Anzai v. State ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    11-AUG-2022
    07:46 AM
    Dkt. 39 SO
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    JAMES H. ANZAI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendant-Appellee
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    (CIVIL NO. 3CC18100030K)
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By:    Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)
    Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant James H. Anzai
    appeals from the Final Judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee
    State of Hawai#i entered by the Circuit Court of the Third
    Circuit on July 2, 2018.1 For the reasons explained below, we
    affirm the Final Judgment.
    Anzai filed a complaint against the State on
    February 12, 2018. The State filed a Hawai#i Rules of Civil
    Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint.
    On July 2, 2018, the circuit court entered an order granting the
    State's motion to dismiss. The Final Judgment was also entered
    on July 2, 2018. This appeal followed.2
    1
    The Honorable Robert D.S. Kim presided.
    2
    Anzai's opening brief does not comply with Hawai#i Rules of
    Appellate Procedure Rule 28. Nevertheless, the Hawai#i Supreme Court
    (continued...)
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    "A circuit court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is
    reviewed de novo." Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143
    Hawai#i 249, 256, 
    428 P.3d 761
    , 768 (2018). We apply the same
    standard applied by a circuit court:
    [A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to
    state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the
    plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
    [their] claim that would entitle [them] to relief.
    The appellate court must therefore view a plaintiff's
    complaint in a light most favorable to [them] in order
    to determine whether the allegations contained therein
    could warrant relief under any alternative theory.
    For this reason, in reviewing a circuit court's order
    dismissing a complaint . . . the appellate court's
    consideration is strictly limited to the allegations
    of the complaint, and the appellate court must deem
    those allegations to be true.
    Id. at 257, 428 P.3d at 769 (citation omitted). "However, in
    weighing the allegations of the complaint as against a motion to
    dismiss, the court is not required to accept conclusory
    allegations on the legal effect of the events alleged." Kealoha
    v. Machado, 131 Hawai#i 62, 74, 
    315 P.3d 213
    , 225 (2013).
    Anzai's complaint sought a "declaration of native
    Hawaiian inalienable vested rights and is base[d] on my genealogy
    of records and the factual background of my ancestor to whom was
    a konohiki, and his rights in the land division (Ahupua#a)
    including his private fishery." Attached to the complaint were
    documents purporting to show that Anzai is a descendant of
    Holowai, the konohiki of Kiholo, Kona, under Kamehameha I. On
    March 22, 2018, Anzai filed a "Motion for a Declaration of
    Rights[.]" Anzai's motion clarified that he sought a declaration
    that he was entitled, as a descendent of Holowai, to "vested
    rights in and to the ahupua#a of Puu wa#a wa#a and the private
    fishery of Kiholo Bay."
    2
    (...continued)
    instructs that to promote access to justice, pleadings prepared by self-
    represented litigants should be interpreted liberally, and self-represented
    litigants should not automatically be foreclosed from appellate review because
    they fail to comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368, 380-81,
    
    465 P.3d 815
    , 827-28 (2020).
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    The State's motion to dismiss presented copies of:
    (1) Anzai's complaint, the order granting the State's amended
    motion to dismiss, and the final judgment against Anzai and in
    favor of the State in Anzai v. State, Civil No. 13-1-662K, Third
    Circuit, State of Hawai#i (Anzai I); (2) Anzai's complaint, the
    order granting the State's motion to dismiss, and the final
    judgment against Anzai and in favor of the State in Anzai v.
    State, Civil No. 15-1-364K, Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i
    (Anzai II); and (3) Anzai's complaint, the order granting the
    State's motion to dismiss, and a final judgment against Anzai and
    in favor of the State in Anzai v. State, Civil No. 16-1-378K,
    Third Circuit, State of Hawai#i (Anzai III). The State contended
    that Anzai's complaint was barred by the doctrines of claim
    preclusion and issue preclusion.
    The complaint in Anzai I alleged that Anzai was a
    descendent of Holowai, "the konohiki of kiholo, kona under
    Kamehameha I." The complaint prayed for a declaration that Anzai
    was entitled to "traditional and customary rights reffering [sic]
    and relating into [sic] the ahupua#a of Pu[#]uwa#awa#a[.]" The
    circuit court granted the State's motion to dismiss. A judgment
    in favor of the State and against Anzai was entered on
    February 23, 2016.
