Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-12-0000778 and CAAP-12-0000868 (Consolidated), Wednesday, May 14, 2014, 9 a.m.
NOEL MADAMBA CONTRACTING LLC, Movant/Cross-Respondent-Appellant vs. RAMON ROMERO and CASSIE ROMERO, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners-Appellees, and A&B GREEN BUILDING LLC, Cross-Respondent-Appellee.
The above-captioned case was set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney(s) for Movant/Cross-Respondent-Appellant Noel Madamba Contracting LLC:
Samuel P. King, Jr.
Attorney(s) for Respondents/Cross-Petitioners-Appellees Ramon Romero and Cassie Romero:
Keith Y. Yamada and Michael C. Schwartz of Cades Schutte LLP
COURT: Reifurth, Ginoza, and Foley, JJ.
Movant-Cross-Respondent-Appellant Noel Madamba Contracting LLC (“Madamba”) appeals from the September 20, 2012 Judgment and related orders entered in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (“Circuit Court”).
This case involves an allegedly unfinished construction contract. The Circuit Court confirmed an arbitrator’s award in favor of Petitioners-Appellees Ramon and Cassie Romero (the “Romeros”).
On appeal, Madamba contends that the Circuit Court erred in (1) precluding Madamba from deposing Cassie Romero regarding her alleged failure to comply with the requirements of Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) Chapter 672E before making a demand for arbitration; (2) denying Madamba’s Motion to Vacate Final Award of Arbitrator Rendered on April 25, 2012 where the Romeros allegedly failed to comply with the requirements of HRS Chapter 672E before making a demand for arbitration; (3) refusing to permit Madamba to depose the arbitration organization’s personnel and the arbitrator regarding the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his connection with the Romeros’s counsel; (4) denying Madamba’s Motion to Vacate in light of the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his potential future connection with the Romeros’s counsel; (5) denying Madamba a jury trial regarding the Romeros’s compliance with HRS Chapter 672E and the arbitrator’s failure to disclose; (6) issuing the Judgment and Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs as premised on the allegedly erroneous Order Confirming Final Award; and (7) affirming the arbitrator’s award of attorneys’ fees in favor of the Romeros.