Posts

Showing posts with the label civil procedure

Privacy Rights of Arrestees Trump Disclosure of Their Addresses to the Public

  Mott v. City and County of Honolulu (ICA January 30, 2020) Background. The Honolulu Police Department keeps a daily arrest log known as a blotter. The log includes the name of the arrestee and his or her address. For years, HPD would provide a requesting member of the public blotter information containing the address. In 2017, HPD changed its policy and started to disclose only the adult arrest log, which did not include the address. Karen Mott wrote to HPD seeking disclosure of the blotter with the address. The request was denied. Mott filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief and an order compelling disclosure of the addresses. The City moved to dismiss the complaint. The circuit court, with the Hon. Judge Gary W. B. Chang presiding, granted the motion. Mott appealed.   The Uniform Information Practices Act Balances Open Government Against Invasion of Privacy. The State seeks to “conduct[] government business as openly as possible . . .tempered by a recognition of ...

HSC Sorts out Difference Between Res Judicata and Law-of-the-Case Doctrine

  PennyMac Corp. v. Godinez (HSC October 8, 2020) Background. Lewanna Godinez had a mortgage and accompanying promissory note on real property on Maui. In 2010, Godinez defaulted. The mortgagee was first assigned to J. P. Morgan Chase Bank. The bank brought a foreclosure action against Godinez. The bank then assigned its interest to PennyMac. PennyMac filed a motion for summary judgment asking for a finding that Godinez defaulted and a decree of foreclosure. PennyMac asserted that it was the holder of the promissory note and had standing to prosecute the foreclosure action. Godinez opposed the motion and argued PennyMac lacked standing at the time of the filing of the complaint. The circuit court—the Hon. Judge Rhonda I. L. Loo presiding—orally granted the motion at the hearing.   Before the circuit court issued its order, the HSC ruled in Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo , 139 Hawai'i 361, 390 P.3d 1248 (2017), that “a foreclosing plaintiff must establish entitlement ...

Motion to Enforce Settlement Cannot be Granted Without First Determining No Genuine Issues of Material Fact

  McKenna v. AOAO of Elima Lani (HSC June 25, 2020) Background. Carol McKenna owned a condominium in South Kohala on the Big Island. The Association of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani Condominiums governs the building. In 2010, McKenna discovered water damage that appeared to have been caused by a leak coming from her neighbor’s unit above her owned by Ross Andaloro. McKenna alleged that she contacted her AOAO about the leak, but the AOAO did not fix it and did not allow her to do so. Months later, McKenna claimed to find mold and suffered symptoms associated with exposure to mold. She claims that she was forced to vacate due to contamination. She filed a complaint in the circuit court against her AOAO, Andaloro, and Wells Fargo Bank, the previous owner of Andaloro’s condo, averring negligence and misrepresentation.   For two years in the circuit court—Hon. Judge Elizabeth Strance presided over much of the case, but Hon. Judge Melvin Fujino entered the final judgment—the p...

Incarceration in California is Good Cause for not Appearing in Honolulu

State v. Diaz (HSC October 18, 2012) Background. Atmarama Diaz was on bail in Hawai'i for felony charges. The circuit court amended the terms of his bail so he could go to California and meet obligations about a pending case over there. At the Honolulu Airport he was arrested for promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree, a misdemeanor. HRS § 712-1249. He posted $1,000 cash bail that day and caught a later flight to California, where he was put in custody pursuant to the terms of that case. Diaz's arraignment for the airport case was before the district court. He did not show up and the district court issued a bench warrant and forfeited the $1,000 bail. He was also charged with criminal contempt of court. HRS § 710-1077. Bail in that case was set at $150. Diaz's lawyer appeared at a later hearing, waived his physical presence, and pleaded not guilty in both cases. Diaz argued that he could not appear at the initial arraignment because he was in custody in Ca...

No Summary Judgment for Simply Failing to Answer Interrog Before the Discovery Cutoff

Ralston v. Yim (ICA May 31, 2012) Background. Rick Ralston sued Dr. Errol Yim for dental malpractice. Before the discovery cut-off date, Dr. Yim filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. Dr. Yim argued that Ralston could not prove his malpractice claim because he had not disclosed any expert witnesses. Ralston responded by arguing that Dr. Yim had not met its initial burden of showing no genuine issue of fact, particularly the fact that Dr. Yim's orthodontic care comported with accepted standards of care and that Dr. Yim adequately obtained Ralston's informed consent. Ralston also pointed out that the discovery cutoff had not occurred. At the first hearing, the circuit court permitted supplemental briefing on the issue. Ralston attached a report from an expert, Dr. Harry Aronowitz, and Dr. Aronowitz's c.v. The affidavit stated that in his expert opinion, Dr. Yim's orthodontic care fell below the standard of care. Dr. Yim did not supplement its motions, ...

