Case Details

Court

Updates:

No. SCWC-22-0000364, originally scheduled for April 8, 2026, is continued to Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 2 p.m. Scroll down for case details.

No. SCWC-23-0000049, originally scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 2026, is continued to June 4, 2026, 10 a.m. Scroll down for case details.

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

SCWC-25-0000525 (Consolidated with SCWC-25-0000526, SCWC-25-0000527, and SCWC-25-0000528)

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX APPEAL OF PM & AM RESEARCH, INC., Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Appellee-Appellee

The above-captioned consolidated cases have 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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant PM & AM RESEARCH, INC.:
     Benjamin E. Lowenthal of The Law Office of Benjamin E. Lowenthal

Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Nathan S. C. Chee, Janine R. Udui, Michael Dunford, and Joshua Michaels, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Jordon J. Kimura, due to a vacancy filed, 12/16/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/05/26.

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

Brief Description:

These consolidated cases consist of four tax appeals that were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) because, according to the ICA, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 235-114(a) requires payment of the assessed general excise taxes plus interest to appeal a Tax Appeal Court’s order to the ICA, and Appellants did not comply with HRS § 235-114(a)’s requirement of paying the assessed taxes plus interest.

There is a provision in HRS § 235-114(a) that exempts payment of the assessed taxes on “first appeal” to the Tax Appeal Court.  On certiorari, we consider whether this statutory exemption should also apply on appeal to the ICA when the Tax Appeal Court dismissed these four cases for lack of jurisdiction.

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026 – 9:00 A.M.

NO. SCCQ-25-0000822

LAURIE BOLOS, et al., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. WALDORF=ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC operating as Grand Wailea, a Waldorf Astoria Resort, et al., Defendants.

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 Plaintiffs LAURIE BOLOS, et al.: 
     Sandra D. Lynch of Lynch Law Offices LLLC  

Attorneys for Defendants WALDORF=ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC: 
     Judy M. Iriye and Wayne S. Yoshigai of Littler Mendelson P.C. 

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Henry T. Nakamoto, due to a vacancy, filed 11/19/25. 

NOTE: Order accepting Certified Question, filed 11/19/25. 

NOTE: Order setting Oral Argument date for 04/28/26 at 10:30 a.m., filed 02/20/26. 

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

Brief Description: 

This certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i asks us to determine which unit of measure applies when measuring compliance and damages under Hawai‘i’s minimum wage provisions, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 387-2 and 387-12 (2022).  Is it a per-workweek unit, as utilized under federal law when determining compliance with minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?  Or is it a per-hour unit, as utilized under minimum wage provisions of some states?  

This case arises from a putative class and collective action brought by Plaintiff Laurie Bolos and one hundred additional plaintiffs who worked at Defendants’ Grand Wailea-A Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Wailea, Maui.  Plaintiffs are massage therapists, estheticians, nail technicians, fitness instructors, and hair stylists who performed spa services at the hotel.  They sued for violations of state and federal wage and hour laws based on Defendants’ misclassification of them as independent contractors. 

Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on Count One of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint, which seeks recovery under HRS § 387-12 for alleged violations of Hawai‘i’s minimum wage statute, HRS § 387-2.  The unit of measure – per workweek or per hour – of the amount of wages earned may be the determining factor in whether a minimum wage statute has been violated.  In their summary judgment briefing, Defendants argued that the federal workweek-averaging approach utilized under the FLSA should apply here.  Plaintiffs disagreed.  They said the per-hour approach should apply instead.

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

No. SCWC-22-0000690

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KOA KAAKIMAKA, 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 live streamed 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 KOA KAAKIMAKA:
     R. Hermann Heimgartner

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Charles E. Murray III, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin A.K. Souza due to a vacancy, filed 02/13/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/04/26.

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

Brief Description:
Koa Kaakimaka was charged with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1110.9(1)(a) violation of privacy in the first degree. While working as a landscaper at a rental property, Kaakimaka had held his phone up to a high-up bathroom window and videorecorded the inside of the bathroom. A minor girl was showering in the bathroom. Kaakimaka later admitted to videorecording the minor. The jury convicted him as charged.

