Case Details

Court

Updates:

No. SCWC-24-0000754, originally scheduled for May 21, 2026, has been removed from the Supreme Court calendar.

No. SCWC-22-0000084, originally scheduled for May 28, 2026, is continued to June 2, 2026, 10 a.m.
No. SCWC-23-0000049, originally scheduled for March 31, 2026, is continued to June 4, 2026, 10 a.m. 
No. SCWC-25-0000006, originally scheduled for June 9, 2026, is continued to July 14, 2026, 2 p.m. 

Scroll down for case details.

No. SCWC-23-0000701

MARCUS L. KAWATACHI, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission, ex relatione, ROBERT A. FAHN and BRENDA A. FAHN, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE PARRISH COLLECTION, LLC, THE PARRISH COLLECTION KAUAI, JONATHAN D. PARRISH, and SIMONE McCAFFREY, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees, and LINDA EVANS, as Trustee of the LAURA P. EVANS REVOCABLE TRUST Dated May 8, 2002, 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/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorneys for Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees THE PARRISH COLLECTION, LLC, THE PARRISH COLLECTION KAUAI, JONATHAN D. PARRISH, and SIMONE McCAFFREY:
     Mark G. Valencia and Alana S.D. Johnson of Case Lombardi

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant MARCUS L. KAWATACHI, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission, ex relatione, ROBERT A. FAHN and BRENDA A. FAHN:
     Eric Piliaau, Joey Badua and Catherine M. Lowenberg of The Department of Labor & Industrial Relations

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Michelle L. Drewyer due to a vacancy, filed 03/17/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/06/26.

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

Brief Description:

This appeal arises from a tenant’s request for reasonable accommodations under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 515-3(a)(9) of the Hawaiʻi Discrimination in Real Property Transactions Act.  Marcus L. Kawatachi, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Hawaiʻi Civil Rights Commission (HCRC), ex relatione Robert A. Fahn (Robert) and Brenda A. Fahn (collectively, Fahns), filed this suit in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (circuit court) against The Parrish Collection, LLC, The Parrish Collection Kauai, Jonathan D. Parrish, and Simon McCaffrey (collectively, Parrish) over allegations that Parrish unlawfully discriminated against the Fahns on the basis of Robert’s disability (heart disease).

In August 2020, the Fahns and Parrish executed a rental agreement for a long-term lease at a high-end property.  The rental agreement contained a clause requiring the Fahns to pay for weekly scheduled cleanings.  The Fahns requested an accommodation for Parrish to waive the clause because of Robert’s disability.  They indicated Robert was at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 due to his heart disease and wanted to limit the number of non-immediate household members entering the property.  Parrish denied the requested accommodation stating that the Fahns allowed repair workers but not cleaners to enter the property.  Parrish terminated the Fahns’ tenancy after they repeatedly failed to comply with the weekly cleanings clause.

The Fahns then filed a complaint with the HCRC.  Following an investigation, the HCRC found reasonable cause to believe that unlawful discriminatory practices had taken place.  After attempts at conciliation failed, the parties received notices of the right to sue, which the Fahns exercised.

In its first amended complaint, the HCRC alleged that Parrish unlawfully discriminated against Robert on the basis of disability by failing to engage in an interactive process and by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.  Parrish filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.  It contended that no legal liability exists for failing to engage in an interactive process in this context, and that it did not unlawfully refuse to accommodate Robert’s alleged disability because the requested accommodation was neither necessary nor reasonable.

The circuit court granted Parrish’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, concluding that the HCRC failed to adequately allege Robert’s disability or that the requested accommodation was either reasonable or necessary.  It also determined that HRS § 515-3(a)(9) does not create independent liability for failure to engage in an interactive process and, even if it did, the parties here had undertaken efforts to resolve the matter.  The HCRC appealed.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the circuit court’s order and final judgment.  Citing Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b), the ICA treated Parrish’s motion as a motion for summary judgment because the circuit court relied on the parties’ declarations and exhibits.  The ICA determined that Parrish failed to produce enough evidence negating the “disability,” “necessary,” and “reasonable” factors.  However, it did not address whether there is standalone liability under HRS § 515-3(a)(9) for a landlord’s failure to engage in an interactive process. 

On certiorari, Parrish challenges the ICA’s holding that it failed to produce evidence negating the “necessary” and “reasonable” factors and urges this court to reach the question left unresolved by the ICA, namely whether independent liability exists under HRS § 515-3(a)(9) for failure to engage in an interactive process.

