Rivera v. Cataldo. ( 2023 )

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
26-OCT-2023
08:41 AM
Dkt. 37 OP
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
---o0o---
RICKEY T. RIVERA, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE LISA W. CATALDO,
Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge,
and
LEONA KALIMA; DIANE BONER; RAYNETTE NALANI AH CHONG,
special administrator of the estate of JOSEPH CHING, deceased;
CAROLINE BRIGHT; DONNA KUEHU; and JAMES AKIONA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Respondents/Plaintiffs,
and
STATE OF HAWAIʻI; STATE OF HAWAIʻI DEPARTMENT OF
HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS,
Respondents/Defendants.
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. 1CC990004771)
OCTOBER 26, 2023
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
RECKTENWALD, C.J. AND EDDINS, J., CIRCUIT JUDGE VIOLA,
IN PLACE OF McKENNA, J., RECUSED, CIRCUIT JUDGE TOʻOTOʻO AND
CIRCUIT JUDGE OCHIAI, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCIES
OPINION OF THE COURT BY EDDINS, J.
I.
For decades, thousands of Native Hawaiians waited to lease
land pledged to them under the federal government’s 1920
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. First the Territory of Hawaiʻi,
then the State of Hawaiʻi, held homestead land in trust for
Native Hawaiian beneficiaries. Both breached their fiduciary
duties from the start. See Kalima v. State, 111 Hawaiʻi 84, 88,
137 P.3d 990, 994 (2006) (Kalima I).
Now Native Hawaiians will receive compensation for the
State’s failure. In a class action, trust beneficiaries
successfully sued the State. The State breached its trustee
responsibilities. The State settled.
Many beneficiaries died as the case progressed. Others
waited. And waited. Like untold numbers of Native Hawaiians
after 1920 who just wanted to live on the promised homelands.
Our decision accelerates payout to the beneficiaries.
Because of its extraordinary public importance, we accepted
a petition for a writ of mandamus, an appeal challenging final
approval of the case’s settlement.
2
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
We hold that Petitioner Rickey T. Rivera, Jr. has no right
to compensation. He was born beyond the statutory period to
receive a payout from the settlement.
Rivera also appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals
(ICA). Our decision ends Rivera’s appeal. We direct the ICA to
dismiss CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
II.
The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act created a land trust to
provide homesteads to Native Hawaiians. Kalima v. State, 148
Hawaiʻi 129, 133, 468 P.3d 143, 147 (2020) (Kalima II). Kalima I
and Kalima II chronicle the messy history of the State’s trust
breaches. And the snail-paced struggles to redress those
betrayals. Kalima I, 111 Hawaiʻi at 88-97, 137 P.3d at 994-1003;
Kalima II, 148 Hawaiʻi at 133-42, 468 P.3d at 147-56. We recap
some history.
In 1991, the legislature waived the State’s sovereign
immunity. It passed a law that allowed beneficiaries of the
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act to sue the State. Hawaiʻi Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 674-17 (2016). The law entitled qualified
Native Hawaiians to compensation for individual trust breaches
that happened between August 21, 1959 and June 30, 1988. HRS
§ 674-16 (2016).
In 1999, the plaintiffs filed a class action alleging
breaches of the State’s trust responsibility. In 2009, the
3
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Circuit Court of the First Circuit sided with them. The State
was liable. Kalima II, 148 Hawaiʻi at 136, 468 P.3d 150.
Drawn-out litigation, settlement talks, and law-making ensued.
In June 2022, the parties settled. The State agreed to pay
the beneficiary class $328 million. The legislature, in turn,
appropriated funds for that settlement. S.B. 3041, S.D. 2, H.D.
1, C.D. 1, 31st Leg., Reg. Sess. (2022); see Act 280 (2022).
The settlement agreement has two key terms covering the
time frame before eligible class members receive compensation:
final approval by the circuit court, and judicial finality – an
end to all appellate review.
The circuit court concluded that there were 2,515 eligible
class members. 1,351 class members are alive; 1,164 passed
away. Class members or their estates will receive $286 million
(the remaining funds appropriated by the legislature go to
attorney’s fees and other expenses).
The settlement excludes class members who are ineligible
for payment. HRS § 674-16 has a cut-off date. Per that law,
the settlement does not pay anyone who “asserted an individual
breach of trust that occurred after June 30, 1988.”
This law excludes Rivera. He did not become eligible to
apply for a homestead lease until he turned 18 on August 21,
1988.
4
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
As final approval neared, the circuit court received
objections. The court had to determine – at a Hawaiʻi Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 23 fairness hearing - whether the class
settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” See Pub.
Access Trails Hawaiʻi v. Haleakala Ranch Co., 153 Hawaiʻi 1, 32,
526 P.3d 526, 557 (2023) (McKenna, J. concurring) (applying the
“fair, reasonable, and adequate” standard from Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e) to a Hawaiʻi class action).