Kaakimaka appealed the charging document, various jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the conviction and remanded the case based on the insufficient charge.  It concluded, though, that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.  This court vacated the ICA’s decision regarding the charging instrument, and remanded for the ICA to address the remaining points of error.

On remand, the ICA held that the circuit court properly declined Kaakimaka’s requested jury instructions defining “installed or used a device in a private place,” and “private place.”  It also affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Kaakimaka’s request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of “peeping” under HRS § 711-1111(1)(b). 

Kaakimaka appealed.  This court accepted cert, and requested supplemental briefing as to whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Kaakimaka of violation of privacy in the first degree under HRS § 711-1110.9(1)(a).

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

No. SCWC-22-0000364

NAVATEK CAPITAL INC, individually and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant PacMar Technologies LLC, fka Martin Defense Group, LLC, fka Navatek LLC, Respondent/Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. MARTIN KAO, Petitioner/Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant-Appellant and PACMAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, fka Martin Defense Group, LLC, fka Navatek LLC, Respondent/Nominal Defendant/Cross-Claimant-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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant-Appellant MARTIN KAO:
     Keith M. Kiuchi

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee NAVATEK CAPITAL INC., individually and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant, PacMar Techonologies LLC, fka Martin Defense Group, LLC, fka Navatek LLC and Respondent/Nominal Defendant/Cross-Claimant-Appellee PACMAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, fka Martin Defense Group, LLC, fka Navatek LLC:
     David M. Louie, Jesse W. Schiel, Nicholas R. Monlux and Timothy T. Silvester of Kobayshi Sugita & Goda, LLP

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Rebecca A. Copeland, due to a vacancy, filed 12/15/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/23/25.

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

Brief Description:
This case arises out of a civil arbitration proceeding. Navatek Capital Inc. (NCI) and Martin Defense Group, LLC (MDG) sued Martin Kao (Kao), MDG’s former chief executive officer, for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and gross negligence after the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal criminal complaint against Kao. NCI and MDG also sought damages.

After an indictment was returned, Kao filed a motion to stay the arbitration hearing pending the outcome of his federal criminal trial. The parties agreed that Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1995) controlled whether the arbitrator could grant or deny the motion. The arbitrator applied the Keating factors and denied the motion to stay, then issued a final arbitration award in NCI and MDG’s favor, awarding them compensatory and punitive damages.

Kao filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court), arguing the arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon a “showing of sufficient cause,” in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 658A-23(a)(3), and also exceeded his authority by awarding NCI and MDG punitive damages, in violation of HRS § 658A-23(a)(4). The circuit court denied the motion to vacate and confirmed the arbitration award. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) determined the circuit court did not err by deferring to the arbitrator’s application of Keating and in concluding that he acted within his authority by awarding punitive damages. 

On certiorari, Kao asks:

(1) Did the ICA grievously err when it affirmed the Circuit Court order confirming the arbitration award where: the Arbitrator denied Mr. Kao’s Motion to Stay Proceedings and refused to postpone the hearing until after the completion of a criminal trial against Respondent Martin Kao thereby denying him a fair hearing because he could not defend himself as he invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination? 

(2) Did the ICA grievously err when it affirmed the order confirming the award of punitive damages where: (a) this was a contract action, (b) [NCI] and MDG failed to show the wealth of Mr. Kao, and (c) neither the Operating Agreement or the arbitration agreement gave the Arbitrator the right to award punitive damages? 

In addition, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court ordered supplemental briefing on the following two questions: (1) What constitutes “sufficient cause for postponement” under HRS § 658A-23(a)(3)?; and (2) What factors should be considered in deciding whether a civil proceeding in Hawai‘i should be stayed due to pending criminal charges based on Article I, Section 10 of the Hawai‘i Constitution?

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

No. SCAP-24-0000313

RAMONA RICAPOR-HALL, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, vs. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and R.J. REYNOLD TOBACCO COMPANY, LIGGETT GROUP LLC, FOODLAND SUPER MARKET, LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees.

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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant RAMONA RICAPOR-HALL:
     Wayne Parsons, Sergio Rufo, Alejandro Alvarez, William F. Brown, and Nicholas Reyes

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.:
     David M. Louie and Nicholas R. Monlux of Kobayashi Sugita & Goda, LLP

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 04/07/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Jordon J. Kimura, due to a vacancy, filed 03/25/26.

