Oral Arguments Schedule

Case Details

Court

No. SCWC-20-0000172, Tuesday, March 11, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

CARRIE N. NOBORIKAWA, Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant/Appellant, vs. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent/Employer-Appellee/Appellee, and ACE INSURANCE CO., adjusted by Corvel Corporation, Respondent/Insurance Carrier-Appellee/Appellee.

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/Claimant-Appellant/Appellant CARRIE N. NOBORIKAWA: 
     Wayne H. Mukaida

Attorneys for Respondent/Employer-Appellee/Appellee HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC. and Insurance Carrier-Appellee-Appellee ACE INSURANCE CO., adjusted by Corvel Corporation:
     Jacqueline W. S. Amai, Katherine Y. Koga, and Jordan A. K. Ching of Gallagher Kane Amai & Reyes

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/04/25.

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

Brief Description:

This case involves an appeal from a Labor Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB) workers’ compensation partial permanent disability (PPD) decision.

In 2007, Petitioner Noborikawa suffered a bilateral knee injury while working for Respondent Host International, Inc. as an airport restaurant and bar manager.  A doctor determined Noborikawa had a 5% impairment of the right knee, and 0% impairment of the left knee.  The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) Disability Compensation Division (DCD) determined Noborikawa had a PPD of 7% of the right knee and 0% of the left knee.

Noborikawa appealed to LIRAB.  She argued that she should have received a 20% PPD rating for her right knee and 7% rating for her left knee.  The LIRAB majority awarded 8% for the right knee and 3% for the left knee.  LIRAB’s chair dissented.  He stated he would have awarded 20% for the right knee, and 5% for the left knee.

Noborikawa appealed to the ICA.  She argued that LIRAB (1) failed to consider her permanent disability preventing her from returning to her former restaurant and bar manager duties; (2) failed to sufficiently explain how it reached its PPD decision; (3) erroneously relied on her vocational rehabilitation and re-employment as a medical coder or biller to award a lower PPD; and (4) improperly conflated PPD awards with Temporary Total Disability indemnity benefits in contravention of Hawaiʻi Supreme Court precedent, Ihara v. State of Hawaiʻi, Department of Land and Natural Resources.

The ICA affirmed LIRAB’s decision.  It held that LIRAB did not err in its decision-making and sufficiently explained how it reached its PPD award.  Noborikawa argues to this court that the ICA gravely erred.

No. SCWC-20-0000286, Tuesday, March 25, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

In re MOLOAA FARMS LLC, Respondent/Claimant-Appellant, vs. PAUL C. HUBER, individually, Petitioner and Respondent/Respondent-Appellee, ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF MOLOAA HUI I, PAUL C. HUBER as President of the Association of Unit Owners of Moloaa Hui I, ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF MOLOAA HUI II, and NED Y. WHITLOCK, as President of the Association of Unit Owners of Moloaa Hui II, Respondents and Petitioners/Respondents-Appellees, MOLOAA HUI Lands, Inc., Respondent/Respondent-Appellee, CANDACE L. STRONG, individually, Respondent and Petitioner/Respondent-Appellee and ERIC M. STRONG, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Moloaa Hui Lands, Inc., Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

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 and Respondent/Respondent-Appellee PAUL C. HUBER: 
     Carl H. Osaki

Attorneys for Respondents and Petitioners/Respondents-Appellees AOAO OF MOLOAA HUI I and PAUL C. HUBER, as President of the AOAO of Moloaa Hui I:
     Matt A. Tsukazaki and Tyler A. Tsukazaki of Li & Tsukazaki

Attorneys for the Respondents and Petitioners/Respondents-Appellees AOAO of MOLOAA HUI II and NED Y. WHITLOCK, as President of the AOAO of Moloaa Hui II:  
     Michelle J. Chapman and James W. Rooney of Case Lombardi

Attorneys for Respondent and Petitioner/Respondent-Appellee CANDACE L. STRONG:  
     Jason G.F. Wong and Michel A. Okazaki

Attorneys for Respondent/Claimant-Appellant MOLOAA FARMS, LLC: 
     Paul Alston and Timothy H. Irons of Dentons US LLP

NOTE: Order accepting Applications for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/26/24.

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

Brief Description:

On February 10, 1997, an Option Agreement was entered between Moloaa Hui Lands as “Seller” and Jeffrey S. Lindner as “Buyer”, with Michael R. Strong, Candace Strong, and Paul C. Huber listed as “Principals” of Moloaa Hui Lands (“MHL”).  The Option Agreement indicates Lindner loaned $500,000 to MHL to fund the purchase of the Moloaa Hui Lands property, with the option to acquire a portion of the property.  In March 1997, MHL recorded a Declaration that established covenants governing the Moloaa Hui Lands.  Both the Option Agreement and the Declaration include arbitration provisions requiring disputes to be resolved under the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Commercial Rules.

In 1998, Lindner exercised his option and purchased the lands known as Lot 2. In 2010, owners in Lot 1 formed the Moloaa Irrigation Cooperative to develop a new water system. Moloaa Irrigation Cooperative received state funding to complete the project.

On October 7, 2019, Moloaa Farms and Robert D. Lindner, Jr. filed a demand for arbitration against petitioners, along with Eric Strong, president and CEO of Moloaa Hui Lands. In the demand, Moloaa Farms asserted that the 1997 agreements entitle Lot 2 access to the new water system at cost and at terms akin to those of Lot 1 owners. 

