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.

No. SCAP-24-0000111 (Consolidated with SCAP-24-0000396), Thursday, November 22, 2026, 10 a.m.

JAMES DANNENBERG and SARAH PREBLE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees/Cross-Appellees, vs. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAI‘I EMPLOYER-UNION HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HAWAI‘I EMPLOYER-UNION HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and COUNTY OF KAUA‘I, COUNTY OF MAUI, COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees/Cross-Appellees, and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 

The above-captioned consolidated cases have 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-Appellants/Cross-Appellees/Cross Appellees JAMES DANNENBERG and SARAH PREBLE: 
     Paul Alston and John Rhee of Dentons US LLP 

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants/Cross-Appellees STATE OF HAWAI‘I, HAWAI‘I EMPLOYER-UNION HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HAWAI‘I EMPLOYER-UNION HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND: 
     John H. Price, Deputy Attorney General, David M. Louie, Nicholas R. Monlux, and Ryan D. Louie of Kobayashi Sugita & Goda, LLP  

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee/Cross-Appellant CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU:  
     Paul S. Aoki and Haley E. Chee, Deputies Corporation Counsel 

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

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E.  Recktenwald, filed 07/25/24. 

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Sabrina McKenna, filed 07/25/24.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Todd W. Eddins, filed 07/25/24. 

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Lisa W. Cataldo, in place of Eddins, J. recused, filed 08/07/24. 

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Jordon J. Kimura, in place of Devens, J., filed 08/08/24. 

NOTE: Order assigning Chief Judge Peter T. Cahill of the Second Circuit Court and Circuit Judge James H. Ashford, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and McKenna, J., recused, filed 08/13/24.  

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 08/14/24 in SCAP-24-0000111. 

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer in SCAP-24-0000396 and to consolidate SCAP-24-0000111 and SCAP-24-0000396, filed 01/29/25. 

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

Brief Description:

This is the third appeal in this class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege that their right to health benefits, as set forth under article XVI, section 2 of the Hawai‘i Constitution (the Non-Impairment Clause), has been diminished or impaired by Defendants State of Hawai‘i, City and County of Honolulu, County of Kaua‘i, County of Maui, County of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund (EUTF), and Board of Trustees of the EUTF (collectively, Defendants).  The plaintiff class consists of: 

All employees (and their dependent-beneficiaries) who  began working for the Territory of Hawai‘i, the State of  Hawai‘i or the political subdivisions thereof, before July 1, 2003, and who have accrued or will accrue a right to post-retirement health benefits as a retiree or dependent-beneficiary of such a retiree.  This includes: (a) those who have not yet received any post-retirement health benefits from Defendants as a retiree or dependent beneficiary of such a retiree; and (b) those who have received any post-retirement health benefits from Defendants since July 1, 2003 as a retiree or dependent-beneficiary of such a retiree.  For purposes of damages only, if any, the Class shall also include the estates and heirs of any deceased retiree or deceased dependent-beneficiary of a retiree who is or was a member of the Class. 

This lawsuit was initiated in 2006, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).  Currently, the plaintiff class is represented by Plaintiffs James Dannenberg and Sarah Preble (Plaintiffs).   

In this third appeal, the parties assert sixteen points of error.  In SCAP-24-111, Plaintiffs appeal from the Circuit Court’s final judgment, challenging a variety of the Circuit Court’s rulings and asserting the final judgment should be reversed.  The State cross-appeals to assert the Circuit Court should have barred Plaintiffs’ claims based on sovereign immunity and statute of limitations.  The City and County of Honolulu cross-appeals to assert that the Circuit Court should have granted it summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings. 

In SCAP-24-396, the State appeals and Plaintiffs cross-appeal from the Circuit Court’s orders related to attorneys’ fees and costs.   

This court granted transfer and consolidation of both appeals. 

No.SCAP-25-0000531, Tuesday, January 27, 2026, 10:30 a.m.

NOVA BURNES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc. dba HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Intervenor Subrogation Plaintiffs-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 at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.  

Attorneys for the Intervenor Subrogation Plaintiffs-Appellants ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.: 
     Vincent G. Raboteau of Grotefeld Hoffmann, LLP, Normand R. 
     
