Case Details

Court

Updates:

No. SCWC-22-0000641, originally scheduled for Thursday, February 5, is continued to a later date. Scroll down for case details.

No. SCWC-23-0000079, originally scheduled for February 26, 2026, has been rescheduled to Thursday, March 5, 2026, 2 p.m. Scroll down for case details.

No. SCAP-24-0000461, originally scheduled for Tuesday, January 13, 2026, is continued to a later date. Scroll down for case details.

No. SCWC-23-0000478, originally scheduled for Tuesday, January 27, 2026, is continued Tuesday, March 31, 9 a.m. Scroll down for case details.

No. SCAP-24-0000111 (Consolidated with SCAP-24-0000396), originally scheduled for January 22, 2026, has been rescheduled to Monday, March 2, 10 a.m. Scroll down for case details.

No. SCWC-23-0000017, originally scheduled for January 20, and then March 6, is rescheduled to Thursday, April 2, 2026 at 9 a.m. Scroll down for case details.

No. SCAP-24-0000461, originally scheduled for Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 10:30 a.m. is continued to a later date.

NO. SCAP-24-0000461

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSHUA NAHULU, ERIK SMITH, JAKE RYAN BARTOLOME, and ROBERT GUS LEWIS, III, Defendants-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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant JOSHUA NAHULU:
     Richard H.S. Sing of Law Office of Richard H.S. Sing

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ERIK SMITH:
     Doris D. Lum

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant JAKE RYAN BARTOLOME:
     Pedric Arrisgado of Law Office of Pedric Arrisgado

Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ROBERT G. LEWIS, III:
     Benjamin R.C. Ignacio

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 03/31/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Matthew J. Viola, in place of Devens, J., recused, filed 04/14/25.

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 04/21/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Brian A. Costa, due to a vacancy, filed 11/05/25.

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

Brief Description:
This case arises from a motor vehicle collision involving a police pursuit of a Honda Civic in Makaha. The State of Hawai‘i (“the State”) charged Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) Officer Joshua Nahulu (“Nahulu”) with violating Hawai‘i’s law that requires that “[t]he driver of any vehicle involved in a collision resulting in injury to or death of any person . . . shall render to any person injured in the collision reasonable assistance[.]” (“fled scene charge”). Co-defendants, HPD Officers Erik Smith, Jake Ryan Bartolome, and Robert Gus Lewis III, were charged with hindering prosecution in the first degree and conspiracy to commit hindering prosecution in the first degree of Nahulu’s fled scene charge.

In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Nahulu and his co-defendants moved to dismiss the fled scene charge, arguing that (1) the statute is unconstitutionally vague as “involved in a collision” is not defined in such a way that is understandable by a person of ordinary intelligence; and (2) the State violated defendants’ constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation because the State did not define the phrase “involved in a collision.” The State filed a bill of particulars clarifying that it was not relying on a theory that Nahulu’s vehicle actually came into contact with the Honda Civic.

The circuit court denied the motions to dismiss. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted the State’s application for transfer of the appeal to it from the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Defendants argue that the circuit court fled scene charge should be dismissed.

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2026 – 10:30 A.M. 

NO. SCWC-23-0000359

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ASHLEY VINCENT GAETA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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 live streamed 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 ASHLEY VINCENT GAETA: 
     Jason R. Kwiat of Schlueter, Kwiat & Kennedy LLLP 

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I: 
     Frederick M. Macapinlac, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Karin L. Holma due to a vacancy, filed 12/16/25. 

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/31/25. 

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

Brief Description: 

Defendant Vincent Gaeta (Gaeta) was initially charged via indictment with two counts of sexual assault in the second degree and one count of attempted sexual assault in the second degree against the complaining witness (CW).  The indictment was later superseded by a complaint to add an additional count, sexual assault in the fourth degree for knowingly exposing genitals in a manner likely to alarm or cause fear of injury.  After reaching a plea agreement with the State, Gaeta pled no contest to one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree in exchange for a dismissal of the other charges with prejudice.   

