Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the circuit court denying Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in this action brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (collectively, Plaintiffs) against a number of oil and gas producers (collectively, Defendants), holding that there was no error.Plaintiffs sued Defendants alleging public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants engaged in a deceptive promotion campaign and misled the public about the dangers and environmental impact of using their fossil fuel products. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that Plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Supreme Court denied the motions, holding (1) Defendants were subject to specific jurisdiction in Hawai'i; (2) the CAA displaced federal common law governing interstate pollution damages suit, and following displacement, federal common law did and does not preempt state law; and (3) the CAA did not preempt Plaintiffs' claims. View "City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the final approval of the settlement in the underlying class action against the State, holding that Petitioner had no right to compensation.In 1920, the federal government pledged land to native Hawaiian beneficiaries, and while Hawai'i held the homestead land in trust it breached its fiduciary duties. In the underlying class action, trust beneficiaries successfully sued the State for breach of its trustee responsibilities, and the State settled. The Supreme Court accepted a petition for a writ of mandamus, an appeal challenging final approval of the case's settlement, and held (1) because Petitioner was born beyond the statutory period to receive a payout from the settlement he had no right to compensation; and (2) because this decision ended Petitioner's appeal, the appeal before the intermediate court of appeals was moot. View "Rivera v. Honorable Cataldo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court adopted conspiracy jurisdiction in this case in which three law firms petitioned the Court to order a judge to dismiss them from the underlying lawsuit, holding that the law firms demonstrated a "clear and indisputable right to the relief requested and a lack of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or to obtain he requested action."Plaintiffs sued certain cigarette manufacturers and retailers, bringing product liability, fraud, and conspiracy claims. Plaintiff also sued three law firms that counseled the tobacco companies, alleging two counts of conspiracy. The law firms each filed motions to dismiss under Haw. R. Civ. P. (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(2), claiming that Hawai'i courts lacked general and specific jurisdiction over them. The circuit court denied the motions to dismiss without making minimum contacts findings or undertaking any due process analysis. The law firms subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition and, alternatively, for a writ of mandamus ordering dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court adopted conspiracy jurisdiction and granted the law firms' writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court clearly exercised jurisdiction beyond its authority, and there were no other means for the law firms to adequately address the alleged wrong or to obtain dismissal. View "Dickinson v. Kim" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment, conviction, and sentence related to sentencing in this case, holding that the circuit court erred by not articulating a clear and comprehensive rationale for each of Defendant's consecutive sentences.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled no contest to three felony counts. The court sentenced Defendant to consecutive five-year terms on each count for a total of fifteen years. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed, thus rejecting Defendant's jurisdictional and sentencing challenges. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment on appeal and the circuit court's judgment related to sentencing and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) if the State files a complaint in district court and that court lawfully commits the case to circuit court then the circuit court has jurisdiction; and (2) the circuit court did not provide adequate independent grounds to impose each consecutive sentence. View "State v. Bautista" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the orders of the family court refusing to set aside a default judgment it ordered in favor of Husband against Wife as a discovery sanction under Hawai'i Family Court Rule (HFCR) 37(b)(2), holding that the court erred in declining to set aside the default judgment under HFCR 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect and entering default as a discovery sanction.On appeal to the Supreme Court, Wife argued that the intermediate court of appeals erred in affirming the family court's denial of her timely-filed HFCR Rule 60(b)(1) motion because her neglect was excusable. The Supreme Court vacated the family court's judgment, holding (1) the family court inadequately warned Wife about the risk and consequences of neglect and that Wife did not engage in deliberate, willful conduct under the circumstances of this case; and (2) the family court erred by declining to set aside the default judgment for excusable neglect and by entering default as a discovery sanction. View "JK v. DK" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing this action brought by Academic Labor United (ALU) requesting declaratory