NOTE: Order granting motion for oral argument, scheduled on 05/14/26 at 10:00 AM, filed on 3/27/26.

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

Brief Description:

Ramona Ricapor-Hall sued Philip Morris USA Inc., other cigarette manufacturers, and a cigarette retailer for damages, alleging that her lung cancer was caused by cigarettes made by the manufacturer defendants.  Ricapor-Hall’s negligence, strict products liability, and conspiracy claims proceeded to trial against Philip Morris.  The jury found Philip Morris liable for all claims.  It allocated 54 percent of the negligence or fault to Philip Morris and 46 percent to Ricapor-Hall.  It awarded general and punitive damages. 

In its final judgment, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit reduced Ricapor-Hall’s general damages award by 46 percent according to her percentage of negligence.  Both sides appealed.

In Philip Morris’ appeal, it argues that a new trial is warranted because the circuit court erred in (1) substituting in alternate jurors after phase one deliberations began, (2) failing to properly investigate the influence of extrinsic information, (3) declining to give Philip Morris’ proposed jury instructions on pre-existing injuries and unavoidably unsafe products, and (4) denying Philip Morris’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages.

In Ricapor-Hall’s cross appeal, she argues that the circuit court erred in applying comparative negligence principles to reduce her award for the intentional tort of conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation.  She asks that we vacate the portion of the final judgment reducing her general damages by 46 percent, and remand for entry of an amended judgment for the full amount of damages.

NO. SCWC-24-0000754

FRIENDS OF MĀHĀ‘ULEPU, a nonprofit corporation, and SAVE KŌLOA, a nonprofit corporation, Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants-Appellants, vs. KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION, County of Kaua‘i, 5425 PAU A LAKA, LLC, a limited liability corporation, and MERIDIAN PACIFIC, (fka Kiahuna Po‘ipu Golf Resort, LLC), Respondents/Respondents/Appellees-Appellees.

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/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorneys for Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants-Appellants FRIENDS OF MĀHĀ‘ULEPU and SAVE KŌLOA:
     Lance D. Collins of The Law Office of Lance D. Collins, Bianca Isaki of The Law Office of Bianca Isaki and Ryan D.

     Hurley of The Law Office of Ryan D. Hurley

Attorney for Respondent/Respondent/Appellee-Appellee KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION, County of Kaua‘i:
     Chris Donohoe, Deputy County Attorney

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Peter T. Cahill due to a vacancy, filed 03/11/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/09/26.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Circuit Judge Peter T. Cahill, filed 04/14/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Dyan M. Medeiros, in place of Cahill, J., recused, filed 04/15/26.

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

Brief Description:
Petitioners are Friends of Māhāʻulepū and Save Kōloa (collectively, FOM/SK), nonprofit organizations asserting native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights and the right to a clean and healthful environment under the Hawaiʻi State Constitution. Respondent is the Kauaʻi Planning Commission (KPC). In this case, developer Meridian Pacific submitted a master drainage plan (MDP) for KPC’s approval in order to fulfill a condition attached to three development permits issued in 2006. FOM/SK sought to intervene in the approval proceedings. The KPC denied FOM/SK’s petition to intervene and approved Meridian’s MDP.

FOM/SK appealed KPC’s decision to the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court). The Circuit Court affirmed the KPC’s decision. FOM/SK then appealed the Circuit Court’s final judgment to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). The ICA vacated the Circuit Court’s final judgment and directed the Circuit Court to dismiss FOM/SK’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the ICA held that the MDP approval proceedings did not constitute a contested case from which an appeal may be taken. The ICA also held that a contested case was not required.

On certiorari, FOM/SK argues that the ICA erred by concluding the following:

1. [FOM/SK was] not entitled to a contested case to protect their constitutional rights in the MDP because the MDP produced [by Meridian] and approved without [FOM/SK’s] input through a contested case or any [KPC] amendment, did not “change the status quo” and therefore “did not affect” [FOM/SK’s] rights;
2. [FOM/SK] lacked standing because a “favorable decision” from the [KPC] on their petition to intervene against approval of [Meridian’s] MDP would not have provided relief for [FOM/SK’s] injuries; and,
3. the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over [FOM/SK’s] appeal because [FOM/SK’s] constitutional rights were not impacted by [KPC’s] approval of an MDP that did not “change the status quo.”

