Surfrider Foundation v. Kyo-Ya Hotels & Resoirts, LP ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •   ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
    Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCAP-14-0000379
    02-NOV-2015
    09:59 AM
    SCAP-14-0000379
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
    SURFRIDER FOUNDATION; HAWAII’S THOUSAND
    FRIENDS; KA IWI COALITION; and KAHEA – THE
    HAWAIIAN-ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE,
    Respondents/Appellants-Appellees,
    vs.
    KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS, LP, Petitioner/Appellee-Appellant,
    and
    ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY & COUNTY OF
    HONOLULU; DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
    PLANNING & PERMITTING, CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU;
    and 20,000 FRIENDS OF LABOR,
    Respondents/Appellees-Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    (CAAP-14-0000379; CIV. NO. 13-1-0874-03)
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of Petitioner/Appellee-Appellant
    Kyo-ya Hotels & Resorts LP’s (Kyo-ya) appeal from the Circuit
    Court of the First Circuit’s “Order Denying Appellee Kyo-ya
    ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
    Hotels & Resorts LP’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Under
    HRS § 607-14.5 Filed on 11/13/2013” (Order Denying Kyo-ya’s
    Attorneys’ Fees), entered on January 6, 2014, together with all
    submissions in support thereof, and in light of our decision in
    Surfrider Found. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, No. SCAP-13-0005781,
    
    2015 WL 5597179
    (2015), we conclude that the claims presented by
    Respondents/Appellants-Appellees are not frivolous within the
    meaning of HRS § 607-14.5 (Supp. 2014) so as to merit recovery
    by Kyo-ya of attorneys’ fees and costs.         See Tagupa v. VIPDesk,
    135 Hawai#i 468, 479, 
    353 P.3d 1010
    , 1021 (2015) (“A frivolous
    claim is a ‘claim so manifestly and palpably without merit, so
    as to indicate bad faith on the [pleader’s] part such that
    argument to the court was not required.’” (alteration in
    original) (quoting Coll v. McCarthy, 
    72 Haw. 20
    , 29—30, 
    804 P.2d 881
    , 887 (1991)).    Accordingly,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order Denying Kyo-ya’s
    Attorneys’ Fees is affirmed.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 2, 2015.
    /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    /s/ Richard W. Pollack
    /s/ Michael D. Wilson
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCAP-14-0000379

Filed Date: 11/2/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/3/2015