Skip to Content

Oral Arguments Schedule

Amended 07/10/2020

No. SCAP-19-0000501, Friday, September 18, 2020, 8:45 a.m.

MĀLAMA CHUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI I, and HAWAII LONGLINE ASSOCIATION, Defendants-Appellees.

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

The oral argument will be held remotely and will be live-streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant Mālama Chun:

Lance D. Collins of the Law Office of Lance D Collins

Attorney for Defendant-Appellee State of Hawaii:

William J. Wynhoff, Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Defendant-Appellee Hawaii Longline Association:

Geoffrey M. Davis of K&L Gates LLP

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 02/07/20.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Richard W. Pollack, filed 05/22/20.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge John M. Tonaki, in place of Pollack, J., recused, filed 05/22/20.

NOTE: Order granting motion to change date of oral argument from 08/5/20 to 09/18/20 at 8:45 a.m., filed 07/09/20.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Court Judge Tonaki, in place of Pollack, J., recused.

Brief Description:

This case involves the interaction between the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ (DLNR) issuance of commercial marine licenses and HRS §§ 189-2 and 189-5, statutes which limit the taking of marine life.

HRS § 189-2(a) states, “No person shall take marine life for commercial purposes whether the marine life is caught or taken within or outside of the State, without first obtaining a commercial marine license[.]” HRS § 189-5 states, “It is unlawful for any person who has not been lawfully admitted to the United States to engage in taking marine life for commercial purposes in the waters of the State.”

Mālama Chun (Chun) challenged the issuance of commercial marine licenses to foreign non-immigrant crewmembers on longline fishing boats that dock in Honolulu to sell their catch. Chun sought a declaratory order that the DLNR lacks the authority to issue commercial marine licenses to persons not lawfully admitted to the United States. The Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) denied the petition; Chun appealed the decision to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which affirmed the BLNR. The Supreme Court accepted Chun’s application for transfer of this case. Chun contends that the circuit court erred on three grounds when it upheld the BLNR’s decision denying Chun’s Petition for Declaratory Order:

(1) Affirming BLNR’s conclusion that alien longline fishing crewmembers were “lawfully admitted” to the United States;

(2) Affirming BLNR’s conclusion that commercial fishing licenses may be issued to persons not lawfully admitted to the United States; and

(3) Concluding that Chun must present a factual record of violations of HRS § 189-2(a) by foreign non-immigrant crewmembers in order to obtain relief. 

Supreme
Court

No. SCAP-19-0000854, Friday, September 18, 2020, 11:15 a.m.

TRACY YOSHIMURA, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. KEITH M. KANESHIRO, Respondent-Appellee.

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

The oral argument will be held remotely and will be live-streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts

Attorney for Appellant:

Keith M. Kiuchi

Attorneys for Appellee:

William C. McCorriston, David J. Minkin, Nadine Y. Ando, and Jordan K. Inafuku of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Paula A. Nakayama, filed 03/09/20.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Todd W. Eddins, in place of Nakayama, J., recused, filed 03/11/20.

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 04/06/20.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge James H. Ashford due to a vacancy, filed 07/24/20.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Eddins, in place of Nakayama, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Ashford due to a vacancy.

Brief Description:
This appeal stems from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of Tracey Yoshimura’s petition to impeach Honolulu City Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro. In December 2018, Yoshimura initiated a petition to impeach Kaneshiro after Kaneshiro had received a target letter from the United States Department of Justice. Yoshimura supported his petition for impeachment with 800+ electronic signatures collected from an online platform called Change.org. In April 2019, Yoshimura filed a first amended petition with 500+ electronic signatures collected from a different online platform, DocuSign.

Kaneshiro moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the electronic signatures did not satisfy the requirements for a petition to impeach the city prosecutor under the Honolulu Charter, section 12-203. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, finding and concluding that the city is not required to accept electronic signatures, the city is not required to promulgate a rule concerning the acceptance or rejection of electronic signatures, and the petition must be supported by residence addresses to confirm signatories were registered voters of the City and County of Honolulu. Yoshimura sought leave to amend his petition, which the circuit court denied. He also sought reconsideration of the circuit court’s decision, which the circuit court also denied.

