Napuaowailupe v. Blue Tile Beach House ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
10-MAY-2024
07:57 AM
Dkt. 69 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
NAPUAOWAILUPE, a Hawai#i limited partnership,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BLUE TILE BEACH HOUSE, LLC, a Hawai#i limited liability
company, Defendant-Appellant, and WILLIAM MCCORMICK and
LINDA GALLAGHER, Individually, Jointly and Severally,
Defendants-Appellees
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 19-1-0367)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Blue Tile Beach House, LLC (Blue
Tile) appeals from the District Court of the Second Circuit's
(District Court)1 June 4, 2019 Order Denying [Blue Tile's] Motion
to Compel Arbitration Filed April 29, 2019 (Order Denying Motion
to Compel Arbitration), in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee
Napuaowailupe LP (Napuaowailupe). Blue Tile also challenges the
District Court's Writ of Possession, Judgment for Possession, and
multiple other rulings of the District Court.
1
The Honorable Blaine J. Kobayashi presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Blue Tile raises four points of error on appeal,
contending that: (1) the District Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction; (2) the District Court erred in entering the Order
Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration; (3) the District Court
erred when it denied Blue Tile's demand for a jury trial; and (4)
the District Court violated Blue Tile's due process rights.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we
resolve Blue Tile's points of error as follows:
It appears that the only issue properly before this
court is Blue Tile's challenge of the Order Denying Motion to
Compel Arbitration. Blue Tile's amended notices of appeal
purport to appeal from the May 30, 2019 Judgment for Possession,
May 30, 2019 Writ of Possession, and other orders entered
subsequent to Blue Tile's May 20, 2019 Notice of Appeal.
However, the Hawai#i Supreme Court has held that "'an amended
notice of appeal relates back to the notice of appeal it purports
to amend, it does not appeal an order, judgment, or decree
entered subsequent to the notice of appeal it purports to
amend.'" Enos v. Pac. Transfer & Warehouse, Inc., 80 Hawai#i
345, 355-56, 910 P.2d 116, 126-27 (1996) (quoting Chan v. Chan, 7
Haw. App. 122, 129, 748 P.2d 807, 811 (1987)). Therefore, this
court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders, writ and judgment
filed after May 20, 2019 – other than the appealed-from Order
Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Regarding the Order Denying Motion to Compel
Arbitration, "[w]hen presented with a motion to compel
arbitration, the court is limited to answering two questions: 1)
whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties; and
2) if so, whether the subject matter of the dispute is arbitrable
under such agreement." Safeway, Inc. v. Nordic PCL Const., Inc.,
130 Hawai#i 517, 524, 312 P.3d 1224, 1231 (App. 2013) (citation
and quotation marks omitted).
Here, the first issue is undisputed. There is an
arbitration provision in the lease agreement between the parties.
Regarding the second issue, the District Court
concluded that the arbitration provision does not apply to a
default on the payment of rent. On appeal, Blue Tile argues,
inter alia, that the District Court wrongly decided the issue of
the disputed rent amount due, which Blue Tile submits was subject
to arbitration. Blue Tile makes no cogent argument that the
issue of summary possession for failure to pay rent was subject
to arbitration.
We conclude that the District Court did not err in
denying Blue Tile's motion to compel arbitration with respect to
the issues of rent default, i.e., non-payment of rent and
possession. However, the issue of Napuaowailupe's demand for an
increase of rent, from $57,000 to $143,000, effective January 1,
2018, was subject to the arbitration provision. The amount of
rent due from and after January 1, 2018, must be determined prior
to the entry of any damages for unpaid rent. Therefore, the
District Court erred to the extent that it denied Blue Tile's
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
motion to compel arbitration on the issue of the amount of the
rents due after January 1, 2018.
For these reasons, the District Court's June 4, 2019
Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration is affirmed in part
and vacated in part; this case is remanded to the District Court
for further proceedings consistent with this Summary Disposition
Order.2
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 10, 2024.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Paul Howard Peters,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Deborah K. Wright,
Keith D. Kirschbraun, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Douglas R. Wright, Associate Judge
(Wright & Kirschbraun),
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
2
It appears that the remanded issues may be moot based on an April
16, 2020 Order Dismissing Complaint (Rules of the District Court of the State
of Hawai#i Rule 12). However, the issue of mootness is better addressed in
the District Court, if necessary, and we decline to address it here.
4