RENELDO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAUNA KEA RESORT LLC, HAWAII PRINCE HOTEL WAIKIKI LLC, PRINCE RESORTS HAWAII, INC., Respondents/Defendants-Appellants. 

Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format

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 TV 53 at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.  

Attorneys for Petitioner RENELDO RODRIGUEZ:   
     Brandee J.K. Faria of the Law Offices of Brandee J.K. Faria LLLC and Mateo Caballero of Caballero Law LLLC 

Attorneys for Respondent MAUNA KEA RESORT LLC, HAWAII PRINCE HOTEL WAIKIKI LLC, PRINCE RESORTS HAWAII, INC.:  
     Richard M. Rand and Kristi K. O’Heron of Marr Jones & Wang 

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/05/25.  

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ. 

Brief Description:  

This appeal arises out of a class-action suit between Petitioner Plaintiff-Appellee Reneldo Rodriguez (Rodriguez), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and Respondents/Defendants-Appellants Mauna Kea Resort LLC, Hawaii Prince Hotel Waikiki LLC, and Prince Resorts Hawaii, Inc.  (Mauna Kea). 

Between 2010 and 2017, Mauna Kea charged its hotel customers a “service charge” or “gratuity” on food and beverage sales, calculated as a percentage of the total cost of food and beverage purchased.  There is no dispute that Mauna Kea did not distribute the entire amount of the service charge collected to its employees as tip income, and that Mauna Kea provided written disclosures to customers that the service charges would not be distributed in full to employees.  Many of these disclosures did not specify the actual percentage or amount of the service charge that would be distributed to employees. 

Rodriguez alleged that Mauna Kea violated Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 481B-14 which states that “[a]ny[] . . . [h]otel or restaurant that applies a service charge for the sale of food or beverage services[] . . . shall distribute the service charge directly to its employees as tip income or clearly disclose to the purchaser of the services that the service charge is being used to pay for costs or expenses other than wages and tips of employees.”    

The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted in part Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment and denied Mauna Kea’s motion for summary judgment.  It found that Mauna Kea had not specified in their HRS § 481B-14 disclosures the percentage of the service charge distributed to the employee and the percentage retained by Mauna Kea.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Mauna Kea established that its service charge disclosures were sufficient pursuant to HRS § 481B-14.  Rodriguez’s cert application was accepted. 

Rodriguez argues that Mauna Kea violated HRS § 388-6, unauthorized withholding of wages, and HRS § 480-2, unfair methods of competition, because it failed to “clearly disclose” its retention of a certain portion of the service charge. 

Manua Kea counters that HRS § 481B-14 does not require service charge disclosures to specify with particularity the fraction or percentage that is distributed to employees.  Mauna Kea also argues that its disclosures “clearly disclose” to the customer that the service charge is being used to pay for costs and expenses other than wages and tips of employees, and that these disclosures meet the requirements of HRS § 481B-14.