No. SCWC-22-0000084, originally scheduled for May 28, 2026, is continued to June 2, 2026, 10 a.m.

TUESDAY, JUNE 02, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

NO. SCWC-22-0000084

TIKI’S GRILL & BAR, LLC, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, 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 DTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. :
     Richard B. Miller and Ashley R. Shibuya of Tom Petrus & Miller, LLLC

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant TIKI’S GIRLL & BAR, LLC:
     James J. Bickerton of Bickerton Law Group

NOTE:     Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Todd W. Eddins, filed 02/27/26.

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Steven R. Nichols, in place of Eddins, J., recused and Circuit Judge Karin L. Holma, due to a vacancy, filed 03/11/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/31/26.

NOTE:     Previous Memo of Setting is amended for the purpose of adding:
     -Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 05/28/26 to 06/02/26 at 10:00 AM, filed 05/15/26.

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

This appeal involves a commercial insurance coverage dispute between Respondent/Plaintiff Tiki’s Grill & Bar, LLC (Tiki’s) and Petitioner/Defendant DTRIC Insurance Company, Limited (DTRIC).  Tiki’s operates a restaurant and bar located in the Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel (Hotel).

From March 25, 2020 until July 31, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the owner of the Hotel nailed wooden boards across the Hotel’s entrances. 

Tiki’s, unable to operate its restaurant, submitted a business interruption claim to DTRIC, which DTRIC denied.  Tiki’s filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court), seeking declaratory judgment that DTRIC was obligated to cover Tiki’s claim.  DTRIC moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Tiki’s claim was not covered because Tiki’s did not suffer a direct physical loss or damage to its property and alternatively that a virus exclusion applied.  The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for DTRIC.  On appeal, the ICA vacated the Circuit Court’s summary judgment ruling and remanded the case to the Circuit Court.

On certiorari, DTRIC presents three questions:

     A. Whether the ICA gravely erred by holding that a landlord’s decision to physically block a commercial tenant’s access to its business premises by boarding up the building’s entrances constitutes “direct physical loss or damage” under a commercial property insurance policy.

     B. Whether the ICA gravely erred by failing to enforce the subject insurance policy’s exclusion for loss “caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.”

     C. Whether the ICA gravely erred by failing to enforce the subject insurance policy’s exclusion for loss “caused by or resulting from . . . [d]elay, loss of use or loss of market.”

TUESDAY, June 2, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCWC-23-0000662

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF SAXON ASSET SECURITIES TRUST 2005-1 MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-1, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. YUN RU,  Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, KAOHE RANCH SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, KAOHE RANCH ROAD MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, MORDEHAI ASAF AND LIORA ASAF, TRUSTEES OF THE ASAF FAMILY TRUST, DATED JUNE 1, 2015, Defendants-Appellees.

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 YUN RU:
    Frederick J. Arensmeyer of The Law Office of Frederick J. Arensmeyer

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF SAXON ASSET SECURITIES TRUST 2005-1 MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-1:
    Zachary K. Kondo and Mary Martin of Pulice Nervell

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin A.K. Souza due to a vacancy, filed 03/10/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/24/26.

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

Brief Description:

In this foreclosure case, Respondent/Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas as Indenture Trustee for the Registered Holders of Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2005-1 Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series 2005-1 (Deutsche Bank) obtained a foreclosure judgment and confirmation judgment against Petitioner/Defendant Yun Ru (Ru), in part based on Ru’s default in responding to the complaint.

Under Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 55(c) and 60(b)(6), Ru subsequently moved to set aside the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit’s (Circuit Court) default judgment and foreclosure judgment, as well as the confirmation judgment.  The Circuit Court denied Ru’s motion.

     Ru appealed and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the Circuit Court.

     On certiorari, Ru raises the following questions:

1. Whether the ICA gravely erred by concluding HRCP Rule 60(b)(6)’s “exceptional circumstances” test does not apply to a motion for relief from a default judgment, and instead, the three-prong test for setting aside default judgments exclusively applies.
2. Whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that the default entered by the Circuit Court clerk resulted from inexcusable neglect or wilful acts under the circumstances of this case.

No. SCWC-23-0000049, originally scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 2026, is continued to June 4, 2026, 10 a.m.

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2026 – 10 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.

NOTE: Order granting motion to postpone the 03/31/26 oral argument, filed on 03/17/26. 

NOTE: Amended Memo of Setting dated 03/30/26, is amended for the purpose of adding:
     –Order granting ACLU OF HAWAI‘I FOUNDATION’s motion to participate in Oral Argument and share time with Petitioner-Appellant, filed on 05/08/26.
     –Amicus Curiae ACLU OF HAWAI‘I FOUNDATION as a party.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, 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, JUNE 18, 2026 – 2 P.M.

