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

Oral Arguments before the Hawai`i Supreme Court

NO. 28702 – Thursday, June 4, 2009 – 9 a.m.

THE ESTATE OF ROGER ROXAS; and THE GOLDEN BUDHA CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. IMELDA MARCOS, Defendant-Appellant, and FERDINAND MARCOS, Defendants.
(Assault & Battery)

Attorney(s) for Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellee(s)
Ward D. Jones (Bervar & Jones) and
*Brian R Magana (Magana Cathcart McCarthy), Pro hac vice

Attorney(s) for Respondent/Defendant-Appellant(s)
Lex R. Smith (Kobayashi Sugita & Goda)

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal by Justice Simeon Acoba, filed 4/2/09.

NOTE: Order assigning Judge Dexter Del Rosario in place of Acoba, recused, and Judge Richard Pollack due to a vacancy, filed 4/9/09.

NOTE: *Order allowing Pro Hac Vice appearance of Counsel filed 5/18/09. Pending payment of fees and filing proof of payment.

COURT: RTYM, CJ; PAN & JED, JJ, and Circuit Judge Dexter Del Rosario in place of Acoba, recused, and Circuit Judge Richard Pollack assigned by reason of vacancy.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Petitioners/Appellees-Plaintiffs The Estate of Roger Roxas and The Golden Budha Corporation (“GBC”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) petition this court to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (“ICA’s”) March 5, 2009 judgment on appeal, entered pursuant to its February 12, 2009 published opinion, Estate of Roxas v. Marcos , 120 Hawai?i 123, 202 P.3d 584 (App. 2009). The ICA reversed the first circuit court’s July 24, 2007 order granting Petitioners’ two May 8, 2007 motions to extend the second amended judgment (filed on October 18, 1999) and fourth amended judgment (filed on September 6, 2001).

In their application for writ of certiorari, the Petitioners argue that the ICA gravely erred in reversing the order where Petitioners moved to extend the second amended judgment and fourth amended judgment within the extension period allowed by Hawaii Revised Statute (“HRS”) § 657-5 (2006). Petitioners argue that, under HRS § 657-5, a court may grant an extension of a judgment if the extension is sought within ten years of the date the unextended judgment was rendered.