Oral Arguments Schedule

Case Details

Court

NO. SCWC-17-0000847, Tuesday, October 17, 2023, 2 p.m.

ROSALINDA GANIR SAPLAN and RECTO RAMOS SAPLAN, Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR BAFC 2007-A, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo TV.

Attorneys for Petitioner U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR BAFC 2007-A:

Jade Lynne Ching, Ryan B. Kasten, and Michelle N. Comeau of Nakashima Ching LLC

Attorney for Respondents ROSALINDA GANIR SAPLAN and RECTO RAMOS SAPLAN:

Keith M. Kiuchi

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford and Circuit Judge Fa‘auuga To‘otoo due to vancancies, filed 09/05/23.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/05/23.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna and Eddins, JJ., and Circuit Judge To‘otoo and Circuit Judge Ashford, assigned by reason of vacancies

Brief Description:

This case arises out of U.S. Bank’s nonjudicial foreclosure of a promissory note executed by Rosalinda Ganir Saplan and Recto Ramos Saplan (the “Saplans”) for purchase of a property in Kailua-Kona. In 2011, U.S. Bank filed an ejectment action to remove the Saplans and others from the property. The 2011 action was dismissed by the court for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rules of the Circuit Courts of Hawai‘i 12(q) because a pretrial conference was not scheduled. In 2014, U.S. Bank again filed suit for ejectment of the Saplans and others.

In 2015, the Saplans brought the current action to quiet title in their favor. They argued that the order dismissing the 2011 action was an adjudication on the merits that had already quieted title in their favor, and that U.S. Bank’s 2014 action for ejectment was therefore precluded. U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted.

The Saplans appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). The ICA held that U.S. Bank failed to establish that the Saplans’ 2015 claims (i.e. the instant quiet title and related claims) were precluded by the 2014 action, and that U.S. Bank failed to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact.

On appeal, U.S. Bank argues that the ICA erred by holding (1) that the 2011 dismissal was on the merits for the purposes of claim preclusion and (2) that U.S. Bank had not met its burden of showing there were genuine issues of material fact for trial. In response, the Saplans argue (1) the ICA correctly applied precedent in requiring U.S. Bank to establish that the price for the property was adequate and (2) because U.S. Bank did not seek a final judgment or object to the dismissal of the 2011 action, the ICA was correct in holding that the 2011 action was dismissed with prejudice.

No. SCOT-21-0000581, Tuesday, December 5, 2023, 10 A.M.

SURFACE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS, INTEGRATION OF APPURTENANT RIGHTS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERIM STREAM FLOW STANDARDS, NĀ WAI ʻEHĀ SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS OF WAIHEʻE RIVER, WAIEHU STREAM, WAILUKU RIVER PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ʻĪAO STREAM AND WAIKAPŪ STREAM, MAUI. (Case Number CCH-MA 15-01)

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo TV.

Attorneys for Appellant/Cross-Appellee MMK MAUI, LP:

Jodi S. Yamamoto, Wil K. Yamamoto, and Jesse J. T. Smith of Yamamoto Caliboso

Attorneys for Appellee/Cross-Appellant MAHI PONO LLC:

David Schulmeister, Michi Momose, and Trisha H. S. T. Akagi of Cades Shutte

Attorney for Appellee/Cross-Appellant HUI O NĀ WAI ʻEHĀ and MAUI TOMORROW FOUNDATION, INC.:

Isaac H. Moriwake of Earthjustice

Attorneys for Appellee/Cross-Appellant OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS:

Judy A. Tanaka and Pamela W. Bunn of Dentons US LLP

Attorneys for Appellee/Cross-Appellant WAILUKU WATER COMPANY, LLC:

Paul R. Mancini and James W. Geiger of Mancini, Welch & Geiger LLP

Attorneys for Appellee/Cross-Appellee COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:

Julie China, Linda L. W. Chow, and Miranda C. Steed, Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Appellee/Cross-Appellee COUNTY OF MAUI, DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY:

Caleb P. Rowe and Kristin K. Tarnstrom, Deputies Corporation Counsel

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Henry T. Nakamoto and Circuit Judge Kirstin M. Hamman due to vancancies, filed 06/14/23.

NOTE: Order granting motion to postpose the 9/14/23 oral argument, filed 09/12/23.

