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

Eviction moratorium on Maui Island ended on Feb. 4, 2025. For updates, click here.

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–No. SCWC-16-0000890

No. SCWC-16-0000890 (Consolidated with SCWC-17-0000216), Friday, November 13, 2020, 2 p.m.

PRUDENTIAL LOCATIONS, LLC, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LORNA GAGNON and PRESTIGE REALTY GROUP LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners/Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants-Appellees, and RE/MAX LLC and LORRAINE CLAWSON, Respondents/Defendants/Cross-Claimants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, and KEVIN TENGAN, Respondent/Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

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 Petitioners Gagnon and Prestige Realty:

Matt A. Tsukazaki of Li & Tsukazaki, Attorneys at Law, LLLC

Attorneys for Respondent Prudential Locations:

Paul Alston, Kristin L. Holland, and John Rhee of Dentons US LLP

Attorneys for Respondents RE/MAX and Clawson:

Duane Miyashiro and Jamie C. S. Madriaga of Cox, Wootton, Lerner, Griffin & Hansen, LLP

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Trish K. Morikawa due to a vacancy, filed 07/17/20.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/03/20.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Morikawa, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

This case concerns a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement that a Hawai‘i real estate brokerage firm, Respondent-Plaintiff-Appellant, Prudential Locations, LLC (Locations), seeks to enforce against a former employee, Petitioner-Defendant-Appellee Lorna Gagnon (Gagnon), who left Locations to start her own brokerage firm, Prestige RE/MAX (Prestige), with several real estate brokers that also previously worked at Locations. The non-compete agreement restricted Gagnon from working for a new real estate brokerage firm in Hawai‘i for one year after terminating her employment with Locations. The non-solicitation agreement prevented Gagnon from soliciting “employees” and “affiliates” of Locations.

Before the circuit court, both Gagnon and Locations filed motions for summary judgment. After a hearing on the motions, the circuit court found in favor of Gagnon, concluding that the non-compete and non-solicitation agreements were unenforceable. On appeal, the ICA reversed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment.

On certiorari, Gagnon contends, inter alia, that: (1) the non-compete agreement was unenforceable because it illegally restricted competition, had no legitimate protectable interest, and/or was not reasonable; and (2) the non-solicitation agreement was also unenforceable because it did not apply to real estate brokers who were working for Locations as independent contractors.