Title: Nath v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** SCAP-13-0002732 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I VIRENDRA NATH, NANCY MAKOWSKI, KRISHNA NARAYAN, and SHERRIE NARAYAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., THE RITZ-CARLTON DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., THE RITZ-CARLTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., MARRIOTT TWO FLAGS, LP, and MH KAPALUA VENTURE, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, and KAPALUA BAY, LLC, MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE CO., INC., KAPALUA REALTY CO., LTD., EXCLUSIVE RESORTS, LLC, MLP KB PARTNER, LLC, EXCLUSIVE RESORTS CLUB I HOLDINGS, LLC, EXCLUSIVE RESORTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, ER KAPALUA INVESTORS FUND HOLDINGS, LLC, ER KAPALUA INVESTORS FUND, LLC, KAPALUA BAY HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (CAAP-13-0002732; CIV. NO. 11-1-0216) Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-13-0002732 14-JUL-2017 08:51 AM *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nakasone, in place of Wilson, J., recused) This appeal concerns the arbitrability of certain “purchase-based” claims pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in the Declaration of Condominium Property Regime of Kapalua Bay Condominium. On June 30, 2015, we affirmed the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit’s (circuit court) order denying Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to our opinion in Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Development Co., 135 Hawai#i 327, 350 P.3d 995 (2015) (Narayan I). On January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated and remanded Narayan I and this case for further consideration in light of its decision in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015). The questions presented in this appeal are controlled by our decision in Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Development Co., No. SCWC-12-0000819, at 3 (Haw. July 14, 2017) (pub. op.) (Narayan II), which affirmed our decision in Narayan I and held that “under long-standing Hawai#i contract law, the arbitration clause is unconscionable.” Pursuant to our analysis in Narayan II, the circuit court’s July 12, 2013 order denying Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 14, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Karen T. Nakasone