NOTE: Order setting new oral argument date to 12/05/23 at 10:00 a.m., filed 09/14/23.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna and Eddins, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nakamoto and Circuit Judge Hamman, assigned by reason of vacancies

Brief Description:

This is a direct agency appeal from the Commission on Water Resource Management (“the Commission”) concerning Nā Wai ‘Ehā, or “the four great waters of Maui.” Nā Wai ‘Ehā encompasses Waihe‘e River, Waiehu Stream (North and South), Wailuku River (formerly ‘Īao Stream), and Waikapū Stream, and their surrounding ahupua‘a.

In 2008, the Commission designated Nā Wai ‘Ehā as a surface water management area. Over 140 applicants filed surface water use permit applications (“SWUPAs”). Then, in 2016, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., announced the closure of Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co., and plans to transition from sugar to diversified agriculture. Community groups Hui o Nā Wai ʻEhā and Maui Tomorrow

Foundation, Inc. (“the Hui/MTF”) filed a petition with the Commission to amend Nā Wai ‘Ehā’s Interim Instream Flow Standards (“IIFS”) in light of that closure. The Commission consolidated the IIFS and SWUPA proceedings. Following a contested case hearing, on June 28, 2021, the Commission issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, amended by Errata issued June 30, 2021, setting IIFS for Nā Wai ‘Ehā and granting various parties’ SWUPAs.

On appeal, the Hui/MTF and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs assert the Commission failed to comply with its constitutional and statutory mandates to restore Nā Wai ‘Ehā stream flows to the “extent practicable.” MMK Maui, LP (“MMK”), Mahi Pono, LLC (“Mahi Pono”), and Wailuku Water Company, LLC (“WWC”), each contend the Commission violated their due process rights and challenge various aspects of their respective surface water use permits (“SWUPs”). MMK challenges the water allocation in its SWUP for operation of two golf courses, and the Commission’s denial of its request to monitor its water use on a 12-month moving average. Mahi Pono challenges the water allocation in its SWUP for diversified agriculture operations. WWC challenges various conditions and/or directives attached to its SWUP for system losses related to its water delivery operations through the Nā Wai ‘Ehā ditch system.

The Commission argues, among other things, that it properly exercised its discretion under the public trust and Water Code in setting IIFS for Nā Wai ‘Ehā and granting each applicant’s SWUPA.

NO. SCAP-22-0000557, Tuesday, December 5, 2023, 2:30 p.m.

WILLIE KAUPIKO; KA‘IMI KAUPIKO; MIKE NAKACHI; FOR THE FISHES; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; and KAI PALAOA, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, vs. BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI‘I; and DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI‘I; Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellee.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees WILLIE KAUPIKO, KA‘IMI KAUPIKO, MIKE NAKACHI, FOR THE FISHES, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, and KAI PALAOA:

      Isaac H. Moriwake, Kylie W. Wager Cruz, and Mahesh Cleveland of Earthjustice

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI‘I and DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI‘I:

     Julie H. China, Daniel A. Morris, and Melissa D. Goldman, Deputy Attorneys General  

Attorney for Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellee PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL:

     Geoffrey M. Davis of the Law Office of Geoff Davis

NOTE:  Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 03/15/23.

NOTE:  Order assigning Circuit Judge John M. Tonaki and Circuit Judge Shanlyn A.S. Park due to vacancies, filed 06/30/23.

COURT:    Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna and Eddins, JJ., and Circuit Judge Tonaki and Circuit Judge Park, assigned by reason of vacancies

Brief Description:

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees Willie Kaupiko, Ka‘imi Kaupiko, Mike Nakachi, For the Fishes, Center for Biological Diversity, and Kai Palaoa (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Respondents/Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellant Board of Land and Natural Resources (“BLNR”) and the Department of Land and Natural Resources (collectively, “Defendants”) for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (“circuit court”). The circuit court permitted Respondent/Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellee Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (“Intervenor-Defendant”) to intervene.

Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, Defendants’ decision to accept Intervenor-Defendant’s Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement (“RFEIS”) regarding the West Hawai‘i Regional Fishery Management Area (“WHRFMA”) violated the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act (“HEPA”). Plaintiffs asked the circuit court to issue a declaratory judgment that the RFEIS failed to comply with HEPA and the Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (“HAR”), and issue appropriate injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from issuing aquarium permits to collectors seeking coverage under the RFEIS.

