Oral Agrument Before the Intermediate Court of Appeals

No. 29757, Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 9 a.m.

ROSA YANG, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and JOHN PEYTON, DUSTIN ARIES, JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE ENTITIES 1-10, and DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.

(Non-Vehicle Tort)

Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellant: Phillip A. Li and Matt A. Tsukazaki

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee: Peter C. Hsieh

NOTE: Order granting motion to postpone oral argument from 3/14/12 to 4/11/12, filed 3/13/12.

COURT: Nakamura, CJ; Fujise and Leonard, JJ.

SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument took place at the

University of Hawai`i at Manoa
William S. Richardson School of Law
Moot Court Courtroom
2515 Dole Street
Honolulu, HI 96822

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Defendant-Appellant Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (Abercrombie) appeals from the March 12, 2009 order denying its motion to dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee Rosa Yang's (Yang's) complaint, which asserted various intentional tort claims against two Abercrombie employees and, under the theory of respondeat superior, Abercrombie.

The claims, including, inter alia, false imprisonment, harassment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stem from the alleged misconduct of two Abercrombie loss prevention officers during an incident in which they questioned Yang about missing money. Yang filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits, as well as this lawsuit, based on her alleged stress-related injuries. The principal issue raised by the parties on appeal is whether Yang's claims against Abercrombie are barred by Hawaii Revised Statutes § 386-5, the exclusive remedy provision of Hawai`i's Workers' Compensation Law.

Increase text sizeDecrease text sizePrint this page

© 2008 Hawaii State Judiciary. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Accessibility Information

HIC logo