Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court
No. SCWC-11-0000317, Wednesday, June 19, 2013, 11 a.m.
ERIC J. MINTON and RICHARD M. STANLEY, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. SIDNEY A. QUINTAL, JOHN C. FUHRMANN, CITY and COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants:
Charles S. Lotsof and Jack F. Schweigert
Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees:
Curtis E. Sherwood, Richard D. Lewallen, and John P. Moran, Deputies Corporation Counsel
NOTE: Certificate of recusal, by Associate Justice Sabrina S. McKenna, filed 03/06/13.
NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Glenn J. Kim, in place of McKenna, J., recused, filed 03/07/13.
NOTE: Certificate of recusal, by Associate Justice Simeon R. Acoba, Jr., filed 04/15/13.
NOTE: Order assigning Jeannette H. Castagnetti, in place of Acoba, J., recused, filed 04/16/13.
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 04/17/13.
NOTE: Order granting motion to advance oral argument from 06/20/13 to 06/19/13 at 11:00 a.m., filed 05/06/13.
COURT: MER, CJ; PAN & RWP, JJ; Circuit Court Judge Castagnetti, in place of Acoba, J., recused; and Circuit Court Judge Kim, in place of McKenna, J., recused.
Petitioners/plaintiffs-appellants Eric J. Minton and Richard M. Stanley timely filed an application for a writ of certiorari to review the January 2, 2013 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), issued pursuant to its November 29, 2012 memorandum opinion. The ICA’s judgment affirmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s (circuit court) March 22, 2011 judgment in favor of Respondents/defendants-appellees Sidney A. Quintal, John C. Furhmann and the City and County of Honolulu (City) on all claims.
This appeal arises from Respondents’ decision in August 2007 to prohibit Petitioners, who were stagehands and who were not City employees, from working at any events at the City-owned Neal Blaisdell Concert Hall, Exhibition Hall, Arena, and the Waikiki Shell. This decision was based on Petitioners’ work at a private event held at the Neal Blaisdell Concert Hall in August 2007.
The circuit court held in relevant part that Respondents had the authority to prohibit Petitioners from working at the City’s venues and that Petitioners failed to prove a violation of any state-based constitutional right. The ICA agreed, holding that the authority to suspend individuals from the City’s venues is inherent and necessarily incidental to the operation of those facilities, and that Petitioners’ procedural due process rights were not implicated by Respondents’ action because Petitioners had neither a property nor liberty interest in being allowed to work at the City’s venues. In this application, Petitioners argue that Respondents’ action implicated both their property and liberty interests, entitling them to procedural due process before deprivation of such interests. Petitioners argue that they were not afforded due process, as they were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to Respondents’ action.