In a motion to dismiss, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim because the “acceptance” of the RFEIS occurred by operation of law pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 343-5(e)(2021), not due to any “decision” by Defendants. Defendants also claimed that the political question doctrine barred further court action because Defendants did not elect to accept or not accept the RFEIS prior to its deemed acceptance by operation of law. The circuit court denied Defendants’ motion.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. In considering the motion, the circuit court focused on whether the RFEIS satisfactorily addressed Defendants’ findings and reasons for non-acceptance of the first draft of the EIS, but stated that the rule of reason set forth in Price v. Obayashi, 81 Hawai‘i 171, 182, 914 P.2d 1364, 1375 (1996), was the ultimate standard in determining the legal sufficiency of the RFEIS. Finding that under the rule of reason, “the RFEIS provided sufficient information to enable the Board to make an informed and reasoned decision”, the circuit court denied Plaintiffs’ motion.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred by misapplying the standard set forth in Price because it did not apply the standard in conjunction with the plain language of HRS Chapter 343 and HAR Chapter 11-200. Plaintiffs also argue that the circuit court erred in concluding that the RFEIS amounted to a valid HEPA review because the body of the RFEIS did not discuss public comments and comment responses, and only included such information as appendices to the RFEIS. Plaintiffs also assert that the RFEIS failed to fully address Defendants’ reasons for non-acceptance and does not meet HEPA’s content requirements.

Defendants filed a cross-appeal seeking review of the circuit court’s ruling on its motion to dismiss if the court rules to reverse the circuit court’s final judgment underlying Plaintiff’s appeal. Defendants argue that the default acceptance of the RFEIS under HRS § 343-5(e) was an acceptance by operation of law, not a decision by Defendants and, thus, Defendants did not violate HEPA and should not have been charged with defending this decision on the merits.  

The case has been transferred to this court.

NO. SCAP-22-0000268, Thursday, December 14, 2023, 10 a.m.

PUALANI KANAKA‘OLE KANAHELE; EDWARD HALEALOHA AYAU; KELI‘I W. IONE, JR., Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JADE BUTAY, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Transportation; DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES; SUZANNE CASE, in her official capacity as the Director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources; DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS; HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION; WILLIAM J. AILĀ, JR., in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and Chair of the Hawaiian Homes Commission; and PATRICIA A. KAHANOMOKU-TERUYA; RANDY K. AWO; PAULINE N. NAMU‘O, ZACHARY Z. HELM; DENNIS L. NEVES; MICHAEL L. KALEIKINI; RUSSELL K. KAUPU, and DAVID B. KA‘APU, in their official capacities as members of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits.

The oral argument will be held *remotely* and will be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo TV.

Attorneys for Petitioners Pualani Kanaka‘ole Kanahele, Edward Halealoha Ayau, and Keli‘i W. Ione, Jr.:

Ashley K. Obrey, Daylin-Rose H. Heather, and Terina K. Fa‘agau of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation

Attorney for Respondents State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation, et al.:

Ewan C. Rayner, Deputy Solicitor General

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 12/20/22.

NOTE: Order assigning Chief Judge Peter T. Cahill of the Second Circuit Court and Judge Clarissa Y. Malinao of the First Circuit Court due to vacancies, filed 06/01/23.

NOTE: Order postponing the 8/10/23 oral argument due to the impact of Maui fires, filed 08/09/23.

NOTE: Order setting new oral argument date to 12/14/23 at 10:00 a.m., filed 09/13/23.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna and Eddins, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cahill and Circuit Judge Malinao, assigned by reason of vacancies

Brief Description:

Plaintiffs Pualani Kanakaʻole Kanahele, Edward Halealoha Ayau, and Kealiʻi “Skippy” Ioane, Jr. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against the State of Hawaiʻi (“State”); the Department of Transportation (“DOT”); Jade Butay, in his official capacity as director of the DOT; the Department of Land and Natural Resources (“DLNR”); Suzanne Case, in her official capacity as the director of the DLNR; the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (“DHHL”); the Hawaiian Homes Commission (“HHC”); William J. Ailā, Jr., in his official capacity as the director of the DHHL and chair of the HHC; and Patricia A. Kahanamoku-Teruya, Randy K. Awo, Pauline N. Namuʻo, Zachary Z. Helm, Dennis L. Neves, Michael L. Kaleikini, Russell K. Kaupu, and David B. Kaʻapu, in their official capacities as members of the HHC (collectively “Defendants”).

