Case Notes

• Publication year: 2013

CASE NOTES

Appeal Pointers

A judgment certified under HRCP 54(b) is not appealable unless the certification language is included in the judgment. Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Haw. 115, 119-20, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338-39 (1994).

Supreme Court

Administrative

Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii, LLC v. Rainbow Dialysis, LLC, et al., No. SCAP-12-0000018, June 27, 2013, (Recktenwald, C.J., with Acoba J., and Pollack J., concurring and dissenting). This appeal concerned whether the Department of Health's general administrative rules concerning disqualification applied to the state Health Planning & Development Agency (SHPDA) Committees that are established to reconsider the agency's approval of a certificate of need. The Hawaii Supreme Court decided that HAR § 11-1-25(a)(4) was invalid if applied to the administrator because it conflicted with the intent of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 323D-47 and did not apply to the hearings officer.

Acoba, J., joined by Pollack, J., concurred and dissented, stating that: (1) he would apply HAR § 11-1-25(a)(4) to these set of circumstances; (2) the circuit court erred because SHPDA did not include any reasons on the record for its denial of Petitioner's motion to disqualify; (3) if the administrator was not disqualified, the error was not harmless; and (4) Respondent had the burden of proof in this matter.

Attorneys' Fees

Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, No. SCWC-30110, June 28, 2013, (McKenna, J; Acoba, J. concurring and dissenting; Pollack, J. concurring separately). Following the publication of the Hawaii Supreme Court's opinion in Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 127 Hawaii 185, 277 P.3d 279 (2012), the Hawaii Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' request for appellate attorneys' fees as barred by the State's sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs' appellate costs were also denied. The Hawaii Supreme Court stated that the instant case did not implicate Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-1 or any statutory waiver of sovereign immunity; rather, this case involved claims for declaratory and injunctive relief based on alleged constitutional violations.

Acoba, J., concurred and dissented, concluding that Plaintiffs' constitutional claims in the underlying action did not implicate the State's sovereign immunity.

Pollack, J., concurred separately, stating that Plaintiffs sought attorneys' fees under statutes that were not implicated in the case and did not raise any other basis for an award. Moreover, Pollack, J. also stated that he did not believe...