Oral Arguments Schedule

Case Details

Court

No. SCRQ-24-0000602, Thursday, February 6, 2025, 10 a.m.

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 ʻŌlelo Community Television 53 (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?

No. SCWC-23-0000383, Tuesday, February 11, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

KIA‘I WAI O WAI‘ALE‘ALE, an unincorporated association, FRIENDS OF MĀHĀ‘ULEPŪ, a nonprofit corporation, Petitioners and Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees, vs. BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent and Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee-Appellant, and KAUA‘I ISLAND UTILITY COOPERATIVE, a domestic cooperative association, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee-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 Community Television 55 (olelo.org/tv-schedule/).

Attorneys for Petitioners and Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Appellees KIA‘I WAI O WAI‘ALE‘ALE and FRIENDS OF MĀHĀ‘ULEPŪ :   

     Lance D. Collins of Law Office of Lance D. Collins and Bianca K. Isaki of Law Office of Bianca Isaki

Attorneys for Respondent and Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee/Appellant BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Colin J. Lau and Miranda C. Steed, Deputy Attorneys General 

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/24/24.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/23/24.

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

Brief Description:

This appeal arises out of a dispute over the State of Hawai‘i, Board of Land and Natural Resources’ (BLNR) denial of contested case hearings for the continuation of revocable water permits (RP) on Kaua‘i.  The RPs permitted the Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) to use State lands in the Līhu‘e-Kōloa Forest Reserve on a “month-to-month” basis to divert freshwater to power its hydropower plants.

At a 2020 BLNR public meeting, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Appellees Kia‘i Wai O Wai‘ale‘ale and Friends of Māhā‘ulepū (Plaintiffs) requested that BLNR hold a contested case hearing on KIUC’s application to renew its RP for 2021.  BLNR denied Plaintiffs’ request and renewed the 2021 RP.  Plaintiffs subsequently submitted written petitions for a contested case hearing on the 2021 RP.

A year later, at a 2021 BLNR public meeting, Plaintiffs requested a contested case hearing on KIUC’s application to renew its RP for 2022.  BLNR denied Plaintiffs’ written petitions for a contested case hearing on the 2021 RP; denied Plaintiffs’ requests for a contested case hearing on the 2022 RP; and renewed the 2022 RP.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Environmental Court.  During the pendency of the appeal, KIUC did not seek renewal of the RP for 2023. The Environmental Court, inter alia, concluded that (1) Plaintiffs had standing and protected property interests such that BLNR violated their due process rights by denying contested case hearings; and (2) because BLNR failed to enter findings of fact or conclusions of law, the court could not determine if BLNR properly exercised its discretion in approving the RPs.  The court vacated the 2021 and 2022 RPs. 

BLNR appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which determined that Plaintiffs had standing and protected property interests, but reversed the Environmental Court’s decision because Plaintiffs failed to designate a sufficient record to review the 2021 RP and also on mootness grounds as to the 2022 RP.

We granted both Plaintiffs’ and BLNR’s applications for writs of certiorari.  Plaintiffs assert that the ICA gravely erred by: (1) reversing the Environmental Court despite ongoing environmental damage from KIUC’s diversion structures and the absence of an RP; (2) holding that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief; and (3) concluding the record was deficient. 

BLNR asserts that the ICA gravely erred in concluding that Plaintiffs had standing and protected property interests.

No. SCWC-20-0000727, Tuesday, February 11, 2025, 2 p.m.

ROLAND S. GUIEB, individually and derivatively on behalf of GUIEB INCORPORATED, Respondent/Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. ROBERT S. GUIEB, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, and GUIEB INCORPORATED, a registered Hawai‘i corporation, Petitioner/Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, and PACIFIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING, LLC, GUIEB GROUP LLC, RSG ENTERPRISES, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees/Cross-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 Community Television 55 (olelo.org/tv-schedule).

Attorneys for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant ROBERT S. GUIEB, and Petitioner/Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, GUIEB INC., and Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants PACIFIC WELDING AND MANUFACTURING, LLC., GUIEB GROUP LLC, RSG ENTERPRISES, LLC:

     Bruce D. Voss, Michael C. Carroll, and John D. Ferry III of Lung Rose Voss & Wagnild

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee ROLAND S. GUIEB:

     Fred Paul Benco of Law Offices of Fred Paul Benco

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 11/07/24.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Matthew J. Viola in place of Devens, J., recused, filed 12/16/24.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/19/24.