judgments that graduate assistants were foreclosed from exercising the collective bargaining rights provided to public employees under Haw. Const. art. XIII, 2 and Haw. Rev. Stat. 89, holding that there was no error.ALU, which represented graduate student employees of the University of Hawaii who wish to engage in collective bargaining, brought this suit arguing that a pair of 1972 decisions of the Hawaii Public Employment Relations Board determined that graduate assistants were not "employees" under chapter 89 and were thus foreclosed from exercising collective bargaining rights. The circuit court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because ALU had not invoked Hawaii Administrative Rules 12-42-9 to clarify whether its members are employees under chapter 89 and had not exhausted its administrative remedies, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over ALU's action. View "Academic Labor United v. Bd. of Regents of the University of Haw." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Office of the Auditor lacked the authority to pierce the attorney-client privilege and obtain an audit's confidential communications and rejected the Office of the Auditor's jurisdiction and non-justiciability bars to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs' (OHA) suit in this declaratory action.The OHA sued the Office of the Auditor after it was audited, seeking a declaratory judgment that neither Haw. Rev. Stat. 23-5 nor the Hawai'i State Constitution required OHA to disclose to the State Auditor privileged attorney-client communications protected from disclosure. The circuit court granted summary judgment for OHA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 23-5 did not require OHA to disclose to the State Auditor privileged attorney-client communications protected from disclosure pursuant to Haw. R. Evid. 503 and common-law principles. View "Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Kondo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) ruling that the circuit court did not err in ordering an appointed commissioner to take possession and collect rents and during the period between summary judgment and confirmation of sale in this foreclosure case.The Association of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani Condominiums (AOAO) foreclosed on the previous owners of a condominium based on delinquent assessments and then PHH Mortgage Corporation, the mortgage lender, foreclosed on AOAO. AOAO appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred when it ordered that AOAO's possessory interest and right to collect rent from the property was extinguished upon entry of the foreclosure decree and erred when it vested the commissioner with legal and equitable title to the foreclosed property prior to the confirmation of sale. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the commissioner did not collect any rents, the ICA correctly held that the circuit court did not err in ordering the Commissioner to take possession and collect rents, and there were no rents to allocate under Haw. Rev. Stat. 514B-146(n). View "PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Patterson" on Justia Law

After recording a notice of default and intention to foreclose for unpaid assessments and costs, AOAO, a homeowners’ association, acquired the property by quitclaim deed in July 2015 after a non-judicial foreclosure sale. In September 2017, MTGLQ filed a complaint for foreclosure of the property and moved for summary judgment and an interlocutory decree of foreclosure, asking that a commissioner be appointed to take possession of the property, rent it out, and sell it. AOAO objected to MTGLQ’s request for possession and rents, arguing that Hawai͑i Revised Statutes 514B-146(n) referenced “any excess rental income received by the association” after a bank foreclosure, which meant the statute “clearly contemplated” that the association would continue in possession and collect rents. The court granted MTGLQ’s requests. In a January 2020 report, the Commissioner stated that he had conducted a public auction of the property and had collected $3,275.00 in rent for three months in 2019. The court confirmed the sale and awarded the rent to MTGLQ.The Supreme Court of Hawaii vacated the allocation of rent. Although AOAO’s right to rent and possession was terminated by the foreclosure judgment, section 514B-146(n) entitles it to the subsequent income to the extent that it has not already recouped its losses through rent previously collected. View "MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Association of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani Condominiums " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's Haw. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from a judgment of foreclosure, holding that the lender, James B. Nutter Company (JBNC), committed fraud on the court and that the balance of equities weighed against foreclosure.JBNC brought the underlying foreclosure proceeding against Appellant for allegedly defaulting in the observance and performance of the terms, covenants and conditions of his mortgage by failing to make $500 worth of repairs. The circuit court granted JBNC's motion for summary judgment and decree of foreclosure, after which Appellant brought this motion for relief. The circuit court denied relief. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there were grounds for relief both on a fraud on the court theory and under the equitable principles governing foreclosure. View "James B. Nutter & Co. v. Namahoe" on Justia Law