In June 2023, Rivera objected. Later he withdrew his
objection. But soon he reappeared, mailing two letters to the
circuit court. In the first, Rivera insists that he deserves
compensation: the “claim administrator made a mistake.”
Likewise, the second letter complains that the claim
administrator erred. Rivera asks the circuit court to look at
his claim.
On July 21, 2023, the court conducted the fairness hearing.
The settlement was “fair, reasonable and adequate.” All
objections lacked merit. The court approved the settlement.
And on August 1, it entered final judgment.
On August 17, 2023, the circuit court received and filed
another letter from Rivera. Now he wanted to appeal: “I wish to
file an appeal before the deadline of August 31, 2023.” Rivera
wrote: “The appeal is limited to the issue of special master and
5
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
claims administrator failing to process my claim in a timely
fashion.”
Because of the settlement’s finality term, Rivera
effectively paused payment to 2,515 class members with vetted
claims. The circuit court sought input from the parties. The
State said that so long as Rivera’s appeal is unresolved, the
settlement’s finality term (no more appeals possible) is unmet.
Class counsel countered: Rivera had no right to appeal.
Circuit Court of the First Circuit Judge Lisa Cataldo
expressed dismay. “If any case demands that counsel bring to
bear the full measure of their experience, expertise and talents
to develop and consider strategies for a thoughtful,
constructive, creative and legally-compliant resolution short of
disposition by the appellate court, it is this one.” The
court’s invite spurred no helpful solution.
On October 9, 2023, Judge Cataldo ordered the clerk to file
Rivera’s appeal with the ICA (case number CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX).
Before the appeal was docketed, Rivera sent a letter to the
Hawaiʻi Supreme Court:
Ref: Kalima Lawsuit Case File
I am a claimant plaintiff in the above case, I respectfully
understand the Hawaii Supreme Court has established rules
in order to qualify for settlement payment. I believe I do
qualify under the rule, but the Special Master refused to
process my claims. Can you please have [the Court] review
my records for verification please; my defenses are the
breach of trust period is from August 21, 1959 through June
30, 1988. My first attempt to apply was June 15, 1988.
Enclosed are the records for your review.
6
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Together with that letter were documents, like notices Rivera
received from the Hawaiian Claims Office. Rivera didn’t pay the
petition filing fee, or ask to waive the fee. Then on October
10, the court clerk received a check from him. That day, the
clerk docketed Rivera’s letter as an original proceeding in this
court.
We treated Rivera’s letter as a petition for a writ of
mandamus. See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 391, 465 P.3d 815,
838 (2020) (we construe self-represented filings liberally to
provide a route to relief). Because Rivera’s petition and
appeal raise the same issue, we stayed the ICA proceedings
pending resolution of the petition.
III.
We reject Rivera’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
Writs are rare. Writs are an exceptional remedy; they are
no substitute for appeal. Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson, 59
Haw. 224, 227, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978).
The Hawaiʻi Constitution and Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes allow
us to issue writs. Art. VI of the Hawaiʻi Constitution vests the
“judicial power of the State” in this court and the lower
courts. Judicial power includes the ability to advance justice.
State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 55, 647 P.2d 705, 712 (1982).
7
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
HRS § 602-5(3) (2016 & Supp. 2022) confers original
jurisdiction over writs. And HRS §602-5(5) allows us to issue
writs or orders to aid our jurisdiction.
More broadly, HRS § 602-5(6) empowers the Hawaiʻi Supreme
Court to do justice. This court has the power to “make and
award such judgments, decrees, orders and mandates, issue such
executions and other processes, and do such other acts and take
such other steps as may be necessary to carry into full effect
the powers which are or shall be given to it by law or for the
promotion of justice in matters pending before it.” HRS § 602-
5(6).
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court also has general supervisory
powers over the state’s lower courts. “The supreme court shall
have the general superintendence of all courts of inferior
jurisdiction to prevent and correct errors and abuses therein
where no other remedy is expressly provided by law.” HRS § 602-
4 (2016).
“Extraordinary writs are appropriate in extraordinary
circumstances.” Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, ___
Hawaiʻi ___, 2023 WL 6861305, at *9 (2023). “[T]here are rare
and exceptional situations where despite the availability of
alternative remedies, the special and exigent circumstances of
the particular case may move this court to issue its writ.”
8
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Sapienza v. Hayashi, 57 Haw. 289, 293, 554 P.2d 1131, 1135
(1976).
When issues of “considerable public importance” are at
stake, we may exercise our supervisory power. Kaneshiro v. Au,
67 Haw. 442, 446, 690 P.2d 1304, 1308 (1984). Sometimes lower
courts require “immediate need of direction from this court on a
procedural and substantive matter of public importance.”
