Case Details

Court

No. SCWC-22-0000441, Tuesday, November 4, 2025, 10 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-21-0000669, Thursday, November 20, 2025, 10:30 a.m.

PL III, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, ARICK B. YANAGIHARA, and MICHAEL H. NEKOBA, Petitioners and Respondents/Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants, and WILLIAM G. BOYLE and ANITA MATSUZAKI, Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. PUU LANI RANCH CORP., a Hawaii Corporation, Respondent/Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee, and F. NEWELL BOHNETT, as Trustee under that certain unrecorded Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated July 29, 1981, made by F. Newell Bohnett, as Settlor, and F. NEWELL BOHNETT, in his individual capacity, Respondents/Defendants/Appellees.

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/Plaintiff/ Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant PL III, LLC and Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant ANITA MATSUZAKI:
     Keith Kiuchi

Attorney for Petitioner and Respondent/Plaintiff/ Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant ARICK B. YANAGIHARA: 
     Christopher J. Muzzi of Tsugawa Lau & Muzzi LLLC 

Attorneys for Petitioner and Respondent/Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant MICHAEL H. NEKOBA: 
     Jesse J.T. Smith and Jaime H. Tokioka of Tokioka Smith 

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM G. BOYLE:   
     Gary G. Grimmer of GGG Hawaii Law Inc. 

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee  PUU LANI RANCH CORP.:
     Philip J. Leas and Kirk M. Neste of Cades Schutte LLP 

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 6/18/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Rowena A. Somerville, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, filed 06/25/25. 

NOTE: Order accepting Applications for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/04/25. 

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/11/25. 

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

Brief Description:  This case concerns a challenge to an arbitration award resolving a real property dispute.  Petitioner PL III, LLC (“PL III”) contracted with Respondent Puu Lani Ranch Corp. (“Puu Lani Ranch”) to buy vacant real property in the County of Hawai ̒i.  Petitioners Arick Yanagihara, Michael Nekoba, William Boyle, and Anita Matsuzaki guaranteed the obligations of PL III under a purchase money mortgage.  In 2013, the parties agreed to binding arbitration before an arbitrator, who issued a final arbitration award in 2014 in Puu Lani Ranch’s favor.  The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (“circuit court”) confirmed the arbitration award.  In 2019, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) vacated the arbitration award and remanded the case to the circuit court to determine whether the arbitrator made a timely and sufficient disclosure of his association with the Institute of Human Services (“IHS”) and whether donations made to IHS by the Cades Foundation — the philanthropic arm of Cades Schutte, LLP, Puu Lani Ranch’s counsel — gave rise to a reasonable impression of partiality by the arbitrator.  After discovery on remand, PL III learned that the Cades firm represented the arbitrator in his capacity as Trustee of the Queen Liliuokalani Trust.  The circuit court did not consider this additional relationship based on the “mandate rule,” which generally requires a trial court on remand to comply with the appellate court’s mandate.  The circuit court then confirmed the arbitration award, and the ICA affirmed. 

The question presented on certiorari is whether the circuit court properly applied the mandate rule.