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

Brief Description:

This case involves a lawsuit between two brothers who ran a business together.  In 1991, they registered Guieb Inc., which did business as “Exhaust Systems Hawaii.”  It specialized in welding repairs, and procuring, replacing, and repairing automobile exhaust systems.  Younger brother Robert Guieb was the majority owner at 55% while older brother Roland Guieb owned 45%.  They were the company’s only directors, officers, and owners.

In 2014, Robert established his own entity, Guieb Group LLC, to sell and service mufflers.  Guieb Group used the trade name “Exhaust Systems Hawaii Kalihi-Kai.”  

In 2018, Roland, individually and derivatively on behalf of Guieb Inc., filed suit against Robert.  The Circuit Court of the First Circuit awarded damages to Roland.  Robert appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.  The ICA affirmed in part and vacated in part the circuit court’s decision.  Robert’s cert application presents three questions: 

(1)  Whether the jury should have been allowed to consider a punitive damages award for Roland?

(2) Whether Roland’s unfair or deceptive acts and practices claims under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 480-2 (2008) and HRS § 481A-3 (2008) should have gone to the jury?

(3) Whether a fiduciary relationship based on kinship exists?

No. SCWC-23-0000296, Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 9 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARLIN L. LAVOIE, 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 Community Television 55 (olelo.org/tv-schedule).

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant MARLIN L. LAVOIE:

     Matthew S. Kohm

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

     Chad Kumagai, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/08/25.

NOTE: Amended Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/09/25.

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

Brief Description:

A jury convicted Marlin Lavoie of second-degree murder and other firearm crimes.  The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for murder, and ordered that the firearm sentences were to be served concurrently.  Lavoie appealed, and ultimately this court remanded for a new trial.

On remand, Lavoie pled guilty to manslaughter and other firearm charges.  Before sentencing, a pre-sentence diagnosis and report was filed.  Lavoie requested $8,700 in expert costs to obtain a dangerousness assessment to supplement this report.  The court denied the full request, but granted $1,000 to hire the expert.

Before sentencing, for procedural reasons, Lavoie’s case was dismissed.  He was re-indicted in a new docket.  Lavoie again pled guilty.  The court sentenced Lavoie to an aggregate 40 years imprisonment: 20 years for manslaughter, served consecutively to 20 years for commission of a felony with a firearm.

Lavoie appealed.  He challenged the court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing and the denial of his full request for expert costs.  The ICA affirmed, holding that the court lawfully sentenced Lavoie.  The ICA also held that the court properly denied Lavoie’s motion for expert costs because Lavoie failed to renew that request after he was re-indicted.  Lavoie argues to this court that the ICA gravely erred.

No. SCWC-19-0000704, Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 2 p.m.

In the Matter of the Application of PIONEER MILL COMPANY, LIMITED to register title and confirm its title to land situate at Lāhainā, Island and County of Maui, State of Hawai‘i and KAHOMA LAND LLC, Substituted Applicant as to Lots 1, 2 and 3A.

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 Community Television 55 (olelo.org/tv-schedule).

Attorney for Petitioners GLADIOLA ALOHA SCHNEIDER, et al.:   
     Michael J. Matsukawa

Attorneys for Respondent KAHOMA LAND LLC:
     W. Keoni Shultz and Calvert G. Chipchase of Cades Schutte LLP

Attorney for Respondents ARLENE K. KAKALIA, et al:
     David B. Kaapu

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 08/21/24.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge James S. Kawashima in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 09/18/24.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari filed 10/09/24.

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

Brief Description:

This case arises out of a land court petition originally filed by Pioneer Mill in 1919 to register fee simple title to various parcels of land in Lāhainā, Maui.  Kahoma Land LLC substituted for Pioneer Mill in 2009.  The petition asserted two claims to the parcels; (1) Pioneer Mill Company Limited had obtained title to the land by deed, and/or (2) Pioneer Mill and its predecessors in title had obtained title by adverse possession.  In 1919, a Report of the Examiner concluded that Pioneer Mill did not have good paper title to Kuhua, the parcel which remains at issue, but may have acquired it by adverse possession.