No. SCWC-23-0000701

MARCUS L. KAWATACHI, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission, ex relatione, ROBERT A. FAHN and BRENDA A. FAHN, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PARRISH COLLECTION, LLC, THE PARRISH COLLECTION KAUAI, JONATHAN D. PARRISH, and SIMONE McCAFFREY, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees, and LINDA EVANS, as Trustee of the LAURA P. EVANS REVOCABLE TRUST Dated May 8, 2002, 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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorneys for Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees THE PARRISH COLLECTION, LLC, THE PARRISH COLLECTION KAUAI, JONATHAN D. PARRISH, and SIMONE McCAFFREY:
     Mark G. Valencia and Alana S.D. Johnson of Case Lombardi

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant MARCUS L. KAWATACHI, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission, ex relatione, ROBERT A. FAHN and BRENDA A. FAHN:
     Eric Piliaau, Joey Badua and Catherine M. Lowenberg of The Department of Labor & Industrial Relations

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Michelle L. Drewyer due to a vacancy, filed 03/17/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/06/26.

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

Brief Description:

This appeal arises from a tenant’s request for reasonable accommodations under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 515-3(a)(9) of the Hawaiʻi Discrimination in Real Property Transactions Act.  Marcus L. Kawatachi, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (HCRC), ex relatione Robert A. Fahn (Robert) and Brenda A. Fahn (collectively, Fahns), filed this suit in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (circuit court) against The Parrish Collection, LLC, The Parrish Collection Kauai, Jonathan D. Parrish, and Simon McCaffrey (collectively, Parrish) over allegations that Parrish unlawfully discriminated against the Fahns on the basis of Robert’s disability (heart disease).

In August 2020, the Fahns and Parrish executed a rental agreement for a long-term lease at a high-end property.  The rental agreement contained a clause requiring the Fahns to pay for weekly scheduled cleanings.  The Fahns requested an accommodation for Parrish to waive the clause because of Robert’s disability.  They indicated Robert was at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 due to his heart disease and wanted to limit the number of non-immediate household members entering the property.  Parrish denied the requested accommodation stating that the Fahns allowed repair workers but not cleaners to enter the property.  Parrish terminated the Fahns’ tenancy after they repeatedly failed to comply with the weekly cleanings clause.

The Fahns then filed a complaint with the HCRC.  Following an investigation, the HCRC found reasonable cause to believe that unlawful discriminatory practices had taken place.  After attempts at conciliation failed, the parties received notices of the right to sue, which the Fahns exercised.

In its first amended complaint, the HCRC alleged that Parrish unlawfully discriminated against Robert on the basis of disability by failing to engage in an interactive process and by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.  Parrish filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.  It contended that no legal liability exists for failing to engage in an interactive process in this context, and that it did not unlawfully refuse to accommodate Robert’s alleged disability because the requested accommodation was neither necessary nor reasonable.

The circuit court granted Parrish’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, concluding that the HCRC failed to adequately allege Robert’s disability or that the requested accommodation was either reasonable or necessary.  It also determined that HRS § 515-3(a)(9) does not create independent liability for failure to engage in an interactive process and, even if it did, the parties here had undertaken efforts to resolve the matter.  The HCRC appealed.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the circuit court’s order and final judgment.  Citing Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b), the ICA treated Parrish’s motion as a motion for summary judgment because the circuit court relied on the parties’ declarations and exhibits.  The ICA determined that Parrish failed to produce enough evidence negating the “disability,” “necessary,” and “reasonable” factors.  However, it did not address whether there is standalone liability under HRS § 515-3(a)(9) for a landlord’s failure to engage in an interactive process. 

On certiorari, Parrish challenges the ICA’s holding that it failed to produce evidence negating the “necessary” and “reasonable” factors and urges this court to reach the question left unresolved by the ICA, namely whether independent liability exists under HRS § 515-3(a)(9) for failure to engage in an interactive process.

THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

No. SCWC-22-0000084

TIKI’S GRILL & BAR, LLC, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, Petitioner/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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee DTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.:
    Richard B. Miller and Ashley R. Shibuya of Tom Petrus & Miller, LLLC

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant TIKI’S GIRLL & BAR, LLC:
    James J. Bickerton of Bickerton Law Group

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Todd W. Eddins, filed 02/27/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Steven R. Nichols, in place of Eddins, J., recused and Circuit Judge Karin L. Holma, due to a vacancy, filed 03/11/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/31/26.

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

Brief Description:

This appeal involves a commercial insurance coverage dispute between Respondent/Plaintiff Tiki’s Grill & Bar, LLC (Tiki’s) and Petitioner/Defendant DTRIC Insurance Company, Limited (DTRIC).  Tiki’s operates a restaurant and bar located in the Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel (Hotel).

From March 25, 2020 until July 31, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the owner of the Hotel nailed wooden boards across the Hotel’s entrances. 

Tiki’s, unable to operate its restaurant, submitted a business interruption claim to DTRIC, which DTRIC denied.  Tiki’s filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court), seeking declaratory judgment that DTRIC was obligated to cover Tiki’s claim.  DTRIC moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Tiki’s claim was not covered because Tiki’s did not suffer a direct physical loss or damage to its property and alternatively that a virus exclusion applied.  The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for DTRIC.  On appeal, the ICA vacated the Circuit Court’s summary judgment ruling and remanded the case to the Circuit Court.

          On certiorari, DTRIC presents three questions:

1. Whether the ICA gravely erred by holding that a landlord’s decision to physically block a commercial tenant’s access to its business premises by boarding up the building’s entrances constitutes “direct physical loss or damage” under a commercial property insurance policy.
2. Whether the ICA gravely erred by failing to enforce the subject insurance policy’s exclusion for loss “caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.”
3. Whether the ICA gravely erred by failing to enforce the subject insurance policy’s exclusion for loss “caused by or resulting from . . . [d]elay, loss of use or loss of market.”

TUESDAY, June 2, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCWC-23-0000662

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF SAXON ASSET SECURITIES TRUST 2005-1 MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-1, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. YUN RU,  Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, KAOHE RANCH SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, KAOHE RANCH ROAD MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, MORDEHAI ASAF AND LIORA ASAF, TRUSTEES OF THE ASAF FAMILY TRUST, DATED JUNE 1, 2015, Defendants-Appellees.

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 live streamed 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 YUN RU:
    Frederick J. Arensmeyer of The Law Office of Frederick J. Arensmeyer

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF SAXON ASSET SECURITIES TRUST 2005-1 MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-1:
    Zachary K. Kondo and Mary Martin of Pulice Nervell

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin A.K. Souza due to a vacancy, filed 03/10/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/24/26.

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

Brief Description:

In this foreclosure case, Respondent/Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas as Indenture Trustee for the Registered Holders of Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2005-1 Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series 2005-1 (Deutsche Bank) obtained a foreclosure judgment and confirmation judgment against Petitioner/Defendant Yun Ru (Ru), in part based on Ru’s default in responding to the complaint.

Under Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 55(c) and 60(b)(6), Ru subsequently moved to set aside the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit’s (Circuit Court) default judgment and foreclosure judgment, as well as the confirmation judgment.  The Circuit Court denied Ru’s motion.

     Ru appealed and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the Circuit Court.

     On certiorari, Ru raises the following questions:

1. Whether the ICA gravely erred by concluding HRCP Rule 60(b)(6)’s “exceptional circumstances” test does not apply to a motion for relief from a default judgment, and instead, the three-prong test for setting aside default judgments exclusively applies.
2. Whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that the default entered by the Circuit Court clerk resulted from inexcusable neglect or wilful acts under the circumstances of this case.

No. SCWC-23-0000049, originally scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 2026, is continued to June 4, 2026, 10 a.m.

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2026 – 10 A.M.

NO. SCWC-23-0000049

YUKI GLEASON, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, 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 live streamed 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 YUKI GLEASON:
     Kevin O’Grady of The Law Office of Kevin O’Grady, LLC

Attorneys for Respondent/Respondent-Appellee ADMINISTATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Sianha M. Gualano and Christopher J.I. Leong, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Shirley M. Kawamura, due to a vacancy, filed 12/04/25.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 12/17/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin T. Morikone, in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 12/17/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/23/25.

