muzzi LLLC

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee SPECTRUM OCEANIC, LLC:
Gregory K. Markham, Keith K. Kato, and Michael H. Tsuchida of Chee Markham & Kato

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee WEST MAUI LAND COMPANY, INC.:
Wesley H.H. Ching and Dara Nakagawa of Fukunaga Matayoshi Ching & Kon-Herrera

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee PETER KLINT MARTIN

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee PETER KLINT MARTIN REVOCABLE TRUST

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee HOPE BUILDERS HOLDING LLC

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee HOPE BUILDERS INC.

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee HOPE BUILDERS LLC

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee KAUAULA LAND COMPANY LLC

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee KIPA CENTENNIAL, LLC

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee JAMES C. RILEY TRUST

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee JEANNE A. RILEY TRUST

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee WAINEE LAND & HOMES, LLC

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee MAKILA RANCHES INC.

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee MAKILA LAND CO., LLC

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee MAKILA RANCHES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 10/02/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin T. Morikone, in place of Devens, J., recused, filed 10/13/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Taryn R. Tomasa, due to a vacancy, filed 10/13/25.

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 10/22/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Morikone, in place of Devens, J., recused and Circuit Judge Tomasa, due to a vacancy.

Brief Description:
This transfer case involves an appeal from a motion to intervene in the preliminary approval of the Maui fires class settlement agreement and appointment of settlement class counsel.

In March 2025, Class Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of its class settlement agreement with Defendants releasing all claims related to the Maui fires. Non-party insurers (Subrogating Insurers) moved to intervene. The Subrogating Insurers claimed that they were entitled to intervention as of right and permissive intervention per Hawai ‘ i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 24(a)(2) and (b)(2).

The circuit court denied the motion to intervene.

Regarding HRCP Rule 24(a)(2) intervention by right, the court held that the motion was untimely, and that the Subrogating Insurers failed to establish a legally protectable interest that would be impaired by the settlement approval. Because In re Maui Fire Cases , 155 Hawai ‘ i 409, 565 P.3d 754 (2025), held that the insurers’ exclusive remedy when their insureds settle is reimbursement via the Hawai ‘ i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 663-10 lien process, the circuit court reasoned, the Subrogating Insurers do not have subrogation rights with respect to class members who have agreed to settle their claims pursuant to the class settlement agreement.

The court also denied permissive intervention. It held that the Subrogating Insurers did not establish a common question of law or fact as required by HRCP Rule 24(b)(2) because they did not establish a legally protectable interest. The court further denied permissive intervention for untimeliness and prejudice to the existing parties.

Upon the Subrogating Insurers’ appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, this court accepted the Class Plaintiffs’ transfer application pursuant to HRS § 602-58(b).

No. SCAP-24-0000111 (Consolidated with SCAP-24-0000396), Monday, March 2, 2026, 10 a.m.

JAMES DANNENBERG and SARAH PREBLE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees/Cross-Appellees, vs. STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I, HAWAI ‘ I EMPLOYER-UNION HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HAWAI ‘ I EMPLOYER-UNION HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and COUNTY OF KAUA ‘ I, COUNTY OF MAUI, COUNTY OF HAWAI ‘ I, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees/Cross-Appellees, and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

The above-captioned consolidated cases have been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali ‘ iōlani Hale, 2 ^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘ Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees/Cross Appellees JAMES DANNENBERG and SARAH PREBLE:
Paul Alston and John Rhee of Dentons US LLP

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants/Cross-Appellees STATE OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAI‘I EMPLOYER-UNION HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HAWAI‘I EMPLOYER-UNION HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND:
John H. Price, Deputy Attorney General, David M. Louie, Nicholas R. Monlux, and Ryan D. Louie of Kobayashi Sugita & Goda, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee/Cross-Appellant CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU:
Paul S. Aoki and Haley E. Chee, Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir Devens, filed 07/24/24.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 07/25/24.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Sabrina McKenna, filed 07/25/24.

NOTE : Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Todd W. Eddins, filed 07/25/24.

NOTE : Order assigning Circuit Judge Lisa W. Cataldo, in place of Eddins, J. recused, filed 08/07/24.

NOTE : Order assigning Circuit Judge Jordon J. Kimura, in place of Devens, J., filed 08/08/24.

NOTE : Order assigning Chief Judge Peter T. Cahill of the Second Circuit Court and Circuit Judge James H. Ashford, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and McKenna, J., recused, filed 08/13/24.

NOTE : Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 08/14/24 in SCAP-24-0000111.

NOTE : Order granting Application for Transfer in SCAP-24-0000396 and to consolidate SCAP-24-0000111 and SCAP-24-0000396, filed 01/29/25.

NOTE : Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 01/22/26 to 03/02/26 at 10:00 a.m., filed 11/13/25.

COURT: Ginoza, J., and Circuit Judge Cahill, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, Circuit Judge Ashford, in place of McKenna, J., recused, Circuit Judge Cataldo, in place of Eddins, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Kimura, in place of Devens, J., recused.

Brief Description:
This is the third appeal in this class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege that their right to health benefits, as set forth under article XVI, section 2 of the Hawai ‘ i Constitution (the Non-Impairment Clause), has been diminished or impaired by Defendants State of Hawai ‘ i, City and County of Honolulu, County of Kaua ‘ i, County of Maui, County of Hawai ‘ i, Hawai ‘ i Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund ( EUTF ), and Board of Trustees of the EUTF (collectively, Defendants ). The plaintiff class consists of:

All employees (and their dependent-beneficiaries) who began working for the Territory of Hawai ‘ i, the State of Hawai ‘ i or the political subdivisions thereof, before July 1, 2003, and who have accrued or will accrue a right to post-retirement health benefits as a retiree or dependent-beneficiary of such a retiree. This includes: (a) those who have not yet received any post-retirement health benefits from Defendants as a retiree or dependent beneficiary of such a retiree; and (b) those who have received any post-retirement health benefits from Defendants since July 1, 2003 as a retiree or dependent-beneficiary of such a retiree. For purposes of damages only, if any, the Class shall also include the estates and heirs of any deceased retiree or deceased dependent-beneficiary of a retiree who is or was a member of the Class.

This lawsuit was initiated in 2006, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit ( Circuit Court ). Currently, the plaintiff class is represented by Plaintiffs James Dannenberg and Sarah Preble ( Plaintiffs ).

In this third appeal, the parties assert sixteen points of error. In SCAP-24-111, Plaintiffs appeal from the Circuit Court’s final judgment, challenging a variety of the Circuit Court’s rulings and asserting the final judgment should be reversed. The State cross-appeals to assert the Circuit Court should have barred Plaintiffs’ claims based on sovereign immunity and statute of limitations. The City and County of Honolulu cross-appeals to assert that the Circuit Court should have granted it summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings.

In SCAP-24-396, the State appeals and Plaintiffs cross-appeal from the Circuit Court’s orders related to attorneys’ fees and costs.

This court granted transfer and consolidation of both appeals.