No. SCAP-24-0000819

MAUI TOMORROW FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF MAUI, AND COUNTY OF MAUI, 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.

Attorney for Defendants-Appellants MAUI PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF MAUI, AND COUNTY OF MAUI: 
     Brian A. Bilberry, Deputy Corporation Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee MAUI TOMORROW FOUNDATION:
     Lance D. Collins of Law Office of Lance D. Collins and Bianca Isaki of Law Office of Bianca Isaki

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 09/03/25.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Paul B.K. Wong, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, filed 09/03/25.

NOTE: Order granting Application for transfer, filed 09/09/25.

NOTE: Order setting Oral Argument date for 05/28/26 at 2:00 p.m., filed 04/02/26.

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

Brief Description:

This transfer case arises out of rules promulgated by Maui County to govern its special management area (SMA).  The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) established a SMA in Maui for the purpose of protecting coastal ecosystems and historic resources.  The CZMA requires any “development” activities in the SMA to have a permit.  Maui County passed rules that created exceptions to the activities that are considered “developments.”  This exempted certain uses in the SMA from permitting requirements.

Maui Tomorrow Foundation, an environmental advocacy group, brought a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit seeking to invalidate these rules.  Maui Tomorrow argued they exceeded Maui County’s authority under the CZMA.  The circuit court agreed, and invalidated relevant portions of the rules.  This transfer asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the exclusions placed reasonable limitations on Maui County’s oversight, or if they placed excessive discretion in the hands of private parties by excluding activities from review.

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026 – 10:00 A.M.

No. SCWC-24-0000706

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO GARCES, JR., 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 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/Defendant-Appellant MARIANO GARCES, JR.:
     Brandon M. Segal

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Gerald K. Enriques, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Shirley M. Kawamura due to a vacancy, filed 03/09/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/23/26.         

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 06/02/26 to 07/07/26 at 10:00 a.m., filed 04/24/26.

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

Brief Description:

This appeal concerns the admissibility of statements made by Defendant Mariano Garces Jr. (“Garces”) during a custodial interrogation and the sufficiency of the Maui Police Department’s (“MPD”) Miranda waiver form.  Garces was charged in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (“circuit court”) with one count of second-degree murder.  Before trial, Garces argued that his custodial statements should be suppressed.  He asserted his Miranda waiver was invalid because of his mental condition at the time of questioning and because the MPD Miranda waiver form did not inform him of his constitutional right to stop questioning at any time.

The circuit court determined that Garces voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and admitted the statements.  The jury convicted him of second-degree murder and the ICA affirmed the conviction.  Garces raises the same arguments on certiorari. 

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026 – 2 P.M.

No. SCWC-22-0000063

SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DAWN N. S. CHANG, in her official capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources, ALEXANDER AND BALDWIN, INC., EAST MAUI IRRIGATION COMPANY, LLC, COUNTY OF MAUI, MAHI PONO LLC AND MAHI PONO HOLDINGS, LLC., Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

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/Plaintiff-Appellant SIERRA CLUB:
     David Kimo Frankel

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DAWN N. S. CHANG:
     Julia H. China and Miranda C. Steed, Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees ALEXANDER AND BALDWIN, INC. and EAST MAUI IRRIGATION COMPANY, LLC:
     Calvert G. Chipchase and Trisha H.S.T. Akagi of Cades Schutte

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF MAUI:
     Mariana Lowy-Gerstmar and Kristin K. Tarnstrom, Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Clarissa Y. Malinao due to a vacancy, filed 02/17/26.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 02/26/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Fa‘auuga To‘oto‘o, in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 03/03/26.

NOTE: Order granting motion to continue oral argument from 05/26/26 to 07/07/26 at 2:00 p.m., filed 04/13/26.

COURT: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, JJ. and Circuit Judge To‘oto‘o, in place of Ginoza, J. recused, and Circuit Judge Malinao, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Sierra Club filed an original action in Environmental Court following Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Board of Land & Natural Resources’ (BLNR) 2018 and 2019 renewals of four revocable permits authorizing Respondents/Defendants-Appellees Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. and East Maui Irrigation Company, LLC to utilize state lands and to divert millions of gallons of fresh water a day from East Maui streams for use outside that watershed during 2019 and 2020.  Relevant to this appeal, Sierra Club’s suit claimed that in renewing those revocable permits for 2019 and 2020, BLNR breached its public trust fiduciary duties (Count 2) and violated its obligations pursuant to HRS Chapter 205A, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (Count 3).

