Case Title: Mattos v. Aloha Hyundai, Ltd.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAWLIBRARY
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

wo. 27071

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

LEAH MATTOS, MARY NORTOKA, CYRUS MORIOKA,

vanoer, warz08,
WOHARG TONESHIRS, ‘and ELSTE KANESHIROy Sndividgally
‘and on behalf of all other similarly situatah,  &
Plaine: ffe-appeliees, vg
vs Sf = 2
se o> OF
worm muons, uo. ontrtnenestingag BG
and 5
a 8

Defendants.

DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50,

 

ALOHA HYUNDAI, LTD.,
‘Third-Party Plaintiff,

PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES 1-50,
‘Third-Party Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE PIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 04-1-1777)

y 1s: BOER
‘Acoba, and Duffy JJ.)

(By: Moon, C.J.» Levinson, Nakayama,
tn this putative class action for unfair and deceptive
trade practices in automobile sales, defendant-appellant and
third-party plaintiff Aloha Hyundai, Ltd. (Aloha Hyundai) appeals
from the first circuit court’s December 20, 2004 order! denying

Aloha Hyundai's motion to compel arbitration as to certain

She Honorsble Bert T.

 

Ayabe presided over this mat
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

plaintiffs and to dismiss complaint as to other plaintiffs.?
Aloha Hyundai presents a single point of error: that the circuit
court erred in concluding that the claims brought by the Mattos
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, are not covered by an arbitration clause contained in
the credit sale contract between the Mattos Plaintiffs and Aloha
Hyundai.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advocated and the issues raised, we conclude that
the circuit court correctly denied Aloha Hyundai’s motion. As we
have stated:

While we share in the overunelming support in this
jurisdiction in favor of arbitration as a means of dispute
Fegoluticn, s26, gids, HRS § ES8A-6(2) (Supp. 2003) ("An
Sgreenent contained in a recora to submit to arbitration any
existing of subsequent controversy arising between the
parties to the agreenent is valid, enforceable, and
Trrevocable except upon 2 ground that exists at lew or in
equity for the revocation of 2 contract"); HRS § 650A-23
(Supp. 2003] (describing specitic and limited circumstances
Uader which a court may vacate an arbitration sward)?
Fatibouees ve Ellaworeh, 99 Hawai'i 226, 234, S¢ F.3d 397,
45 (2002)] Tit ts well settled that che legislature
Overwhelmingly favors arbitration a8 a mesns of dispute
Fesolution."}, it 19 axionatic that. there mist be an
aaresaant to arbitrate in the first instance

 

 

 

 

 

8 the motion te compel was made with respect to plaintiffe-appelle
Manvel Mattes and Leah Mattos [hereinafter collectively, the Mattos
Plaineifes] sno purchased a new vehicle from Aloha Hyundal and entered into @
Eredit sale agreenent containing an arbitration clause. The other named
Plaintiffe-appellees, Mary and Cyrus Morioka and Howard and Elsie Kaneshiro,
Purchased used vehicles from Alohe Hyundai under different agreements, and
their clains are not relevant to this appeal.

The component of the motion asking for disaiseal of the complaint
porsuant to the stature of limitations, which was denied, 1s also not et issue
in the present appeal.

   

 

 

 
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

Luke v. Gente ty, Ltd., 105 Hawai'i 241, 249-50 0.12, 96
P.3d 261, 269-70 n.12 (2004). Whether there is a valid agreement
to arbitrate a particular dispute is a matter of state contract
law. See, e.g, First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514
U.S. 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.” (Citations onitted.)).

‘the credit sale contract signed by the Mattos
Plaintiffs states that, if either party requests arbitration, the
Mattos Plaintiffs agree to arbitrate “any controversy or claim
between [the Mattos Plaintiffs} and [Aloha Hyundai) arising out
of or related to this Contract.” (Emphasis added.) The plain
language of the contract refutes Aloha Hyundai’s argument that
the Mattos Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their current dispute;
while they agreed to arbitrate any dispute arising out of the
credit sale contract, they did not agree to arbitrate any dispute
arising from the purchase of the Hyundai Elantra or the various

fees attached thereto. The Mattos Plaintiffs signed two separate

 

agreements, and their agreement 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.a., Luke vs Gentrv, 105 Hawai'i at 249, 96 P.3d at 269.
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

Consequently, the arbitration clause is inapplicable to the
parties’ dispute. therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court's
Decenber 20, 2004 order denying Aloha Hyundai’s motion to compel
arbitration as to certain plaintiffs and to dismiss complaint as

to other plaintiffs is affirmed.

 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 17, 2006.

On the briefs:

Peter W. olson
and Stacey Kawasaki Dou Gen —

(of cages Senutce LLP)

ESE defenaone appellee .

and third-party plaintiff SB eansen

Alona” ayondals uede

John Francis Perkin Rene oraceare
ana sronaee Je Fora

(oe berkin « Paria) and

Janes J. Bickerton > eo
ane Secte ks Sale

(of Bickerton. saundere Yren 6 Beater

Sang t Sullivan) for

Plaintitfe-appedlees

fansel Mateos, Lesh Mattos,

tary Notiokas Cyeus Morioka,

lowed Raneshire, and Elsie

Kanechitor individonity and

on behalf of all other
similarly situated