Oral Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals
NO. 28010 – Wednesday, August 12, 2009 – 9 a.m.
COMMUNICATIONS-PACIFIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; MARY PATRICIA WATERHOUSE, Director of the Department of Budget and Fiscal Services and Chief Procurement Officer, in her official capacity; TORU HAMAYASU, Chief Planner, Transportation Planning Division, Department of Transportation Services and Acting Deputy Director of the Department of Transportation Services, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5; and DOE ENTITIES 1-5, Defendants.
Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellant
Terry E. Thomason, Corianne W. Lau and Peter S. Knapman (Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing)
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee
Bert T. Kobayashi, Jr., Jonathan A. Kobayashi and Brendan S. Bailey (Kobayashi, Sugita & Goda)
NOTE: Certificate of Recusal by Judge Katherine G. Leonard, filed 6/4/09.
NOTE: Notice assigning Judge Craig H. Nakamura in place of Judge Leonard, entered on 6/4/09.
COURT: Watanabe, Nakamura & Fujise, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Ali`iolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.
Plaintiff-Appellant Communications-Pacific (Comm-Pac) appeals from the May 10, 2006 final judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit in favor of Defendants-Appellees (collectively, City), dismissing with prejudice Comm-Pac’s claims for (1) a declaratory ruling that the City violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 103D (the Procurement Code) and (2) tortious interference with prospective business advantage.
Comm-Pac argues that the Procurement Code’s exclusive remedy provision (HRS § 103D-704) does not bar Comm-Pac’s tort claim. Comm-Pac was listed as a sub-contractor on a contractor’s response to the City’s request for professional services to conduct an alternative analysis and prepare an environmental impact statement for a high capacity transportation alternative for O`ahu. Although Comm-Pac’s contractor was selected and entered into an agreement for professional services with the City, Comm-Pac claimed the City directed or required the contractor to include a new sub-contractor to do virtually all of the work Comm-Pac would have done under the contractor’s proposal.