On appeal, Yoshimura argues that HRS section 489E-7 provides that electronic signatures are valid under the law. He also argues that, to the extent HRS section 489E-18 allows a government agency to reject electronic signatures, the government agency must first promulgate rules under the Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act, HRS chapter 91, setting forth the circumstances under which electronic signatures may be rejected. He asserts that the circuit court erred in dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction, denying his motion for leave to file a second amended petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration of those rulings.

Supreme
Court

No. SCWC-17-0000695, Wednesday, September 23, 2020, 8:45 a.m.

EDELMIRA SALAYES ARAIZA, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, vs. STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

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

 The oral argument will be held remotely and will be live-streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at: YouTube.com/hawaiicourts

Attorney for Petitioner:

Hayden Aluli

Attorneys for Respondent:

Renee Ishikawa Delizo and Mark R. Simonds, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Richard W. Pollack, filed 06/29/20.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge R. Mark Browning, in place of Pollack, J., recused, filed 06/29/20.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 07/29/20.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Pollack, J., recused.

Brief Description:

This case involves the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit’s denial of a Hawai i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 petition following Edelmira Salayes Araiza’s (Ariza’s) plea of no contest to Welfare Fraud and Theft in the First Degree, an aggravated felony under federal immigration law. Araiza is a citizen of Mexico who obtained lawful permanent resident status in the United States. Shortly after her plea of no contest, the United States Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings and detained her without bond. She thereafter filed a petition to vacate her plea pursuant to HRPP Rule 40, asserting that her defense attorney failed to advise her of the immigration consequences of her plea. She further asserted that she would not have pled no contest to the charges had she known her plea would result in automatic deportation.

The circuit court held a hearing on Araiza’s Rule 40 petition, during which time Araiza was represented by an immigration attorney. A Spanish-speaking interpreter was appointed to translate for Araiza at the hearing. Following the hearing, the court denied Araiza’s Rule 40 petition, concluding that her defense attorney had adequately advised her of the consequences of her no-contest plea. Araiza appealed to the ICA, and the ICA affirmed the lower court’s decision.

On certiorari, Araiza asks this court to determine whether: (1) her defense attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by providing deficient immigration advice; (2) her defense attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to negotiate a plea to remove or minimize harsh immigration consequences; (3) the circuit court’s plea colloquy was insufficient; (4) her Rule 40 counsel provided ineffective assistance at the Rule 40 hearing; and (5) the circuit court committed plain error by appointing an unqualified interpreter for the Rule 40 hearing.

Supreme
Court

No. SCWC-16-0000630, Wednesday, September 23, 2020, 11:15 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MATTHEW K. WILLIAMS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

The oral argument will be held remotely and will be live-streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts

Attorneys for Petitioner:

Eric A. Seitz, Della A. Belatti, Gina Szeto-Wong, Jonathan M.F. Loo, and Kevin A. Yolken of Eric A. Seitz, Attorney at Law, a Law Corporation

Attorney for Respondent:

Sonja P. McCullen, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Richard W. Pollack, filed 05/15/20.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Gary W.B. Chang, in place of Pollack, J., recused, filed 05/15/20.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/26/20.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Chang, in place of Pollack, J., recused.

Brief Description:

Following a jury trial, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Matthew Williams (“Williams”) was convicted of one count of sexual assault in the first degree and three counts of sexual assault in the third degree.

On certiorari, Williams contends, inter alia, that: (1) he was deprived of his right to present a complete defense when the circuit court limited the number and type of character witnesses Williams could present in his defense; (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by failing to disclose exculpatory out-of-court statements prior to trial as required by Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 16(b)(1)(i); and (3) he was deprived of a fair trial when the court allowed State witnesses to testify to the undisclosed out-of-court statements.

Supreme
Court

No. SCWC-17-0000387, Friday, October 2, 2020, 8:45 a.m.

