Oral Arguments Schedule

Case Details

Court

No. SCWC-19-0000776, Tuesday, January 14, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 28, a Hawai‘i Non-Profit Corporation, MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 29, a Hawai‘i Non-Profit Corporation, MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 38, a Hawai‘i Non-profit Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, vs. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-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 and ʻŌlelo Community Television olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 28, MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 29, MAUNALUA BAY BEACH OHANA 38:

     Paul Alston, Claire Wong Black, Maile Osika of Dentons US LLP

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:  

     Kaliko‘onālani D. Fernandes, Solicitor General, Lauren K. Chun, Deputy Solicitor General, David Day and William J. Wynhoff, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 06/18/24.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Jordon J. Kimura, in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 07/31/24.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/12/24.

NOTE: Order Granting Joint Motion to Reschedule Oral Argument, filed 09/10/24.

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

Brief Description:

          Petitioners Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28, Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 29, and Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 38 brought an inverse condemnation action against the State of Hawai‘i in 2005.  At that time, they argued that the State effected a taking of accreted lands via Act 73 of 2005.  In 2009, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that Act 73 “effectuated a permanent taking of littoral owners’ ownership rights to existing accretions to the owners’ oceanfront properties that had not been registered or recorded or made the subject of a then-pending quiet-title lawsuit or petition to register the accretions.”  Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State, 122 Hawai‘i 34, 57, 222 P.3d 441, 464 (Ct. App. 2009).

On remand from the ICA, Petitioners sought just compensation for the alleged temporary taking of their accreted lands between 2005 and 2012.  At trial, the circuit court concluded that $0 was just compensation for the alleged temporary taking of the accreted land and no nominal damages should be awarded to the petitioners.  It also determined that the petitioners were not entitled to attorney’s fees.

The ICA affirmed the circuit court’s decision.  With regard to attorney’s fees, the ICA held that the petitioners’ “claim for attorneys fees against the State for obtaining declaratory relief is barred by sovereign immunity.”  The ICA further held that the Ohanas were not entitled to attorney’s fees under the private attorney general doctrine. 

In their application for certiorari, the petitioners argue that the ICA erred in affirming the circuit court’s award of $0 in just compensation with no nominal or severance damages.  Petitioners also contend that the ICA erred by concluding that sovereign immunity bars an award of attorney’s fees, and that they would not be entitled to fees under private attorney general doctrine.  The State contends that the ICA did not err in affirming the circuit court’s award of $0 in just compensation or declining to award nominal damages to petitioners.  It also argues that the ICA correctly held that sovereign immunity bars petitioners’ claim for attorney’s fees, and that even if it did not, petitioners would not be entitled to attorney’s fees under the private attorney general doctrine.

No. SCWC-22-0000536, Tuesday, January 14, 2025, 2 p.m., State v. Walter

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WAISER WALTER, 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 and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant WAISER WALTER:
     Dwight C.H. Lum

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/17/24.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

This case arises from a stabbing incident involving Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Waiser Walter on October 10, 2016.  Walter pursued a lack of penal responsibility defense and was examined by five medical examiners – three appointed by the circuit court and two retained by the State.  After the State’s examiners found Walter penally responsible, Walter asked his Deputy Public Defender to withdraw as counsel.  The circuit court denied the motion.  Walter then pleaded guilty to Murder in the Second Degree and Attempted Murder in the Second Degree.  Walter subsequently retained new counsel and filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the circuit court denied.  Thereafter Walter was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.  The ICA affirmed Walter’s conviction.

On certiorari, Walter asks this court to vacate his conviction, arguing (1) the circuit court failed to engage in a colloquy with him at the hearing on his counsel’s motion to withdraw; (2) the circuit court should have recused itself due to a perceived conflict of interest; (3) Walter’s former counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the five-factor State v. Pedro analysis weighs in favor of allowing Walter to withdraw his guilty plea.

No. SCRQ-24-0000602, Thursday, February 6, 2025, 10 a.m., Petition of the Coordination of Maui Fire Cases

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE COORDINATION OF MAUI FIRE CASES.

