No. SCWC-19-0000107, Thursday, August 22, 2024, 9 a.m.

MĀLAMA KAKANILUA, an unincorporated association; CLARE H. APANA; and KANILOA LANI KAMAUNU, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI; and MAUI LANI PARTNERS, a domestic partnership, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.  

[ Listen to the audio recording in MP3 format ]

[ Watch the video recording on YouTube ]

The above-captioned consolidated cases have 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 ʻŌlelo Community Television olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants MĀLAMA KAKANILUA, an unincorporated association; CLARE H. APANA; and KANILOA LANI KAMAUNU

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

Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee MAUI LANI PARTNERS:

     Gregory W. Kugle, Veronica A. Nordyke, and David H. Abitbol of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

Attorneys for Respondent DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI:

     Victoria J. Takayesu, Corporation Counsel; Kristin K. Tarnstrom, Caleb Rowe, and Kenton S. Werk, Deputies Corporation Counsel    

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/12/24.

COURT:    Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens,

Brief Description:

This appeal arises out of a dispute over the renewal of a grading permit by Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Director of the Department of Public Works, County of Maui (Director) issued to Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Maui Lani Partners (MLP) for a residential development project on Maui.

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants Mālama Kakanilua, and its members Clare H. Apana and Kaniloa Lani Kamaunu (Petitioners), filed a Complaint against MLP and the Director in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court).  The Complaint asserts three causes of action, including for declaratory relief (Count III).  The Director and MLP filed motions to dismiss the Complaint, which were granted by the Circuit Court.  On October 2, 2018, the Circuit Court entered a judgment of dismissal without prejudice (Judgment) in favor of the Director and MLP, and against Petitioners.

On October 29, 2018, Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Relief From Judgment, pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b)(6), alleging the Circuit Court improperly dismissed Count III.  On January 25, 2019, the Circuit Court entered an order denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion.

On February 23, 2019, Petitioners appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).  The ICA noted that, because the Rule 60(b)(6) motion was not filed within ten days of the Judgment, it was not a tolling motion under Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(3).  The ICA thus held the appeal was untimely as to the Judgment and the ICA lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the Judgment.  With regard to the order denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, the ICA determined it had appellate jurisdiction and held the Circuit Court applied the correct notice pleading standard in dismissing Count III and Petitioners had failed to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting HRCP Rule 60(b)(6) relief.

This court granted Petitioners’ application for writ of certiorari, which presents two questions:

• Whether the ICA gravely erred by holding [HRCP] Rule 60(b) motions are not post-judgment tolling motions under [HRAP] Rule 4(a)(3) for purposes of extending the time to file a notice of appeal; and, by so holding, further gravely erred by failing to review and correct the errors of the circuit court as to Question Presented No. 2.
• Whether the ICA gravely erred by affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of Count III by applying the wrong standard of review to a circuit court decision informed by an erroneous view of the law.