NOTE: Order granting motion to postpone the 03/31/26 oral argument, filed on 03/17/26. 

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

Brief Description:

This case raises a question as to what inferences, if any, a factfinder may draw from a driver’s refusal to participate in a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST).

Yuki Gleason was operating a vehicle and was stopped by a police officer after her vehicle was observed swerving. During the traffic stop, Gleason was asked to participate in an SFST, which she declined. She was subsequently arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII).

After the Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office (ADLRO) revoked Gleason’s license for one year, she requested an administrative hearing to review the ADLRO’s decision. Following a hearing, the ADLRO affirmed the revocation basing its decision, in part, on an inference of a consciousness of guilt drawn from Gleason’s refusal to participate in the SFST.

Gleason subsequently filed a petition for judicial review of the ADLRO’s decision. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the administrative revocation. Gleason then appealed to this court.

There is one issue before the court: In an OVUII case, may the factfinder infer a consciousness of guilt from the driver’s refusal to participate in an SFST?

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2026 – 2 P.M.

No. SCAP-24-0000819

MAUI TOMORROW FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF MAUI, AND COUNTY OF MAUI, 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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Defendants-Appellants MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF MAUI, AND COUNTY OF MAUI: 
     Brian A. Bilberry, Deputy Corporation Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee MAUI TOMORROW FOUNDATION:
     Lance D. Collins of Law Office of Lance D. Collins and Bianca Isaki of Law Office of Bianca Isaki

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 09/03/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Paul B.K. Wong, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, filed 09/03/25.

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 09/09/25.

NOTE: Order setting Oral Argument date for 05/28/26 at 2:00 p.m., filed 04/02/26.

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

Brief Description:

This transfer case arises out of rules promulgated by Maui County to govern its special management area (SMA).  The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) established a SMA in Maui for the purpose of protecting coastal ecosystems and historic resources.  The CZMA requires any “development” activities in the SMA to have a permit.  Maui County passed rules that created exceptions to the activities that are considered “developments.”  This exempted certain uses in the SMA from permitting requirements.

Maui Tomorrow Foundation, an environmental advocacy group, brought a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit seeking to invalidate these rules.  Maui Tomorrow argued they exceeded Maui County’s authority under the CZMA.  The circuit court agreed, and invalidated relevant portions of the rules.  This transfer asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the exclusions placed reasonable limitations on Maui County’s oversight, or if they placed excessive discretion in the hands of private parties by excluding activities from review.

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

No. SCWC-24-0000706

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO GARCES, JR., 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/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability. 

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant MARIANO GARCES, JR.:
     Brandon M. Segal

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

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Shirley M. Kawamura due to a vacancy, filed 03/09/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/23/26.         

NOTE:     Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 06/02/26 to 07/07/26 at 10:00 a.m., filed 04/24/26.

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

Brief Description:

This appeal concerns the admissibility of statements made by Defendant Mariano Garces Jr. (“Garces”) during a custodial interrogation and the sufficiency of the Maui Police Department’s (“MPD”) Miranda waiver form.  Garces was charged in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (“circuit court”) with one count of second-degree murder.  Before trial, Garces argued that his custodial statements should be suppressed.  He asserted his Miranda waiver was invalid because of his mental condition at the time of questioning and because the MPD Miranda waiver form did not inform him of his constitutional right to stop questioning at any time.

The circuit court determined that Garces voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and admitted the statements.  The jury convicted him of second-degree murder and the ICA affirmed the conviction.  Garces raises the same arguments on certiorari. 

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026 – 2 P.M.