Gannett, 59 Haw. at 227, 580 P.2d 53. The value of speedy
resolution may also prompt this court to step in: to “allow the
matter to rest until the appeals process has run its course
would forestall the expeditious presentation” of important
public issues. Sapienza, 57 Haw. at 294, 554 P.2d 1135. A long
lull may cause public harm. Id.Because of this case’s extraordinary public importance, we
accepted the petition. Now we resolve it.
1,351 people, and the descendants of 1,164 more, await
long-overdue compensation. We feel there is a critical and
immediate need to provide decisive direction.
Here, the ordinary timeline for appellate review delays
justice. Per Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule
28, an appellant gets 40 days to file their brief, and a
respondent receives another 40 days to answer. Then the
appellant has 14 days to reply. Extensions may happen. See
HRAP 29(a). After that, the ICA takes time to decide.
9
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Following the ICA’s judgment, a party has 30 days to apply for
cert. And this court has 30 days to accept or reject the cert
application. HRAP 40.1.
The beneficiaries have waited decades, across two
centuries. Many have died before receiving homestead land or
compensation for the State’s breach of its trust duties.
Justice demands ending this case. Paying the beneficiaries.
Now.
A prompt appellate resolution serves the public interest.
Our resolution is an appropriate use of our authority under HRS
§§ 602-4 and 602-5.
IV.
Rivera has standing to appeal the circuit court’s order
approving the settlement. His letters preserved grounds for
appeal.
Courts liberally construe a self-represented litigant’s
filings to promote “equal access to justice and an opportunity
to be heard.” Makila Land Co., LLC v. Kapu, 152 Hawaiʻi 112,
121, 522 P.3d 259, 268 (2022). A court assesses a pro se
submission to favor a route to relief when a reasonable
construction lets the party go on. Erum, 147 Hawaiʻi at 391, 465
P.3d at 838.
10
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Rivera has preserved the one issue that animates his
appeal: eligibility to receive compensation. His letters to the
circuit court protested: “I disagree with the notice that I do
not qualify for payment.” He included several claim-related
documents and asked the circuit court to consider his
eligibility. Later his August 17 letter announced: “I wish to
file an appeal before the deadline of August 31, 2023.” We must
reasonably construe these filings to pave a route to relief.
Rivera gets his day in appellate court. We decide the petition
on the merits.
V.
The question Rivera raises in his ICA appeal mirrors the
one he raises to this court: is he entitled to payment from the
settlement pot?
He is not.
The reason is elementary. Rivera was too young to get a
homestead lease during the statutory claim period.
In 1991, the legislature passed Act 323. The Act empowered
Native Hawaiians to seek compensation for the State’s fiduciary
breaches. HRS § 674-1 (2016). The State waived its sovereign
immunity. HRS § 674-16(a). The people of Hawaiʻi, through their
elected officials, took responsibility. Native Hawaiians were
gravely harmed. The legislature awarded “individual
11
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
beneficiaries under the Hawaiian home lands trust” compensation.
HRS § 674-1.
HRS Chapter 674 limited the compensation period from
statehood’s first day - August 21, 1959 - to June 30, 1988. HRS
§ 674-16(a). The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act requires
homestead applicants to be at least 18 years old. 1985 Haw.
Sess. Laws, Act 60, § 2 at 93-94. To receive compensation, a
class member must have been eligible for a lease – and thus at
least 18 – by June 30, 1988.
Rivera was born too late, August 21, 1970. He turned 18 on
August 21, 1988, almost two months after the June 30 statutory
deadline.
Many settlement class members waited decades for homestead
land that never came. But Rivera was too young to get a lease.
So he lacks any claim to compensation. The claims administrator
and circuit court correctly concluded that he was ineligible for
compensation.
We end Rivera’s case. Because the legal issue is the same,
our holding moots Rivera’s appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
VI.
We deny the petition. Per HRS §§ 602-4 and 602-5, we order
the ICA to dismiss CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
12
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
There are no appeals left. This petition ends all
appellate review in case number 1CC990004771. We remand to the
circuit court.
Rickey T. Rivera, Jr. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
(on the briefs)
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
Petitioner
/s/ Faʻauuga L. Toʻotoʻo
Carl M. Varady, Thomas R.
Grande (on the briefs) /s/ Dean E. Ochiai
for respondents Leona Kalima, /s/ Matthew J. Viola
Diane Boner, Raynette Nalani Ah
Chong, special administrator of
the estate of Joseph Ching,
deceased, Caroline Bright, Donna
Kuehu, and James Akiona, on
behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated
Donna H. Kalama, Craig Y. Iha,
Jordan A.K. Ching, Linda Lee K.
Farm (on the briefs)
for respondents State of Hawaiʻi
and State of Hawaiʻi Department
of Hawaiian Home Lands
13