Ronald T.Y. Moon

The case involved Laeroc Waikiki Parkside, LLC, the buyer of the Waikiki Parkside Hotel, suing the seller's individual agents (Bloom, Izutsu, and Nakamura) for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, and related claims arising from alleged undisclosed mold and maintenance problems in the hotel's air conditioning and water systems. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the agents on all counts in both the main complaint and third-party complaint. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agents were not parties to the purchase agreement, that a nonrecourse provision in the agreement shielded them from liability absent fraud or willful misconduct, and that the buyer had failed to produce evidence meeting the prima facie requirements for fraudulent inducement or other exempted claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Kalaola, the defendant was charged with one count of failure to disperse under HRS § 711-1102 after police responded to an unruly crowd at Aloha Tower Marketplace and ordered participants to leave. At trial, evidence was presented regarding the defendant's conduct on both the first and second floors, and the jury convicted him, but the ICA found error in the jury instructions and remanded for a new trial. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction based on the first-floor conduct but insufficient for the second floor. The court further concluded that the double jeopardy clause of the Hawaii Constitution does not bar retrial on the first-floor events because the jury had convicted the defendant and sufficient evidence supported that portion of the charge. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial limited to the first-floor allegations.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Behrendt, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the third degree and unlawful imprisonment based on sexual conduct with a minor under 16 years old that occurred in Hawaii. The key issue on appeal was whether evidence of prior sexual contacts between the defendant and the minor in South Dakota was properly admitted at trial under Hawaii Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the circuit court did not err in admitting the evidence, as it was probative of the defendant's opportunity to commit the charged offenses without detection. The court further determined that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by any prejudicial effect, and it affirmed the convictions on the relevant counts.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Delos Santos, the defendant was convicted in family court of Abuse of Family or Household Members based on his girlfriend's statements to a responding police officer shortly after an alleged incident, which the trial court admitted as excited utterances under the hearsay exception. The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the statements did not qualify as excited utterances. On certiorari, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the ICA erred in excluding the complainant's statement that "my boyfriend beat me up," as it met the excited utterance criteria given her emotional state and the timing, and that its admission did not violate the state confrontation clause because the complainant testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. The court therefore vacated the ICA judgment and remanded the case to the family court for a new trial, finding sufficient other evidence to support retrying the charge.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case concerned Paulette Kaleikini's challenge to the denial by the Department of Land and Natural Resources and Board of Land and Natural Resources of her request for a contested case hearing on a burial treatment plan approved by the Oahu Island Burial Council, which permitted the disinterment of Native Hawaiian remains at a private development site. The circuit court dismissed her agency appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals later dismissed the appeal as moot. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the appeal, though moot, qualified for the public interest exception to mootness and that the circuit court had erred in finding no jurisdiction. The court reasoned that a contested case hearing was required by law, would have determined the rights of specific parties, the denial constituted a final agency decision, Kaleikini had complied with agency rules, and she possessed standing based on her cultural and religious interests protected under the Hawaii constitution and administrative rules. The court vacated the ICA order and remanded for further proceedings.

civil rightsenvironmentprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over an arbitrator's award of attorney's fees in a proceeding between Kona Village Realty and Sunstone Realty Partners. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals' judgment confirming the arbitration award and rejecting Sunstone's motion to vacate it. The court held that HRS § 658A-21(b) permits an arbitrator to award reasonable attorney's fees when authorized either by applicable law or by the parties' agreement. Here, the parties' arbitration agreement explicitly allowed the arbitrators to determine the amount of fees, overriding the 25% limitation that HRS § 607-14 imposes on court actions in assumpsit. The decision rested on the statute's plain language using the disjunctive “or,” the policy favoring party autonomy in arbitration, and the absence of any statutory cap on arbitration awards.

procedurebusiness & regulatory