Skip to Content

COVID-19 Information Page

Oral Arguments Schedule

Accommodation for a Disability

If you need an accommodation for a disability when participating in a court program, service, or activity, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Supreme Court at phone number 539-4700 as far in advance as possible to allow time to provide an accommodation. You are also welcome to send an e-mail to adarequest@courts.hawaii.gov or complete the  Disability Accommodation Request Form. The Disability Accommodations Coordinator will try to provide, but cannot guarantee, the requested auxiliary aid, service, or accommodation.  

COVID-19 Protocols for In-Person Oral Arguments before the Hawaii Supreme Court and Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Effective January 3, 2023

(supersedes the oral argument protocols made effective March 26, 2022)

In-person oral arguments have resumed in the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals as of January 1, 2022. To ensure the continued safety of all participants, the following guidelines will be followed:

  1. Everyone entering Aliʻiolani Hale to attend oral argument must adhere to the building entry and screening requirements, which includes symptom-free conditions (e.g., no fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, or other symptoms of respiratory illness) and no positive COVID-19 test result within 5 days
    of entry into the building.  Additionally, everyone entering Aliʻiolani Hale will undergo a contactless temperature check at the time of entry. No one will be allowed into the building with a temperature over 100.4°F.
  2.  Members of the public will be allowed to attend oral argument, subject to building entry and screening requirements and capacity restrictions.
  3. Everyone must wear a covering over their nose and mouth at all times except while actively drinking water, subject to the discretion of the presiding judge.
  4. Polycarbonate sheets have been constructed around the front and sides of the bailiff and law clerk seating area, and may be used to cover the top surface of the podium.
  5. Air cleaners will operate throughout the courtroom.
  6. There will be enhanced cleaning of key surfaces throughout the courtroom.

Oral Arguments 

Case Details

Court

CAAP-19-0000046 , Wednesday, April 12, 2023, 10 a.m.

NORDIC PCL CONSTRUCTION, INC., f/k/a NORDIC CONSTRUCTION, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LPIHGC, LLC; FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND; and MAUI BEACH RESORT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendants-Appellants.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliʻiōlani 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 Appellants LPIHGC, LLC, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, and Maui Beach Resort Limited:

Terence J. O’Toole and Kukui Claydon of Starn O’Toole Marcus & Fisher

Attorneys for Appellee Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.:

David Schulmeister and Keith Y. Yamada of Cades Schutte; Anna H. Oshiro, Mark M. Murakami, and Matthew T. Evans of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

COURT: Ginoza, C.J., Hiraoka, and Nakasone, JJ.

Brief Description:

Defendant-Appellant LPIHGC, LLC was the general contractor on a project owned by Defendant-Appellant Maui Beach Resort Limited Partnership. Plaintiff-Appellee Nordic PCL Construction, Inc. was a subcontractor. LPIHGC did not pay Nordic in full. Nordic applied for a mechanic’s lien. Defendant-Appellant Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland issued, and Maui Beach Resort filed, a Bond to discharge the lien application. The mechanic’s lien proceeding was dismissed.

Nordic filed the action below seeking a judgment declaring that the Bond was legally binding, valid, and enforceable. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The circuit court denied the motion but certified its order for appellate review.

On appeal, the defendants argue that the circuit court erred because an order entered in the mechanic’s lien case in 2011 released, discharged, and dismissed the Bond.

Nordic argues that an order entered in the mechanic’s lien case in 2018 vacated the 2011 order.

 Intermediate
Court of Appeals