Case Details

Court

SCAP-26-0000484

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE COORDINATION OF INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS MAUI FIRE CASES

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 Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL ADRIAN BATES, ANTHONY L. RANKEN, ALEX A. EDRENKIN, AND JOHN E. THICKSTUN:
     Samuel P. Shnider and Anthony L. Ranken of Ranken & Shnider, Alex A. Edrenkin of PACLAW Group, and John E. Thickstun of Montegna & Thickstun, admitted pro hac vice    

Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellees CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS:
     Lance D. Collins of the Law Office of Lance D. Collins

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Michael L. Lam and Steven E. Tom of Case Lombardi, and Amanda J. Weston, Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS:
     Cynthia K. Wong of Cynthia K. Wong, AAL, LLLC, William M. McKeon of Berding & Weil LLP, and Aimee M. Lum of Davis Levin Livingston

NOTE:     Certificate of Recusal by Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 07/27/26.

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin T. Morikone in place of Devens, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Taryn R. Tomasa, due to a vacancy, filed 07/27/26.

NOTE:     Order granting application for transfer, filed 08/05/26.

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

Brief Description:

This transfer case arises from an appeal of an order allocating attorney fees related to the Maui fires settlement agreement.

In November 2024, the Maui fire victims reached settlement agreements with Defendants concerning the release of claims and payment to victims.  The global resolution of the claims is embodied in the Individual Settlement Agreement and the Class Settlement Agreement.  The circuit court approved the Individual Settlement Agreement in June 2025 and the Class Settlement Agreement in January 2026.

In June 2026, the circuit court issued an order resolving attorney fees related to the Maui fires settlement.  The fee order established a tiered fee schedule for attorney payments and created a $222 million Common Benefit Fund to award additional fees to attorneys whose work benefited all claimants.  The tiered fee schedule allocates attorneys a percentage of their client’s total net settlement proceeds dependent on when the client retained the attorney and whether the client’s case had been set for trial.  The Common Benefit Fund, open only to Hawai‘i attorneys, awards additional fees to counsel “whose efforts were extraordinary.”

Transfer Petitioners filed an application for transfer challenging the tiered fee schedule and the creation of the Common Benefit Fund in the order resolving attorney fees.  Transfer Petitioners argue the order resolving attorney fees is invalid because the circuit court (1) lacked jurisdiction to allocate attorney fees without an underlying live controversy; (2) lacked statutory and equitable authority to issue the order; (3) issued the order without proper process; and (4) created improper remedies by capping fees and diverting funds from victims.  They request the court vacate the tiered fee schedule and the Common Benefit Fund.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

NO. SCOT-23-0000526

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. LAND USE COMMISSION, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondents-Appellees.

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 Petitioner-Appellant CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU:
     Duane W.H. Pang, Brad T. Saito, and Brianna L. Weaver, Pono I. Arias, and Patricia A.V. Sendao, Deputies Corporation Counsel

Attorneys for Respondents-Appellees LAND USE COMMISSION, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF HAWAI‘I :
     Julie H. Chin and Daniel A. Morris, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Trish K. Morikawa due to a vacancy, filed 08/05/26.

NOTE:     Order setting oral argument for Tuesday, 09/22/26 at 10:00 a.m, filed 08/24/26.

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

Brief Description:

This transfer case involves whether the City and County of Honolulu (the City) met procedural notice requirements for important agricultural lands (IAL) designation under HRS chapter 205 and the Land Use Commission’s administrative rules. 

The Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) developed recommended lands for designation as IALs.  This approximately six-year process included internal county review, an advisory committee, and community meetings to develop maps of agricultural lands that met the statutory IAL standards and criteria.  The Honolulu City Council adopted the IAL designation recommendation and submitted the City’s recommendation to the Land Use Commission (LUC).

The LUC held a public hearing, at which many landowners testified they had not received notice that their lands were being proposed for IAL designation.  Based primarily on its determination that the City had not met landowner notice requirements under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 205-47 and Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 15-15-125, the LUC rejected the recommendation and remanded the matter to the DPP for further action. 

The City appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.  The circuit court transferred the appeal to this court.  This court denied the LUC’s motion to dismiss.

The City argues that the LUC erred in using contested case hearing procedures rather than rulemaking procedures to reject and remand its IAL submission.  It also claims it took “reasonable action” to notify landowners as required.  The LUC argues that it properly applied a quasi-judicial procedure that satisfied the landowners’ due process rights.  It maintains that the City failed to provide reasonable notice to each of the affected landowners when preparing the proposed IAL maps.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCWC-24-0000533 (CONSOLIDATED WITH SCWC-24-0000534, SCWC-24-0000535, SCWC-24-0000536)

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DANIELLE K. KAHELE, also known as DANIELLE K. KANEAO and HEATHER TULL, also known as HEATHER O. TULL, and HEATHER OWEN TULL, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees, and ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING, Petitioner/Real Party In Interest- Appellant.

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/Real Party In Interest-Appellant ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING:

     Benjamin E. Lowenthal of the Law Office of Benjamin E. Lowenthal, LLC

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

     Dean A. Soma and Chad K.L. Au, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Order consolidating SCWC-24-0000533, SCWC-24-0000534, SCWC-24-0000535, and SCWC-24-0000536 for disposition, filed 06/16/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Michelle L. Drewyer, due to a vacancy, filed 07/21/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/11/26.

