Case Title: Surfrider Foundation v. Kyo-Ya Hotels & Resoirts, LP

Citation: 

Docket Number: SCAP-14-0000379

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2015-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** SCAP-14-0000379 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI SURFRIDER FOUNDATION; HAWAII’S THOUSAND FRIENDS;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Circuit’s “Order Denying Appellee Kyo-ya Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-14-0000379 02-NOV-2015 09:59 AM ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** 2 Hotels & Resorts LP’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Under HRS § 607-14.5 Filed on 11/13/2013” (Order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