No. SCWC-22-0000063

SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DAWN N. S. CHANG, in her official capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, ALEXANDER AND BALDWIN, INC., EAST MAUI IRRIGATION COMPANY, LLC, COUNTY OF MAUI, MAHI PONO LLC AND MAHI PONO HOLDINGS, LLC., Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

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 live streamed 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 SIERRA CLUB:
     David Kimo Frankel

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DAWN N. S. CHANG:
     Julia H. China and Miranda C. Steed, Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees ALEXANDER AND BALDWIN, INC. and EAST MAUI IRRIGATION COMPANY, LLC:
     Calvert G. Chipchase and Trisha H.S.T. Akagi of Cades Schutte

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF MAUI:
     Mariana Lowy-Gerstmar and Kristin K. Tarnstrom, Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Clarissa Y. Malinao due to a vacancy, filed 02/17/26.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 02/26/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Fa‘auuga To‘oto‘o, in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 03/03/26.

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 05/26/26 to 07/07/26 at 2:00 p.m., filed 04/13/26.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, and Devens, JJ., Circuit Judge To‘oto‘o, in place of Ginoza, J. recused, and Circuit Judge Malinao, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Sierra Club filed an original action in Environmental Court following Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Board of Land & Natural Resources’ (BLNR) 2018 and 2019 renewals of four revocable permits authorizing Respondents/Defendants-Appellees Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. and East Maui Irrigation Company, LLC to utilize state lands and to divert millions of gallons of fresh water a day from East Maui streams for use outside that watershed during 2019 and 2020.  Relevant to this appeal, Sierra Club’s suit claimed that in renewing those revocable permits for 2019 and 2020, BLNR breached its public trust fiduciary duties (Count 2) and violated its obligations pursuant to HRS Chapter 205A, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (Count 3).

The Environmental Court ruled in favor of defendants, and Sierra Club appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).  As that appeal was pending, this court issued its decision in Maui Lani Neighbors, Inc. v. State (Maui Lani), 156 Hawai‘i 520, 575 P.3d 610 (2025). 

The ICA held that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Sierra Club’s claims pursuant to Maui Lani.  Specifically, the ICA determined that because Counts 2 and 3 of Sierra Club’s suit challenged BLNR’s decision-making on the revocable permits, BLNR had exclusive jurisdiction over those claims.  Therefore, the ICA concluded that Sierra Club was required to exhaust all proceedings in BLNR’s administrative processes, which included (following Maui Lani) an “administrative appeal under HRS § 91-14.”  The ICA vacated the Environmental Court’s Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Final Judgment and remanded for entry of an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

On certiorari, Sierra Club asks: (1) did the ICA err in dismissing Sierra Club’s appeal; (2) did the ICA err in finding that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction to hear claims in an original action that BLNR breached its trust duties and violated HRS Chapter 205A; and (3) did the ICA err in failing to hold that BLNR breached its trust duties and violated HRS Chapter 205A?

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

No. SCWC-23-0000336

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VIHN DU CHAU, aka VIHN CHAU, aka ERIC CHAU, 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 live streamed 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 STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
    Richard B. Rost, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee VIHN DU CHAU, aka VIHN CHAU, aka ERIC CHAU:
    Henry P. Ting, Deputy Public Defenders

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Paul B. K. Wong due to a vacancy, filed 02/25/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/11/26.

NOTE: Order granting motion for postponement of oral argument from 05/21/26 to 07/16/26 at 2:00 p.m.

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

Brief Description:

Defendant Vihn Du Chau was charged with two counts of violation of an order for protection, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-11.

At trial, Chau moved for judgment of acquittal.  He claimed that because he had not been personally served with the protection order, the State had failed to prove one of the HRS § 586-11 elements.  The State argued that per HRS § 586-6, a respondent is “deemed to have notice of the [protective] order” if the respondent is present at the hearing where the order was issued.  Service was thus not an element of HRS § 586-11.  The Family Court of the Second Circuit acquitted Chau. 

The State appealed.  It argued that the circuit court erred in holding that service is an element of the offense.  The State claimed that the family court’s acquittal was in effect an order sustaining a motion to dismiss, and thus, the court did not acquit Chau.

The ICA dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  It concluded that even if the family court “may not have been fully correct” in its interpretation of HRS § 586-11, the court had factually determined that the State failed to prove an element of the charge.  Thus, the ICA determined, Chau had been acquitted, and appellate review was unavailable. 

The State appealed.  This court accepted cert and ordered supplemental briefing as to “whether service is an element of the Violation of an Order for Protection offense following the 1998 amendment to [HRS] § 586-6.”