Oral Arguments Schedule

Argument DetailCourt

 No. SCWC-12-0000778, Thursday, January 8, 2015, 8:45 a.m.

NOEL MADAMBA CONTRACTING, LLC, Petitioner/Movant and Cross-Respondent-Appellant, vs. RAMON ROMERO and CASSIE ROMERO, Respondents/Respondents and Cross-Petitioners-Appellees, and A&B GREEN BUILDING LLC, Respondent/Cross-Respondent-Appellee.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney for Petitioner:

Samuel P. King, Jr.

Attorneys for Respondents:

Keith Y. Yamada and Michael C. Schwartz

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/01/14.

COURT: MER, C.J.; PAN, SSM, RWP, & MDW, JJ.

Brief Description:

This case arises from a construction contract dispute between Petitioner/Movant and Cross-Respondent-Appellant Noel Madamba Contracting LLC (“Madamba”) and Respondents/Respondents and Cross-Petitioners-Appellees Ramon Romero and Cassie Romero (“the Romeros”) concerning a residential construction project in Honolulu. The matter was submitted to Dispute Prevention & Resolution, Inc. (“DPR”) and an arbitrator was selected. Following arbitration proceedings, the Romeros were granted an award of compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Prior to the issuance of the final arbitration award, the arbitrator informed the parties about his relationship with the Romeros’ counsel, Cades Schutte LLP (“Cades”). Specifically, the arbitrator disclosed that Cades had been in communication with the administrator of his personal retirement account for the purpose of reviewing the account to ensure compliance with state and federal law. Following the disclosures, Madamba sought to disqualify the arbitrator and vacate the arbitration award. The circuit court denied Madamba’s requests, noting that the arbitrator’s “evident partiality” had not been demonstrated.

Madamba appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court’s decision.

Madamba’s application raises the following questions:

Did the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) commit grave error in affirming the lower court’s confirmation of the arbitration award?

Did the ICA commit grave error in affirming the lower court’s conclusion [that the arbitrator’s] failure to disclose his relationship with Respondents’ attorneys, the Cades firm, in violation of Rule 9 of Dispute Prevention & Resolution, Inc. (DPR) did not amount to “evident partiality”?

Did the ICA commit grave error in affirming the lower court’s denial of Petitioner’s demand to engage in further discovery regarding [the arbitrator’s] failure to disclose?

 

Supreme
Court

 No. SCWC-11-0000556, Thursday, January 8, 2015, 10 a.m.

DAVID PANOKE, Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant, vs. REEF DEVELOPMENT, Respondent/Employer-Appellee, and SEABRIGHT INSURANCE, Respondent/Insurance Carrier-Appellee.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney for Petitioner:

Wayne H. Mukaida

Attorneys for Respondent:

Colette H. Gomoto

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 11/14/14.

COURT: MER, C.J.; PAN, SSM, RWP, & MDW, JJ.

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant David Panoke (Panoke) applied for a writ of certiorari from the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) July 31, 2014 judgment, entered pursuant to the ICA’s June 30, 2014 summary disposition order. The ICA affirmed the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board’s (LIRAB) June 14, 2011 Decision and Order.

This case arises out of an accident that occurred while Panoke was working at a construction site for his employer, Reef Development (Reef). Following the accident, Panoke filed a worker’s compensation claim with Reef. Panoke injured his back in the accident, and Reef accepted liability for Panoke’s back injury. Panoke later also complained of pain in both shoulders, but Reef denied liability for Panoke’s shoulder injuries. Reef claimed that Panoke’s shoulder pain was the result of prior injuries and conditions, and not Panoke’s work-related accident.

The Disability Claims Division (DCD) found that Panoke’s shoulder injuries were a result of his work-related accident, and ordered Reef to pay Panoke temporary total disability (TTD) payments for both his shoulder and back injuries. Reef appealed the DCD’s decision to the LIRAB. The LIRAB reversed the DCD decision and found that Panoke’s shoulder injuries were not a result of Panoke’s work-related accident, based on the testimony of a physician who had examined Panoke at Reef’s request.

The ICA held that the LIRAB did not err in finding that Panoke’s shoulder injuries were not a result of his work-related accident because Reef had adduced substantial evidence at the LIRAB trial to overcome the presumption of coverage that is afforded to employees in worker’s compensation claims. The ICA also held that the LIRAB did not err in its determination of the periods for which Panoke was entitled to TTD benefits, and that the LIRAB did not err in declining to impose penalties against Reef for late payment of TTD benefits to Panoke.

On appeal to this court, Panoke argues that: (1) the ICA erred in failing to overrule the LIRAB’s finding that Panoke’s shoulder injuries were not caused by his work-related accident, because the testimony relied upon by the LIRAB was not substantial evidence; (2) the ICA erred in failing to grant Panoke further TTD benefits beyond the periods granted by the LIRAB; and (3) the ICA erred in affirming the LIRAB’s decision not to award penalties against Reef for late payment of TTD benefits.

Supreme
Court

No. SCAP-11-0000599, Thursday, February 5, 2015, 8:45 a.m.

TIMOTHY VANDEVEER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, AMERICAN SAVINGS HOLDING, INC., Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorneys for Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants:

Terrence J. O’Toole, Mark J. Bennett, Sharon V. Lovejoy, and Brandi B. Balanda

Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee:

James J. Bickerton, John F. Perkin, and Brandee J.K. Faria

NOTE: Certificate of recusal, by Associate Justice Simeon R. Acoba, Jr., filed 12/07/12.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Gary W.B. Chang, in place of Acoba, J., recused, filed 12/17/12.

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 12/18/12.

NOTE: Certificate of recusal, by Substitute Justice Gary W.B. Chang, filed 04/22/14.

NOTE: Order filed 12/03/14, that oral argument on the merits be reheard on 02/05/15 at 8:45 a.m.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.

Brief Description:

Petitioners American Savings Bank and American Savings Holding, Inc. appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s (circuit court) July 15, 2011 order denying their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment. This appeal arises out of a class action lawsuit brought by Respondent Timothy Vandeveer against Petitioners, based primarily on allegations that Petitioners re-sequence customer checking account transactions in order to increase overdraft charges and associated fees.

At issue is whether Respondent’s state law claims of unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unfair or deceptive acts are preempted by federal regulations governing deposit-related activities of federal savings and loan associations (S&L). Petitioners maintain that the circuit court erred in finding genuine issues of material fact with respect to the preemption issue, given that federal law preempts the application of state laws to regulate or otherwise affect an S&L’s deposit-related activities. Respondent maintains that the governing federal body lacked authority to preempt state laws by regulation and alternatively, that his state law claims are not preempted because they are based on state laws of general application.

The court previously heard oral argument on the merits on Thursday, October 31, 2013.

 

Supreme
Court
Increase text sizeDecrease text sizePrint this page

© 2008 Hawaii State Judiciary. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Accessibility Information

HIC logo