The Environmental Court ruled in favor of defendants, and Sierra Club appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).  As that appeal was pending, this court issued its decision in Maui Lani Neighbors, Inc. v. State (Maui Lani), 156 Hawai‘i 520, 575 P.3d 610 (2025). 

The ICA held that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Sierra Club’s claims pursuant to Maui Lani.  Specifically, the ICA determined that because Counts 2 and 3 of Sierra Club’s suit challenged BLNR’s decision-making on the revocable permits, BLNR had exclusive jurisdiction over those claims.  Therefore, the ICA concluded that Sierra Club was required to exhaust all proceedings in BLNR’s administrative processes, which included (following Maui Lani) an “administrative appeal under HRS § 91-14.”  The ICA vacated the Environmental Court’s Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Final Judgment and remanded for entry of an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

On certiorari, Sierra Club asks: (1) did the ICA err in dismissing Sierra Club’s appeal; (2) did the ICA err in finding that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction to hear claims in an original action that BLNR breached its trust duties and violated HRS Chapter 205A; and (3) did the ICA err in failing to hold that BLNR breached its trust duties and violated HRS Chapter 205A?

No. SCWC-25-0000006, originally scheduled for June 9, 2026, is continued to July 14, 2026, 2 p.m. 

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

NO. SCWC-25-0000006

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, vs. ALVIN TRAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant/Cross-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/, subject to ‘Ōlelo’s programming availability.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee ALVIN TRAN:
     Thomas M. Otake of Alapa & Otake, LLLC

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant:
STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Daniel A.J. Hugo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Vladimir P. Devens, filed 03/06/26.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Kevin A.K. Souza, in place of Devens, J., recused and Circuit Judge John M. Tonaki, due to a vacancy, filed 03/30/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/06/26.

NOTE: Previous Memo of Setting is amended for the purpose of adding:
             -Order granting motion to continue oral from 06/09/26 to 07/14/26 at 2:00 PM, filed on 05/13/26.

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

Brief Description:

Alvin Tran was charged with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-733.6 continuous sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen.  The minor girl alleged that he repeatedly sexually assaulted her when she was between the ages of eight and twelve.  The assaults occurred when the girl slept over at Tran’s home with his children.

In its jury instruction, the court did not include a state of mind requirement as to the girl’s age.  It provided mens rea requirements as to the offense’s other elements.  The jury convicted Tran as charged.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the conviction.  It concluded that per State v. Buch, 83 Hawaiʻi 308, 926 P.2d 599 (1996), HRS § 707-733.6 “does not require the State to prove that Tran knew [the complaining witness] was under the age of fourteen.” 

Tran appealed.  This court accepted cert as to whether the State must prove a state of mind as to age in order to prove a violation of HRS § 707-733.6.

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2026 – 2:00 P.M.

No. SCWC-23-0000336

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VIHN DU CHAU, aka VIHN CHAU, aka ERIC CHAU, 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 Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
    Richard B. Rost, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee VIHN DU CHAU, aka VIHN CHAU, aka ERIC CHAU:
    Henry P. Ting, Deputy Public Defenders

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Paul B. K. Wong due to a vacancy, filed 02/25/26.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/11/26.

NOTE: Order granting motion for postponement of oral argument from 05/21/26 to 07/16/26 at 2:00 p.m.

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

Brief Description:

Defendant Vihn Du Chau was charged with two counts of violation of an order for protection, in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-11.

At trial, Chau moved for judgment of acquittal.  He claimed that because he had not been personally served with the protection order, the State had failed to prove one of the HRS § 586-11 elements.  The State argued that per HRS § 586-6, a respondent is “deemed to have notice of the [protective] order” if the respondent is present at the hearing where the order was issued.  Service was thus not an element of HRS § 586-11.  The Family Court of the Second Circuit acquitted Chau. 

The State appealed.  It argued that the circuit court erred in holding that service is an element of the offense.  The State claimed that the family court’s acquittal was in effect an order sustaining a motion to dismiss, and thus, the court did not acquit Chau.

The ICA dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.  It concluded that even if the family court “may not have been fully correct” in its interpretation of HRS § 586-11, the court had factually determined that the State failed to prove an element of the charge.  Thus, the ICA determined, Chau had been acquitted, and appellate review was unavailable. 

The State appealed.  This court accepted cert and ordered supplemental briefing as to “whether service is an element of the Violation of an Order for Protection offense following the 1998 amendment to [HRS] § 586-6.”