RAY A. DELAPINIA and ROBYN M. DELAPINIA, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; TERRY LOUISE COLE; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

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

The oral argument will be held remotely and will be live-streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts

Attorneys for Petitioners Delapinias:

James J. Bickerton, Stanley H. Roehrig, and Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton of Bickerton Law Group LLLP; John F. Perkin of Perkin & Faria LLLC; Van-Alan H. Shima of Affinity Law Group LLLC

Attorneys for Respondent Nationstar Mortgage:

David A. Nakashima, Jade Lynne Ching, and Michelle N. Comeau of Nakashima Ching LLC

Attorneys for Respondent Mortgage Electronic:

Patricia J. McHenry and Janjeera S. Hail of Cades Schutte

Attorneys for Respondent Terry Louise Cole and ASB:

Michael C. Bird, Jonathan W. Y. Lai, Thomas J. Berger, and Summer H. Kaiawe of Watanabe Ing LLP

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Richard W. Pollack, filed 05/04/20.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Paul B.K. Wong, in place of Pollack, J., recused, filed 05/04/20.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/04/20.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Wong, in place of Pollack, J., recused.

Brief Description:

Plaintiffs Ray A. Delapinia and Robyn M. Delapinia brought a suit against their mortgagees, defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) and Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), for wrongfully foreclosing on their Maui property. They also sued the third-party purchaser of the property, Terry Louise Cole, and her mortgagees, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) and American Savings Bank, F.S.B. (ASB). The plaintiffs sought damages, the return of the subject property, and quiet title in their favor. The Circuit Court for the Second Circuit (“circuit court”) granted Nationstar and Fannie Mae’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint as to the other defendants. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the judgment as to all defendants except MERS.

Before this court, the plaintiffs argue that the ICA erred in two respects: First, the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s application of the “tender rule,” or the requirement that a plaintiff seeking to quiet title must allege that it can tender the amount owed on the secured debt. Second, the ICA concluded that foreclosures that violate a power of sale clause are voidable, not void.

Supreme
Court

No. SCWC-18-0000773, Friday, October 2,2020, 11:15 a.m.

IN THE INTEREST OF LI and HDK.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
 The oral argument will be held remotely and will be livestreamed for public viewing
via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts

Attorney for Petitioner-Mother:

Michael A. Glenn

Attorneys for Respondent-DHS:

Adriel C.S. Menor, Patrick A. Pascual, Ian T. Tsuda, and Julio C. Herrera, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Richard W. Pollack, filed 06/17/20.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Lisa W. Cataldo, in place of Pollack, J., recused, filed 06/17/20.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/05/20.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cataldo, in place of Pollack, J., recused.
Brief Description:

This case arises from the Family Court of the Second Circuit’s appointment of counsel for petitioner/appellant Mother during proceedings that culminated in the termination of her parental rights as to children L.I. and H.D.K.

The Department of Human Services (“DHS”) filed a petition for family supervision of Mother’s then-only child, L.I., on June 13, 2014. Mother subsequently consented to family supervision of L.I. At a hearing on January 13, 2015 the Family Court of the Second Circuit granted a DHS petition to place L.I. in foster custody without appointing counsel for Mother. Mother, who was indigent, was not appointed counsel until nearly 100 days after DHS had been granted foster custody of L.I.

Mother asserts that the Family Court erred by failing to appoint counsel for her prior to granting foster custody of L.I. to DHS. As a remedy, Mother requests a new trial to determine the custody issue.

Additionally, Mother asks this court to clarify an ambiguity as to the timing of the appointment of counsel for indigent parents. Following this court’s opinion in In re T.M., 131 Hawai‘i 419, 319 P.3d 338 (2014), parents have a constitutional right to counsel in parental termination proceedings. In re T.M., however, contains conflicting guidance as to the timing of the appointment of counsel because it states both that counsel must be appointed (1) upon the filing of a petition for custody of a child and (2) upon the granting of such a petition.

Supreme
Court