Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals

No. 28854 – Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 9 a.m.

PILA`A 400, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant,  v.  CARLOS LAWRENCE ANDRADE; MAKALII SUN CHIANG ANDRADE; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE “NON-PROFIT” CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellant
Mark R. Zenger and Donna E. Richards (Richards & Zenger)
William C. McCorriston, David J. Minkin and Becky T. Chestnut (McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon)

Attorney(s) for Defendants-Appellees
Moses K.N. Haia III and Anthony F. Quan (Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation)

COURT: Foley, Fujise and Reifurth, JJ.

SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Aliiolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawaii.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief description:

Defendant-Appellee Carlos Lawrence Andrade (Defendant) has an ownership interest in two kuleana entirely located within the ahupuaa owned by Plaintiff-Appellant Pilaa 400, LLC (Plaintiff) on Kauai (Plaintiff’s property).  The Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (MSJ) and ordered Plaintiff to execute and record a formal grant of easement through Plaintiff’s property in favor of Defendant so that Defendant could access one of his kuleana (Waterfall Kuleana).  The circuit court also granted Defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined Plaintiff from dismantling, damaging and/or destroying Defendant’s water system that diverted water from a stream on Plaintiff’s property to Defendant’s other kuleana (Banana Patch Kuleana).  On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in ordering Plaintiff to execute and record the easement in favor of Defendant; abused its discretion in granting the motion for preliminary injunction; erred in imposing a monetary sanction against Plaintiff for failing to execute and record the easement, without finding Plaintiff in contempt; and ordering Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing Defendant’s motion to enforce the order granting the preliminary injunction motion and for contempt.