In the initial complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (“circuit court”), Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, Defendants breached their trust duties by allowing the State to use the Mauna Kea Access Road (“MKAR”) without payment. Plaintiffs asked the circuit court to declare that the MKAR is not a state highway because the procedures of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (“HRS”) chapter 264 for making roads public were not followed.

In a motion to dismiss, Defendants argued Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert HRS chapter 264 claims. Defendants also asserted Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by Act 14, which purported to “resolve all controversies relating to the Hawaiian home lands trust which arose between August 21, 1959 and July 1, 1988.” 1995 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 14, § 2 at 698. To resolve all such controversies, Act 14 proposed “compensation for all remaining confirmed uncompensated public uses of Hawaiian home lands [and] the initiation of a land exchange to remedy uncompensated use of Hawaiian home lands for state roads claims and highways[.]” 1995 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 14, § 6 at 700. The circuit court denied Defendants’ motion.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The circuit court concluded that because the MKAR was constructed in 1974 and the Hawaiian home lands trust has never been compensated for public use of the MKAR, it was included in the Act 14 land exchange.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue Act 14 does not bar their claims because it only addressed claims that arose before July 1, 1988, and the “taking” (the state highway designation) at issue occurred in 2018. Plaintiffs also assert the State and DOT had no authority to designate the MKAR a public highway because HRS chapter 264 procedures were not followed. Defendants ts respond that Act 14 precludes Plaintiffs’ claims and that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert Chapter 264 claims.

No. SCAP-22-0000368, Thursday, December 14, 2023, 2 p.m.

SONIA DAVIS, JESSICA LAU, LAURALEE B. RIEDELL, and ADAM M. WALTON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. RICHARD T. BISSEN, JR., County of Maui Office of the Mayor, SCOTT TERUYA, County of Maui Department of Finance, and COUNTY OF MAUI, Defendants-Appellants.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo TV.

Attorneys for Appellants RICHARD T. BISSEN, JR., County of Maui Office of the Mayor, SCOTT TERUYA, County of Maui Department of Finance, and COUNTY OF MAUI:

Caleb P. Rowe and Keola R. Whittaker, Deputies Corporation Counsel

Attorney for Appellees SONIA DAVIS, JESSICA LAU, LAURALEE B. RIEDELL, and ADAM M. WALTON:

Jongwook “Wookie” Kim of ACLU of Hawaii Foundation

NOTE:  Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 11/17/22.

NOTE:  Order assigning Circuit Judge Shanlyn A.S. Park and Circuit Judge James S. Kawashima due to vancancies, filed 05/25/23.

NOTE:  Order granting motion to postpone oral argument now re-scheduled to 12/14/23 at 2 p.m., filed 08/30/23.

COURT:  Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna and Eddins, JJ., and Circuit Judge Park and Circuit Judge Kawashima, assigned by reason of vacancies

Brief Description:

Appellees are unhoused individuals who formerly resided in the area surrounding the Kanahā Pond Wildlife Sanctuary and Wailuku-Kahului Wastewater Treatment Plant (the Kanahā area)on Maui. In September 2021, Appellant County of Maui distributed notices stating that the area would be cleared of personal property and that all persons remaining on site would be cited for trespassing. The notices did not provide information about where property removed in the sweep would be stored, whether and how it could be retrieved, whether it would be destroyed, or how affected individuals could challenge the sweep. Unhoused individuals submitted written requests for contested case hearings to the office of then-mayor Michael Victorino before the sweep. No contested case hearings were held. The County then conducted the sweep in late September 2021.

Two of the unhoused individuals allege they lost personal property and filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court, asserting the County violated their state and federal constitutional due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice before executing the sweep and by failing to hold a contested case hearing before depriving them of their property. The circuit court ruled that the unhoused individuals who sustained property losses were entitled to a contested case hearing before the deprivation. The circuit court then granted the County leave to file an interlocutory appeal; this court accepted a transfer of the appeal.