Association of Apartment Owners of Moloaa Hui I and Paul C. Huber, as President of the Association of Unit Owners of Moloaa Hui I; Association of Apartment Owners of Moloaa Hui II and Ned Y. Whitlock, as President of the Association of Unit Owners of Moloaa Hui II, as well as Candace L. Strong and Paul C. Huber, separately, contested the arbitration, through Motions to Stay and/or Terminate Arbitration and a Motion to Determine Existence and Validity of an Agreement to Arbitrate.  The circuit court terminated the arbitration, granting all three motions. The ICA vacated the circuit court’s orders terminating arbitration, holding the arbitration agreements to be valid and the disputes arbitrable.

The questions raised concern whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clauses, and whether the clauses bind all the named parties.  In their petitions for certiorari, the petitioners argue the ICA erred when it divested the circuit court of jurisdiction over the dispute.  Additionally, the parties ask whether the dispute is one respecting water rights under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 664-32 and § 664-33, and whether these statutes confer exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes to the circuit court.

No. SCAP-23-0000453, Tuesday, March 25, 2025, 2 p.m.

CASEY CAMERON EASON, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent-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 Respondent-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Charles E. Murray III, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorney for Petitioner-Appellee CASEY CAMERON EASON:
     Catherine E. Gibson

NOTE: Order granting application for transfer, filed 05/06/24.

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

Brief Description:

In 2004, Defendant-Appellee Casey Cameron Eason (Eason) pled no contest to Murder in the Second Degree under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-701.5 during a March 31, 2004 hearing in the Circuit Court for the Third Circuit (Circuit Court). 

In 2021, Eason filed a Hawai‘i Rule of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 Petition for post-conviction relief.  On various grounds, he claims that his plea on March 31, 2004 was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made.  By this time, no transcript or verbatim record existed from the 2004 hearing.

Nearly twenty years after Eason was sentenced, the Circuit Court granted Eason’s Rule 40 Petition.  The court held the State did not meet its burden to show that Eason’s change of plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; and that Eason’s due process rights were violated because there had not been an affirmative determination of Eason’s fitness prior to accepting his no contest plea.  The Circuit Court also held that, although Eason previously filed Rule 40 petitions, there are extraordinary circumstances in this case sufficient to warrant overriding Rule 40’s waiver provision.

Eason’s conviction was vacated and he was returned to “no bail” status until further order of the Court.

The State appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, and this case was then transferred to the supreme court.  The State asserts the following:

1. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law by failing to dismiss [Eason’s Rule 40 Petition] for violation of HRS § 602-11 and for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law and in its findings of fact in deciding that there was a violation of Eason’s due process rights due to the absence of an ‘on the record’ determination of fitness prior to the change of plea on March 31, 2004. . . .
3. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law and in its findings of fact by failing to conclude that Eason waived the claims in his [Rule 40 Petition by failing to raise them in his earlier petitions].
4. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law and in its findings of fact by shifting the burden to the State, as there was more than a ‘silent or minimal record’ of the change of plea hearing. . . .
5. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law and in its findings of fact in determining that Eason’s change of plea on March 31, 2004 was not voluntary[.]

No. SCWC-23-0000376, Thursday, April 17, 2025, 10 a.m., State v. Zuffante

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHARLES ZUFFANTE, Petitoner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

Performing Arts Center
University of Hawai‘i at Hilo
200 W. Kawili St.
Hilo, HI  96720

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 CHARLES ZUFFANTE:

     Georgette Anne Yaindl of the Law Office of Georgette A. Yaindl

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Frederick M. Macapinlac, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/05/25.

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

Brief Description:

     This case arises from a traffic stop in Kona, Hawaiʻi.  An officer conducted a pat down of Petitioner Charles Zuffante and found a packet of crystal methamphetamine in his pocket.  Police later found more methamphetamine in the vehicle.      

     Following Zuffante’s arrest, a Hawaiʻi Police Department officer questioned Zuffante at the police station.  At trial, the officer testified that Zuffante voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and made statements to him, including that Zuffante sells crystal methamphetamine. 

     A jury found Zuffante guilty of Attempted Promotion of a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree in violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes §§ 712-1241(1)(b)(ii) and 705-500.  The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment. 

     Zuffante appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), arguing that his statements to the officer were not voluntary.  He argued the Circuit Court erred by admitting the officer’s testimony, because Zuffante’s statement was not electronically recorded.  Zuffante asserted that, under the Hawaiʻi Constitution, Hawaiʻi should adopt the “Stephan Rule” from Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985), which requires under the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution that police record criminal interrogations conducted at a police station.  Zuffante argued that without the officer’s testimony about Zuffante’s statements, the State did not present substantial evidence to support his conviction.  Zuffante also claimed his counsel was ineffective for not challenging the officer’s testimony.  The ICA affirmed the Circuit Court. 

     Zuffante’s application for certiorari to this court was granted.  He argues the ICA gravely erred by (1) affirming the Circuit Court’s admission of the officer’s testimony; (2) finding there was substantial evidence to sustain Zuffante’s conviction; and (3) not addressing Zuffante’s ineffective assistance claim.  Zuffante argues the supreme court should overrule State v. Kekona, 77 Hawaiʻi 403 (1994), where the court directly rejected the “Stephan Rule,” and instead require that police record custodial interrogations.