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

Eviction moratorium on Maui Island ends on Feb. 4, 2025. For updates, click here.

Oral Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals

Nos. 28948 & 29105 – Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 9:00 a.m.

CIV. NO. 03-1-2557 PACIFIC LIGHTNET, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. TIME WARNER TELECOM, INC. and TIME WARNER TELECOM OF HAWAI`I,., Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.

CIV. NO. 05-1-0428 PACIFIC LIGHTNET, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. ALVEN KAMP, TIME WARNER TELECOM OF HAWAII L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, and JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, or OTHER ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee
Margery S. Bronster and Rex Y. Fujichaku (Bronster Hoshibata)

Attorney(s) for Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants
J. Douglas Ing, Brian A. Kang and Emi L.M. Kaimuloa

COURT: Fujise, Leonard, and Ginoza, JJ.

SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument was held in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Ali`iolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

In this consolidated appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Pacific Lightnet, Inc. (“PLNI”) and Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants Time Warner Telecom, Inc. and Time Warner Telecom of Hawai`i, L.P. (collectively TWTC) appeal and cross-appeal from, inter alia, a December 12, 2007 final judgment and an order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to TWTC.

PLNI argues, inter alia, that the circuit court erred: in dismissing certain claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine; by staying a jury verdict thus violating PLNI’s right to jury trial; by dismissing rather than staying certain claims; by granting summary judgment on claims for which genuine issues of material fact remained; and in awarding attorneys’ fees to TWTC.

TWTC argues that the circuit court erred: by denying TWTC’s motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; by refusing testimony and evidence regarding relevant settlement discussions; and by improperly instructing the jury and providing an incomplete special verdict form.