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 Plaintiffs INDIVIDUAL ACTION PLAINTIFFS:

     Jesse Max Creed of Panish Shea Ravipudi, LLP, Jan Apo of Apo, Reck & Kusachi, Jacob Lowenthal of Lowenthal & Lowenthal, LLLC, Cynthia K. Wong of Cynthia K. Wong, Attorney at Law, LLLC, Aimee M. Lum of Davis Levin Livingston

Attorneys for Defendants HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC., HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., HAWAI‘I ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC., AND MAUI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.:

     Joachim P. Cox and Randall C. Whatoff of Cox Fricke LLP

Attorneys for Defendants SPECTRUM OCEANIC, LLC AND CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.:

     Alan Van Etten of Deeley King Pang & Van Etten

Attorneys for Defendants PETER KLINT MARTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE PETER KLINT MARTIN REVOCABLE TRUST; PETER KLINT MARTIN REVOCALBE TRUST; HOPE BUILDERS HOLDING LLC; HOPE BUILDERS LLC NKA HOPE BUILDERS INC.; KAUA‘ULA LAND COMPANY LLC; KIPA CENTENNIAL, LLC; WAINE‘E LAND & HOMES, LLC; WEST MAUI LAND COMPANY, INC.; MAKILA RANCHES, INC.; MAKILA LAND CO., LLC; JV ENTERPRISES, LLC; LAUNIUPOKO IRRIGATION COMPANY, INC.; LAUNIUPOKO WATER COMPANY, INC.; LAUNIUPOKO WATER DEVELOPMENT LLC; OLOWALU ELUA ASSOCIATES; AND DONNA POSELEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DOUGLAS POSELEY:

     Wesley H.H. Ching, Sheree Kon-Herrera, and Dara S. Nakagawa of Fukunaga Matayoshi Ching & Kon-Herrera, LLP

Attorneys for Defendants HAWAIIAN TELCOM, INC. AND CINCINNATI BELL, INC.:

     Eric H. Tsugawa, Alan K. Lau, and Tedson H. Koja of Tsugawa Lau & Muzzi LLLC

Attorneys for Defendant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Michael L. Lam, Steven E. Tom, Kaonohiokala J. Aukai IV, and Kenneth V. Go of Case Lombardi, and Amanda J. Wetson, Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for the Defendant TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF BERNICE PAUAHI BISHOP dba KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS:

     Derek R. Kobayashi, Brittney M. Wu, and Kiana K. T. Nakanelua of Schlack Ito

Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF MAUI:

     Thomas Kolbe, Deputy Corporation Counsel and David J. Minkin of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP

Attorneys for DENTIST INSURANCE COMPANY:

     Jared A. Washkowitz of Jaw Legal

Attorney for SUBROGATING INSURERS:

     Vincent G. Raboteau, Mark Grotefeld, and Adam Romney of Grotefeld Hoffmann, LLP

Attorneys for HYUNDAI MARINE & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.:

     Nathan H. Yoshimoto, Wesley D. Shimazu and Allan S. Ching of Yoshimoto Law Group

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 09/12/24.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin T. Morikone, filed 09/17/24.

NOTE: Order accepting Reserved Question, filed 09/25/24.

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

Brief Description:

The Circuit Court for the Second Circuit reserved three questions regarding insurers’ subrogation rights in the context of a proposed settlement to the complex litigation arising from the August 2023 wildfires on Maui:

Question 1:  Does the holding of Yukumoto v. Tawarahara, 140 Hawaiʻi 285, 400 P.3d 486 (2017)[,] that limited the subrogation remedies available to health insurers to reimbursement from their insureds under HRS § 663-10 and barred independent actions against tortfeasors who settled with the insureds extend to property and casualty insurance carriers?

Question 2:  Is a property and casualty insurer’s subrogation right of reimbursement prejudiced by its insured’s release of any tortfeasor when the settlement documents and release preserve those same rights under HRS § 663-10?

Question 3:  Under the circumstances of the Maui Fire Cases and the terms of the “Global Settlement,” does the law of the State of Hawaiʻi require that insureds be made whole for all claimed injuries or damages before their insurers can pursue a subrogation right of recovery or reimbursement against a thirty-party tortfeasor?