Skip to Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–SCWC-16-0000570

No. SCWC-16-0000570, Thursday, January 23, 2020, 11:15 a.m.

SHADLEY HAYNES; KURSTIN HAYNES, Individually and as Parent and Legal Guardian of Minor children JH and NH; THE OTHER SIDE – ROCKSTARZ – LLC, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. GREGORY FOWLER HAAS; FPA GOLD COAST ASSOCIATES, LLC; CLARK REALTY CORPORATION; KONA METRO PARKING & WATCHMAN SERVICES, INC.; ALLIED SELF STORAGE CENTER; GUIDO GIACOMETTI; CHUNG PARTNERS, Respondents/Defendants-
 Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

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

Attorneys for Petitioners:

James J. Bickerton and Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton of Bickerton Law Group LLLP

Attorneys for Respondents Chung Partners:

Gregory K. Markham, Keith K. Kato, and Kristen K. Souza of Chee Markham & Feldman

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/11/19.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Plaintiff Shadley Haynes sued Defendants Gregory Haas, Allied Self Storage, and Chung Partners for damages Haynes suffered after Haas allegedly assaulted him on December 24, 2011. The assault took place outside Rockstarz, the bar Haynes’ family owned, which was down the street from Allied. According to Haynes, Chung leased land to Allied, which operated a self-storage business where some individuals, including Haas, lived illegally. Haynes claimed Allied was aware of individuals living in the units; Allied maintained that there was no evidence presented to establish its awareness.

Haynes sought to recover damages based on the theory that Allied created a public nuisance by allowing homeless individuals to reside in the storage units. The ICA held that, as a matter of law, Chung and Allied could not be held liable for monetary damages for Haynes’ injuries under a public nuisance theory.

Haynes’ application for the writ of certiorari presents two questions:

1. Whether the ICA gravely erred by affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis that Haynes could not recover monetary damages in the absence of a statute defining Allied’s and Chung’s conduct as a nuisance; and

2. Whether the ICA gravely erred by affirming the circuit court’s award of costs to Allied and Chung.