     Lezy of Cox Wootton Lerner Griffin & Hansen LLP, Mark S. Anderson of Cozen O’Connor, David R. Denton of Denenberg Tuffley, and Michael F. O’Connor and Richard A. Ing of Ogawa Lau Nakamura & Jew 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees NOVA BURNES, et al.: 
     Patrick Kyle Smith of Law Office of Kyle Smith, Terrance M.
     
     Revere and Paul V. Smith of Revere & Associates, LLC Richard E. Wilson of Law Offices of Richard E. Wilson, LLC, Kenneth S. Kasdan and Christopher K. Hikida of Kasdan Turner Thomson Booth LLLC, Graham B. LippSmith, MaryBeth LippSmith, Celene Chan Andrews, and Jaclyn L. Anderson of LippSmith LLP  

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees HAWAIIAN ELCECTRIC COMPANY, INC. dba HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC, et al.:   
     Joachim P. Cox and Randall C. Whattoff of Cox Fricke LLP 

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF BERNICE PAUAHI BISHOP:  
     Paul Alston, Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Wendy F. Hanakahi, Nathan P. Shimodoi, and Catelin K. Aiwohi of Dentons US LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee COUNTY OF MAUI: Thomas Kolbe, Deputy Corporation Counsel and David J. Minkin, Jordan K. Inafuku, Micah H. Miyasato, and Sabrina N. Gouveia of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:  
     Michael L. Lam, Steven E. Tom, Kaonohiokala J. Aukai, IV, and Kenneth V. Go of Case Lombardi and Amanda J. Weston, Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee HAWAIIAN TELCOM, INC.:   
     Eric H. Tsugawa, Alan K. Lau, and Tedson H. Koja of  Tsugawa Lau & Muzzi LLLC 

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee SPECTRUM OCEANIC, LLC:  
     Gregory K. Markham, Keith K. Kato, and Michael H. Tsuchida of Chee Markham & Kato 

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee WEST MAUI LAND COMPANY, INC.:   
     Wesley H.H. Ching and Dara Nakagawa of Fukunaga Matayoshi Ching & Kon-Herrera 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee PETER KLINT MARTIN  

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee PETER KLINT MARTIN REVOCABLE  TRUST 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee HOPE BUILDERS HOLDING LLC 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee HOPE BUILDERS INC. 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee HOPE BUILDERS LLC 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee KAUAULA LAND COMPANY LLC 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee KIPA CENTENNIAL, LLC 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee JAMES C. RILEY TRUST 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee JEANNE A. RILEY TRUST 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee WAINEE LAND & HOMES, LLC 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee MAKILA RANCHES INC. 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee MAKILA LAND CO., LLC 

Self-Represented Defendant-Appellee MAKILA RANCHES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 10/02/25. 

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin T. Morikone, in place of Devens, J., recused, filed 10/13/25. 

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Taryn R. Tomasa, due to a vacancy, filed 10/13/25. 

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 10/22/25. 

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Morikone, in place of Devens, J., recused and Circuit Judge Tomasa, due to a vacancy. 

Brief Description: 

This transfer case involves an appeal from a motion to intervene in the preliminary approval of the Maui fires class settlement agreement and appointment of settlement class counsel.  

In March 2025, Class Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of its class settlement agreement with Defendants releasing all claims related to the Maui fires.  Non-party insurers (Subrogating Insurers) moved to intervene.  The Subrogating Insurers claimed that they were entitled to intervention as of right and permissive intervention per Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 24(a)(2) and (b)(2).  

The circuit court denied the motion to intervene.  

Regarding HRCP Rule 24(a)(2) intervention by right, the court held that the motion was untimely, and that the Subrogating Insurers failed to establish a legally protectable interest that would be impaired by the settlement approval.  Because In re Maui Fire Cases, 155 Hawai‘i 409, 565 P.3d 754 (2025),  held that the insurers’ exclusive remedy when their insureds settle is reimbursement via the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 663-10 lien process, the circuit court reasoned, the Subrogating Insurers do not have subrogation rights with respect to class members who have agreed to settle their claims pursuant to the class settlement agreement. 

The court also denied permissive intervention.  It held that the Subrogating Insurers did not establish a common question of law or fact as required by HRCP Rule 24(b)(2) because they did not establish a legally protectable interest.  The court further denied permissive intervention for untimeliness and prejudice to the existing parties.  

Upon the Subrogating Insurers’ appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, this court accepted the Class Plaintiffs’ transfer application pursuant to HRS § 602-58(b).