    The complaint in Anzai II alleged that Anzai was a
    descendent of Holowai, "the konohiki of Kiholo Kona under
    Kamehameha I." The complaint prayed for a declaration that Anzai
    was entitled to "inalienable jurisdictional vested konohiki
    rights into [sic] the ahupua#a of Pu[#]u wa#a wa#a[.]" The circuit
    court granted the State's motion to dismiss. A judgment in favor
    of the State and against Anzai was entered on April 6, 2016.
    The complaint in Anzai III alleged that Anzai was a
    descendent of Holowai, "the Konohiki of Kiholo, Kona, under
    Kamehameha I." The complaint prayed for an injunction against
    trespassing in the private fishery and request that the access
    gate to Kiholo bay [sic] be secure [sic] and lock [sic] from the
    public's access." The circuit court granted the State's motion
    3
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    to dismiss. A judgment in favor of the State and against Anzai
    was entered on December 7, 2017.
    In this case, the order granting the State's motion to
    dismiss stated:
    1.    The issue of whether [Anzai] has a special
    interest in Kiholo Bay was decided in 3 separate cases:
    [Anzai I, Anzai II, and Anzai III] (collectively "Anzai
    cases"), and is identical to the issue in this case;
    2.    [Anzai] made the same or substantially similar
    arguments in the Anzai cases;
    3.    There are three final judgments on the merits in
    the Anzai cases;
    4.    The issue of whether [Anzai] has a special
    interest in Kiholo Bay was essential to the final judgments
    in the Anzai cases; and
    5.    [Anzai] was party to the Anzai cases.
    6.    The doctrines of collateral estoppel and/or res
    judicata bar [Anzai]'s claims set forth in the Complaint
    filed on February 12, 2018.
    [Anzai]'s Complaint, filed on February 12, 2018, is
    hereby dismissed as to all claims against Defendant State of
    Hawai#i.
    Res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel
    (issue preclusion) are legal doctrines that limit a party to one
    opportunity to litigate a case to prevent inconsistent results
    among multiple suits, and to promote finality and judicial
    economy. Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawai#i 43, 53, 
    85 P.3d 150
    , 160
    (2004). They are, however, separate doctrines that involve
    distinct questions of law. 
    Id.
    Claim preclusion "prohibits a party from relitigating a
    previously adjudicated cause of action." Bremer, 104 Hawai#i at
    53, 
    85 P.3d at 160
     (citation omitted). The party asserting claim
    preclusion has the burden of establishing that (1) there was a
    final judgment on the merits, (2) both parties are the same or in
    privity with the parties in the original suit, and (3) the claim
    decided in the original suit is identical with the one presented
    in the action in question. Id. at 54, 
    85 P.3d at 161
    .
    4
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Issue preclusion "applies to a subsequent suit between
    the parties or their privies on a different cause of action and
    prevents the parties or their privies from relitigating any issue
    that was actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier
    action." Bremer, 104 Hawai#i at 54, 
    85 P.3d at 161
     (emphasis in
    original) (citation omitted). The party asserting issue
    preclusion must establish that (1) the issue decided in the prior
    suit is identical to the one presented in the action in question;
    (2) there is a final judgment on the merits; (3) the issue
    decided in the prior suit was essential to the final judgment;
    and (4) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a
    party, or is in privity with a party, to the prior suit. 
    Id.
     It
    is not necessary that the party asserting issue preclusion in the
    second suit was a party in the first suit. 
    Id.
    The circuit court did not err by applying the doctrines
    of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) and/or res judicata
    (claim preclusion) to bar Anzai's claims set forth in his fourth
    complaint against the State. Anzai's arguments that the circuit
    court's application of issue preclusion and claim preclusion
    violated his rights under the Hawai#i Constitution and the United
    States Constitution cite no supporting authority, and are without
    merit.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Final Judgment entered
    by the circuit court on July 2, 2018, is affirmed.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 11, 2022.
    On the briefs:
    /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
    James H. Anzai,                       Presiding Judge
    Self-represented Plaintiff-
    Appellant.                            /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
    Associate Judge
    William J. Wynhoff,
    Cindy Y. Young,                       /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
    Deputy Attorneys General,             Associate Judge
    State of Hawai#i,
    for Defendant-Appellee.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CAAP-18-0000483

Filed Date: 8/11/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/24/2022