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

Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court

No. 29742, Thursday, March 15, 2012, 9 a.m.

(2nd AMENDED 12/12/11)

ALAKAI`I NA KEIKI, INC., Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KATHRYN MATAYOSHI, in her official capacity as Superintendent of Education, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

(Agency Appeal)

Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant: Perry Confalone and Steven M. Egesdal of Carlsmith Ball LLP

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee: Deirdre Marie-Iha and Marissa H.I. Luning, Deputy Solicitors General

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 10/28/11.

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:

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Alaka`i Na Keiki, Inc. (Petitioner) filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari on September 14, 2011 seeking review of the June 16, 2011 judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) filed pursuant to its May 24, 2011 published opinion, affirming the March 4, 2009 Judgment filed by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (the court) in favor of Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Kathryn Matayoshi (substituted for the former Superintendent) in her capacity as Superintendent of the Hawaiʻi State Department of Education (DOE).

Briefly stated, the DOE solicited private providers to provide intensive instructional support services to eligible students. Petitioner submitted a proposal but was not chosen by the DOE. Petitioner argues that (1) Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 103F, which governs contacts made by state agencies to provide health or human services, represents an unconstitutional delegation of judicial power to an executive agency, (2) the ICA erred in affirming the court’s dismissal of its tort action against the DOE for negligent administration of chapter 103F, brought pursuant to the State Tort Liability Act, HRS § 662-15(1), and (3) the ICA erred in ruling that the legality of the DOE’s actions in administering HRS chapter 103F was not subject to judicial review pursuant to the inherent powers of the court.