Case Title: Cho v. Hawaii Nissan

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

No. 25920
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T

 

YON KI CHO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

HAWAII NISSAN, INC., dba NEW CITY NISSAN,
Defendant~Appellant,

 

and

DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 02-1-1658)

HEI Ra L1H soe
qaqs

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy JJ., and
Circuit Judge Cardoza, in place of ‘Acoba, J., recused)

Defendant~appellant Hawaii Nissan, Inc. (Hawaii Nissan)

appeals from the first circuit court’s June 12, 2003 order
denying Hawaii Nissan’s motion to compel arbitration and/or for

Hawaii Nissan presents 2 single point of

 

stay of proceedings.
error: that the circuit court erred in concluding that the
clains brought by plaintiff-appellee Yun Ki Cho, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, are not covered by an
arbitration clause contained in the credit sale contract between
Cho and Hawaii Nissan.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

 

‘ the Honorable Victoria S. Marks and the Honorable Sabrina S. MeKenne
presided over this matter
 

* NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

the arguments advocated and the issues raised, we conclude that
the circuit court correctly denied Hawaii Nissan's motion. As we

have stated:

 

While we share in the overwhelming support in this
juriediction in favor of arbitration asa means of
Fesolution, see, e.g,, HRS § 658A-6(a) (Supp.2003) ("An
Agreenent contained in a record to sumeit to arbitration any
Guisting or subsequent controversy arising between the
Parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and
Errevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in
equity for the revocation 3f a contract.")? HRS § 658-23
(Supp.2003) (describing specific and Limited circumstances
under which 2 court may vacate an arbitration award)?
Tatibauat lv, Ellgworth, 99 Hawai'i 226, 234, 5¢ P-3d 337,
405 (20027 (ort is well settled that the legislature
overwhelmingly favors arbitration as a.m
Fesolution."), it is axiomatic that ther
agieenent to arbitrate in the first instance.

  

 

   

Luke v. Gentry Realty, Ltd., 105 Hawai'i 241, 249, 96 P.3d 261,
269 (2004). Whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate a
particular dispute is a matter of state contract law. See, agi,
Eixst Options of Chicago, Inc, v, Kaplan, 514 0.5. 938, 944
(1995) (“When deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a
certain matter (including arbitrability), courts generally . . .
should apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the

formation of contracts.”).

 

‘The credit sale contract signed by Cho stal

 

that, if
either party requests arbitration, Cho agrees to arbitrate “any

controversy or claim between (Cho] and (Hawaii Ni:

 

in) arising
out of or related to this Contract.” (Emphasis added.) The
plain language of the contract refutes Hawaii Nissan’s argument

that Cho agreed to arbitrate her current dispute: while Cho
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

agreed to arbitrate any dispute arising out of the credit sale
contract, she did not agree to arbitrate any dispute arising from
the purchase of the Nissan Pathfinder or the various fees
attached thereto. cho signed two separate agreements, and her
agreenent to arbitrate disputes arising from one of those
agreements does not automatically connote an agreement to
arbitrate disputes arising from the other agreement. See, e.g,
Luke v, Gentry, 105 Hawai'i at 249, 96 P.3d at 269. The
arbitration clause is inapplicable to the parties’ dispute.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court’s June 12,
2003 order denying Hawaii Nissan’s motion to compel arbitration
and/or to stay proceedings is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 17, 2005.
on the briefs: Ye yn
Shelton G.W. Jim on
and Henry F. Beernan :
(of Jim On & Beerman) SE Ls

for defendant-appellant

Hawaii Nissan, Inc., dba XS
New City Nissan bs ET el E
John Francis Perkin Yuner. .
and Brandee J. Faria + Dede

(of Perkin & Faria) and

James J. Bickerton and a aG~
Scott K. Saiki (of Bickerton OF

Saunders Dang & Sullivan)

for plaintiff-appellee

Yun Ki Cho, individually

and on behalf of all others

similarly situated