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

Brief Description:

All in 1 Bonding (All in 1) posted Heather Tull’s bail in four criminal cases.  When Tull failed to appear for her trial call, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit issued a bench warrant and ordered the bonds forfeited.  On May 28, 2024, All in 1 moved to set the forfeiture aside.  In an attached declaration, its attorney stated that the surety was actively searching for Tull.  It asked for a June 2024 hearing on the motion.

The circuit court set a hearing for July 3, then reset the hearing to July 12.  Two days before the hearing, Tull was arrested and in custody.  The court denied All in 1’s motion, reasoning that Tull was arrested “forty days after the search period expiration date of May 31, 2024.”

The Intermediate Court of Appeal (ICA) affirmed.  It held that “good cause” under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-51 is not satisfied where the defendant was surrendered after the end of the thirty-day search period, absent a showing of a satisfactory reason for the defendant’s failure to appear when required.

This court accepted certiorari.  All in 1 asks whether the ICA erred “when it ruled that the surety’s timely filed motion to set aside the judgment and the apprehension of the defendant before the hearing on the motion did not matter because ‘good cause’ under HRS § 804-51 requires the defendant to be apprehended within thirty days from service of the forfeiture judgment?”

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

SCWC-25-0000025

FRIENDS OF MĀHĀ‘ULEPŪ, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant, vs. KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF KAUA‘I, Respondent/Nominal Appellee-Appellee, and RP21 COCO PALMS LLC and COCO PALMS HUI LLC, Respondents/Intervenors Appellees-Appellees.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant FRIENDS OF MĀHĀ‘ULEPŪ:
     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, LLLC    

Attorney for Respondent/Nominal Appellee-Appellee KAUA‘I PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF KAUA‘I:
     Chris Donahoe, Deputy County Attorney    

Attorneys for Respondents/Intervenors Appellees-Appellees RP21 COCO PALMS LLC and COCO PALMS HUI LLC:
     Calvert G. Chipchase, Mauna Kea Trask, and Keola R. Whittaker of Cades Schutte

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge John M. Tonaki due to a vacancy, filed 07/30/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/13/26.

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

Brief Description:

This appeal arises from Kaua‘i Planning Commission’s (KPC) denial of Friends of Māhā‘ulepū’s (FOM) petition to revoke permits authorizing redevelopment of the Coco Palms Resort in Wailua, Kaua‘i.  In November 2023, FOM petitioned to revoke the permits, alleging violations of numerous conditions and injury to its members’ constitutionally protected interests.  Coco Palms Hui LLC and RP21 Coco Palms LLC (together, CPH) moved to intervene and oppose FOM’s petition.

On March 12, 2024, KPC held a public hearing and ruled on FOM’s revocation petition and CPH’s intervention motion.  It denied FOM’s revocation petition.  It granted CPH’s intervention.  FOM appealed. 

The Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the agency record and entered judgment for KPC and CPH.  FOM appealed again.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) ordered the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14.

This court accepted certiorari on two questions presented in FOM’s application.  FOM asks whether the ICA gravely erred by:

     (1) ruling the circuit court lacked jurisdiction under HRS chapter 91, the Hawai‘i Administrative Procedures Act “on this record” because – as to FOM’s asserted rights to a clean and healthful environment and to exercise customary and traditional Native Hawaiian rights – FOM did “not argue how the test set forth a contested case hearing under [our case law] demonstrates that a contested case was required by constitutional due process,” and

     (2) concluding the KPC did not conduct a contested case hearing on FOM’s petition where KPC concluded it had conducted a contested case and CPH intervened in the same pursuant to KPC rules referring to the original matter as a contested case.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

NO. SCWC-24-0000323

NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of Mari and Vaigai, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES and its DIRECTOR, DITA HOLIFIELD, and the HONOLULU ZOO DIRECTOR, JOHN BERRY, Respondents/Respondents-Appellees.

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

Punahou School
Dilingham Hall 
1601 Punahou Street
Honolulu, HI 96822

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/Petitioner-Appellant NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of Mari and Vaigai:

        Cheryl Nolan, Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc. and Jake Davis of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Respondents/Respondents-Appellees CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES and its DIRECTOR, DITA HOLIFIELD, and the HONOLULU ZOO DIRECTOR, JOHN BERRY:

        Jacqueline M. De Leeuw Huang and Patricia A.V. Sendao, Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford due to a vacancy, filed 05/15/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/10/26.

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

Brief Description:

Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (NhRP) petitioned the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Mari and Vaigai, two Asian elephants residing at the Honolulu Zoo.  The petition sought an evidentiary hearing to show cause why the elephants should not be released “to an elephant sanctuary accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.”

The City and County of Honolulu, Department of Enterprise Services (DES), Director of DES Dita Holifield, and Honolulu Zoo Director John Berry moved to dismiss the petition.  The circuit court granted the motion and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed.

In affirming the circuit court, the ICA held that Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 660 supersedes the common law writ of habeas corpus, and under that chapter, elephants are not “persons” for whom relief is available.  NhRP subsequently appealed to this court.

There are two issues before the court:

1. Does HRS chapter 660 supersede the common law writ of habeas corpus?
2. If HRS chapter 660 does not supersede the common law writ of habeas corpus, does the common law writ apply to non-human animals such as Mari and Vaigai?