At sentencing, Gaeta sought a deferred acceptance of his no contest plea (DANC).  The circuit court accepted the no contest plea and denied the DANC motion based on “the impact on the CW.”  Gaeta appealed, arguing the circuit court therefore improperly considered dismissed charges alleging sexual penetration as well as a lack of remorse.  The ICA affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the DANC motion.   

The same issues were raised on certiorari.  This court also ordered supplemental briefing on whether (1) plea agreements can override judicial precedent that prohibits consideration of dismissed charges and (2) lack of remorse can be considered in the no contest plea context.   

No. SCWC-23-0000478, originally scheduled for Tuesday, January 27, 2026, is continued Tuesday, March 31, 9 a.m. 

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2026 – 9:00 A.M. 

NO. SCWC-23-0000478

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BASIL WOODY Petitioner/Defendant-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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorneys for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee BASIL WOODY:
     Michael H. Schlueter, Jason R. Kwiat, Andrew M. Kennedy, Nicole K. Bowman and Eli N. Bowman of Schlueter, Kwiat & Kennedy LLLP

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Charles E. Murray III, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford, due to a vacancy, filed 11/24/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/02/25.

NOTE: Oral Argument rescheduled from 01/27/26 to 03/31/26 at 9:00 AM.

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

Brief Description:

Defendant Basil Woody was arrested and charged in the District Court of the Second Circuit (“district court”) with operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant as a highly intoxicated driver. Woody filed a motion to suppress evidence from her warrantless seizure and arrest, which was initially scheduled to take place two weeks later, but was then continued for fifty-four days because Woody had not received discovery from the State of Hawaiʻi (“the State”). The State issued a subpoena to the arresting officer nine days before the reschedule hearing. The officer contacted the prosecutor four days before the hearing that he would be unable to appear at the hearing due to military reserve training. The State filed a motion to continue the hearing on Woody’s motion to suppress two days before the hearing based on its witness’s unavailability. The district court denied the motion to continue based on the State’s lack of due diligence and for a lack of good cause, and granted the motion to suppress after the State conceded it lacked a warrant and had no other available witnesses. The ICA reversed the district court’s denial of the State’s motion to continue, finding the State exercised “due diligence” in securing the presence of the witness.

The issues on certiorari are whether the ICA erred by reversing the district court’s conclusion that the State had not exercised due diligence and what standards should apply to a State’s motion to continue a defense motion to suppress.

No. SCWC-22-0000641, originally scheduled for Thursday, February 5, is continued to a later date.

NO. SCWC-22-0000641

STEVE F. LOYOLA and TY AARON MEDEIROS, Petitioners/Appellants-Appellants, vs. COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/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 at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioners STEVE F. LOYOLA and TY AARON MEDEIROS:
     Ted H.S. Hong

Attorneys for Respondent COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I:
     Mark D. Disher and Lerisa L. Heroldt, Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Clarissa Y. Malinao, due to a vacancy, filed 11/05/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 11/18/25.

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

Brief Description:

This case arises out of an employment dispute where two Hawai‘i County Fire Department (HFD) battalion chiefs, Steve F. Loyola (Loyola) and Ty Aaron Medeiros (Medeiros), allege that their placement on “indefinite” leave with pay, denial of overtime, and peer humiliation constituted discipline or an adverse employment action. Petitioners’ underlying conduct involved oral and written communications to the Hawai‘i County Fire Commission requesting the resignation of the then fire chief.

Loyola and Medeiros appealed the HFD’s decision upholding their placement on paid administrative leave to the County of Hawai‘i Merit Appeals Board, which found and concluded that neither had suffered any discipline or adverse employment action. The circuit court and Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.

The question presented on certiorari is whether placement on “indefinite” paid administrative leave, denial of overtime, and peer humiliation constitute adverse employment actions and whether the actions against Loyola and Medeiros violated the merit principle in the context of free speech retaliation under article I, section 4 of the Hawai‘i Constitution.