Challenging a Conclusion Without a Finding that was Actually a Conclusion

Marvin v. Pflueger (HSC April 27, 2012) Background. A group of landowners live on a kuleana next to James Pflueger near Pila'a Bay on Kauai. Heidi Huddy-Yamamoto has an interest in the land too. The landowners sued Pflueger for damages after he graded his property which caused a mudslide that covered their land. They also sought injunctive relief, including an easement by necessity. Huddy-Yamamoto was invited to join the lawsuit, but she refused. Years of litigation followed. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment to get the easement without trial. More than four years after filing the initial complaint, Pflueger, in a "position statement" raised the argument that the case should be dismissed because Huddy-Yamamoto was a necessary party that must be joined in the lawsuit. Pflueger never raised this issue in a motion to dismiss for failure to join a party. The circuit court found that Huddy-Yamamoto, who testified at the hearing on the motion for summary...

Non-party's Privileged Documents not Subject to Subpoena or In Camera Review

Naipo v. Border (HSC May 18, 2011) Background. Eshell Mitchell sued the Yuen family after Braddah, the Yuen dog, bit her. At the time of the incident, Mitchell was living with Jennifer Naipo. Mitchell claimed that the Naipo was bitten several times by Braddah several months before it bit her. The Yuens denied that their dog had bitten anyone. Naipo was deposed. She didn't have a lawyer. The Yuen's lawyer told her that she could refuse to answer a question that she believed invaded her personal privacy. Naipo answered all the questions. Naipo testified that she was not taken to the hospital for an injury to her forehead but that she went to the Wahiawa Hospital because a different Yuen dog, Misty, had been bitten her several times on the arm. Mitchell deposed Nanea Yuen. Nanea testified that Misty bit Naipo on her forehead, not her arm, and that they had to go to the hospital for that. In light of the conflicting testimony, Mitchell sought a subpoena d...

Non-Hawaiians have no Standing to Challenge Tax Exemptions for Hawaiian Homes Lessees

Corboy v. Louie (HSC April 27, 2011) Background. Real property owners and paid their taxes to the State and all the Counties under protest. The taxpayers brought a complaint in the tax court alleging that the tax exemption for Hawaiian Homeland lessees and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA) of 1921 were unlawful. Essentially, the taxpayers argued that the tax exemption violated the Equal Protection Clause. The governments brought a motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted. The taxpayers appealed and the ICA affirmed. The Taxpayers' Claim: tax Exemptions for Hawaiian Homes Lessees Violate the Equal Protection Clause. The HSC zeroed in on the actual claims brought by the taxpayers: that the exemptions pursuant to the HHCA and the HHCA itself violate the equal protection clause. The HSC noted that a challenge to the HHCA tax exemption is really a challenge to the requirement that only Native Hawaiians are eligible for the homestead leases and thus...

Order of Involuntary Dismissal with Prejudice a tall Order

Blaisdell v. State (HSC April 26, 2011) Background. Richard Blaisdell was a prisoner in Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona. Prison officials took audio cassette tapes from his cell. Blaisdell filed a pleading titled "Motion For Court to Order Saguaro Prison Officials to Give Blaisdell His Legal Material Forthwith" in the circuit court. The pleading requested the return of his tapes. No one was served with the pleading. The circuit court interpreted the pleading as a civil complaint and denied the request without prejudice on the grounds that it failed to comply with HRCP Rule 65(b), which pertains to injunctive relief. Blaisdell then filed an "Emergency Motion for a T.R.O. and/or Preliminary Injunction" again seeking the return of the tapes in order to prevent officials from destroying the tapes. Blaisdell argued the tapes were evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in the case that lead to his incarceration. The motion was denied. Bl...

Order Granting New Trial Subject to Mandamus Review

Murasko v. Loo (HSC March 7, 2011) Background. The Muraskos filed a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction against their neighbors, the Curells. District Court Judge Loo reviewed the petition, granted the TRO, and set a hearing to determine a longer injunction. The Curells, appearing pro se, filed a response denying the allegations. At the hearing, the parties presented evidence, Judge Loo granted the petition, and ordered a three year injunction to take effect August 10. On August 12, the Curells, now with counsel, filed a motion for an extension of time in order to file "post-verdict motions." Counsel for the Curells explained in the motion that he had been retained on August 5, and was unable to file any motions because he would be on vacation from August 11 through August 18. Counsel wanted to extend the time to Sept. 1. The district court granted the motion. On Sept. 1, the Curells filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to D...