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

Oral Argument before the Supreme Court

No. 28669 Thursday, March 15, 2012, 10 a.m.

(1st AMENDED 12/12/11)

JASON LANAKILA CABRAL; the Estate of JOSEPH PU KAIKALA; LYNDA EVADNA KAIKALA, individually, as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Shawn Kaikala, and as Guardian Ad Litem for minors SHANTEL KAIUOLA CABRAL and IOKEPA JOHN KAIKALA; JOHN E. KRAUSE, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for minors KAHEKILI JOHN KRAUSE, KEANU KAIKALA KRAUSE, and KAWENA KAIKALA KRAUSE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MARK KALE CABRAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Defendant/Appellee, and JONI MARIE SCOTT, Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff.

(Motor Vehicle Tort)

Attorneys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants: Joy A. San Buenaventura and Peter Van Name Esser

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Defendant-Appellee: David M. Louie, Attorney General, and Donna H. Kalama, Deputy Attorney General

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/05/11.

NOTE: Oral argument rescheduled from 01/19/12 to 03/15/12.


The above oral argument is set in:

Supreme Court courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants Jason Lanakila Cabral; the Estate of Joseph Pu Kaikala; Lynda Evadna Kaikala, individually, as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Shawn Kaikala and as Guardian Ad Litem for minors Shantel Kaiuola Cabral and Iokepa John Kaikala; John E. Krause, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for minors Kahekili John Krause, Keanu Kaikala Krause, and Kawena Kaikala Krause (collectively, Petitioners) filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the August 11, 2011 judgment of the ICA, filed pursuant to its July 28, 2011 Opinion, which dismissed Petitioners’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this case, the circuit court “approved and so ordered” an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Relying on such order, Petitioners filed what they assumed to be a timely notice of appeal. The ICA, however, determined that the extension of time was erroneously granted, and Petitioners’ appeal was thus untimely. On application, Petitioners contend that they should not be penalized for relying on the circuit court’s order, which unbeknownst to them would later be deemed invalid. Petitioners argue that they are entitled to equitable relief and urge this court to adopt the “unique circumstances” doctrine to excuse their untimely notice of appeal.