No. SCWC-23-0000079, originally scheduled for February 26, 2026, has been rescheduled to Thursday, March 5, 2026, 2 p.m.

THURSDAY, MARCH 05, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCWC-23-0000079

MARVIN L. THEDFORD, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Respondent-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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.   

Attorney for Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant MARVIN L. THEDFORD:    
     Kevin O’Grady of The Law Office of Kevin O’Grady, LLC

Attorneys for Respondent/Respondent-Appellee ADMINISTATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:  
     Randall S. Nishiyama, Christopher J.I. Leong and Tiffany R. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General 

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 10/27/25. 

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Catherine H. Remigio and Circuit Judge  Taryn R. Tomasa, (1) in place of Devens, J., recused, and (2) due to a vacancy, filed 11/14/25. 

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/10/25. 

NOTE: Oral Argument rescheduled from 02/26/26 to 03/05/26 at 2:00 P.M.

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

Brief Description: 

This appeal arises out of an Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office (ADLRO) proceeding that sustained the revocation of Petitioner Marvin L. Thedford’s (Thedford) driver’s license for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant.  Thedford was alleged to be impaired by marijuana.  Thedford argues that his performance on Standard Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) is irrelevant to show marijuana impairment and such evidence should not have been considered in the ADLRO hearing.  He contends that without the SFST evidence, the record was insufficient to sustain his license revocation.  Relying in part on the SFST evidence, the ADLRO Hearings Officer sustained the license revocation.  In turn, the District Court of the First Circuit and the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the license revocation. 

 Thedford challenges the relevance and admissibility of the SFST evidence in establishing impaired driving due to marijuana.  He also challenges the Hearings Officer’s reliance on State v. Coffee, 104 Hawai‘i 193, 86 P.3d 1002 (App. 2004) as supporting use of SFST evidence to show marijuana impairment.  

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

No. SCAP-24-0000111 (Consolidated with SCAP-24-0000396)

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, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed 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.

NOTE : Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 01/22/26 to 03/02/26 at 10:00 a.m., filed 11/13/25.

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.

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2026 – 10:30 A.M. 

NO. SCWC-23-0000049

YUKI GLEASON, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Respondent-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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant YUKI GLEASON: 
     Kevin O’Grady of The Law Office of Kevin O’Grady, LLC 

Attorneys for Respondent/Respondent-Appellee ADMINISTATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, STATE OF HAWAI‘I: 
     Sianha M. Gualano and Christopher J.I. Leong, Deputy Attorneys General 

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Shirley M. Kawamura, due to a vacancy, filed 12/04/25. 

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 12/17/25.  

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin T. Morikone, in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 12/17/25.  

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/23/25. 

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

Brief Description: 

This case raises a question as to what inferences, if any, a factfinder may draw from a driver’s refusal to participate in a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST). 

Yuki Gleason was operating a vehicle and was stopped by a police officer after her vehicle was observed swerving.  During the traffic stop, Gleason was asked to participate in an SFST, which she declined.  She was subsequently arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII). 

After the Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office (ADLRO) revoked Gleason’s license for one year, she requested an administrative hearing to review the ADLRO’s decision.  Following a hearing, the ADLRO affirmed the revocation basing its decision, in part, on an inference of a consciousness of guilt drawn from Gleason’s refusal to participate in the SFST. 

Gleason subsequently filed a petition for judicial review of the ADLRO’s decision.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the administrative revocation.  Gleason then appealed to this court.  

There is one issue before the court: In an OVUII case, may the factfinder infer a consciousness of guilt from the driver’s refusal to participate in an SFST? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 02, 2026 – 9:00 A.M.

NO. SCWC-23-0000017

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. CSMC MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-6, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BONNIE I. SWINK and JACK SWINK, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants, and DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Defendant-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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioners BONNIE I. SWINK and JACK SWINK:
     Keith M. Kiuchi

Attorneys for Respondents US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. CSMC MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-6:
     Charles R. Prather, Robin Miller, Sun Young Park, and Peter T. Stone of TMLF Hawaii LLLC

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Wendy M. DeWeese, due to a vacancy, filed 11/24/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/04/25.