The Kuhua parcel is located in the mountains near Lāhainā, Maui, and consists of 240.90 acres, which have, historically, been used largely for agricultural purposes.  In An Act Relating to the Crown Government and Fort Lands, June 7, 1848, King Kamehameha III reserved the ahupuaʻa of Kuhua I and Kuhua II as private lands for the use of himself, his heirs, and successors.  In 1853, Eseta Kipa appeared before the Privy Council requesting title to her land in Lāhainā and was granted a Royal Patent, free of commutation, to the land known as Kuhua.  The Royal Patent was subject to Eseta Kipa securing a Land Commission Award, which apparently happened in 1855 through Land Commission Award 7582. Upon Eseta Kipa’s death, Kuhua passed to her son Levi Haalelea and, upon his death, passed to Charles Kanaina.  Descendants of Charles Kanaina’s heirs challenge Kahoma Land LLC’s claim.  Various descendants of the heirs of Charles Kanaina appeared at various points in the case and filed claims of interest.

The case was not decided for 100 years.  Over those 100 years, the petition was revised, and there were several periods where the case lay dormant for decades.  The land court heard and granted various motions for default, held a trial, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and order.  On appeal, in 1972, this court ruled that the land court judge lacked judicial authority because he forfeited his judgeship when, before he issued the decision, he announced his intention to seek state office.  This court remanded for a new trial.  Instead of holding another trial, in 2011, 2013, and 2017 the land court granted three separate motions.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.

In their application for certiorari, the petitioners argue the ICA erred (1) by refusing to address whether the land court lost subject matter jurisdiction after Kahoma LLC revised its claim from 100% interest to 78.04% interest in Kuhua, based on Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 501-25; (2) by ruling that descendants of Charles Kanaina, as co-tenants, lack  standing to defend not only their interests but the interests of all their co-tenants, and then refusing to address issues they raised regarding the alleged adverse possession of Kuhua before 1919; (3) by failing to realize that the land court registration is based on internally inconsistent findings and conclusions; and (4) by ruling that they lacked standing to challenge the land court’s failure to conduct the new trial ordered by this court in 1972 as well as Pioneer Mill’s failure to prosecute the case after the 1972 remand order and by failing to address delay-related errors they had raised on appeal.

No. SCCQ-24-0000165, Thursday, February 20, 2025, 5 p.m.

PUEO KAI MCGUIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, MITCHELL D. ROTH, KELDEN WALTJEN, KATE PERAZICH, and SYLVIA WAN, Defendants-Appellees.

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

William S. Richardson School of Law
Classroom 2 (Courtroom) and
           Classroom 3 (Overflow)
2515 Dole Street
Honolulu, HI 96822

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

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant PUEO KAI MCGUIRE:

     Carl H. Osaki

Attorney for Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, MITCHELL D. ROTH, KELDEN WALTJEN, KATE PERAZICH AND SYLVIA WAN:

     Ryan K. Thomas, Deputy Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order accepting certified question, filed 05/31/24.

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

Brief Description:

Pueo Kai McGuire sued the County of Hawai‘i and current and former Hawai‘i County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA) attorneys in their individual and official capacities in federal court.  McGuire alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because OPA had wrongfully seized him, denied him liberty, due process, and adequate, effective, and meaningful access to the courts, and maliciously prosecuted him for the sexual assault of a Hawai‘i Police Department detective’s daughter.  OPA later moved to nolle prosequi the case, and the state court dismissed the charges with prejudice.  McGuire, at the time, worked as a deputy public defender for the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) in Hilo.

In federal court, McGuire claimed that OPA prosecuted him despite clear evidence he did not commit the crime.  They did this, he alleged, to embarrass OPD and boost the political campaigns for two of the prosecuting attorneys.  The defendants moved to dismiss McGuire’s complaint.  Because OPA charged McGuire with sexual assault in the first, third, and fourth degrees, all state law violations, they did not act as county officials, but rather as state officials.  And, the defendants argued, because county prosecuting attorneys “prosecute offenses against the laws of the State under the authority of the attorney general of the State,” the state attorney general has the authority to control county prosecutor conduct.  Thus, the defendants said, county prosecutors are state officials, and sovereign immunity protected them from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability.

The United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i certified the following question to this Court, which we accepted:

Under Hawai‘i law, does a county Prosecuting Attorney and/or Deputy Prosecuting Attorney act on behalf of the county or the state when he or she is preparing to prosecute and/or prosecuting criminal violations of state law?