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 01/20/26 to 03/06/26 at 9:00 a.m., filed 12/18/25.

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 03/06/26 to 04/02/26 at 9:00 a.m., filed 12/29/25.

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

Brief Description:
This is the second appeal in this case, in which Petitioners/Defendants Bonnie and Jack Swink (the Swinks) challenge a foreclosure decree and judgment granted in favor of Respondent/Plaintiff US Bank National Association, as Trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corporation CSMC Mortgage-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-6 (US Bank). In the first appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit’s (Circuit Court) foreclosure decree and judgment, determining there was no admissible evidence that US Bank was in possession of the original, blank-endorsed note at the time US Bank filed its complaint on December 9, 2014.

On remand, US Bank filed an amended complaint and a declaration stating it possessed the note at the time it filed the amended complaint on September 8, 2021. The Circuit Court thereafter granted summary judgment in favor of US Bank, permitting US Bank to foreclose on the Swinks’ property, by concluding that US Bank was the holder of the note at the time it filed the amended complaint. The ICA affirmed based on Hanalei, BRC Inc. v. Porter, 7 Haw. App. 304, 760 P.2d 676 (App. 1988), an action for nonpayment of a note where the plaintiff cured the error of a premature filing of the original complaint by filing an amended complaint after obtaining possession of the note.

The central issue is whether a foreclosing plaintiff can remedy a defect in standing by filing an amended complaint and establishing possession of the note when the amended complaint was filed. Alternatively, should a trial court be required to dismiss the case without prejudice when a foreclosing plaintiff cannot establish possession of the note at the time the action was originally commenced.

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2026 – 10:30 A.M. 

NO. SCOT-24-0000787

DR. LEW ABRAMS and MARIA DE ABRAMS on behalf of THE SACRED EARTH ASSEMBLY, Appellants-Appellants, vs. MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, 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 live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Appellants-Appellants DR. LEW ABRAMS and MARIA DE ABRAMS on behalf of THE SACRED EARTH ASSEMBLY: 
Leslie K. Iczkovitz 

Attorney for Appellee-Appellee MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION:
Brian Bilberry, Deputy Corporation Counsel 

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 01/27/25. 

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Wendy M. DeWeese in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, filed 02/04/25. 

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

Brief Description: 

     This is a direct appeal from the Maui Planning Commission’s (MPC) decision to deny an application for a special use permit (SUP).  Applicants Dr. Lew Abrams and Maria de Abrams, on behalf of the Sacred Earth Assembly (SEA), sought a SUP to conduct religious services upon land designated for agricultural use.      

The MPC initially approved the SUP application with conditions in September 2019, and forwarded the matter to the Land Use Commission (LUC).  The LUC remanded the matter to the MPC.  Thereafter, the MPC denied the SUP application.  The Abramses now appeal and, in addition to challenging certain findings by the MPC, raise the following points of error: 

1. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held [in Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui, 49 F.4th 1180 (9th Cir. 2022)] that the Haw. [Admin.] R. § 15-15-95(c)(2) guideline that was the basis of the denial is unconstitutional and may not be used to deny a special use permit in the state of Hawaii. 
2. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] without giving any notice to SEA or to the public that rejection or revocation of SEA’s [SUP] was to be considered on the agenda of the July 14, 2020 [MPC] meeting. 
3. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] without any factual or procedural basis to do so. The [MPC’s] arbitrary and capricious denial was based upon the same factual record upon which the [MPC] had previously approved SEA’s [SUP] on August 13, 2019, without any new findings made by the [MPC]. 
4. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] because the published minutes of the July 14, 2020 MPC meeting do not provide support for the Findings of Fact, the critical minutes are absent and incomplete, and they do not give a true reflection of the matters discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants. 
5. The [MPC] erred when it denied/revoked SEA’s [SUP] because it denied the Applicant and the public the opportunity to fully testify on possible revocation of SEA’s [SUP].