Title: State v. Honolulu University of Arts, Sciences and Humanities.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

* FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

000 -

 

 

STATE OP HAWAI'I, by ite Office of Consumer Protection,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

HONOLULU UNIVERSITY OF ARTS, SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES,

‘a Hawaii nonprofit corporation,
Defendant “Appellant .

 

 

No. 26755 2 8
#. =
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST crRcuIT comT ASE wy
(crv. NO, 02-1-1389) BpoR
Be oF OS
mar 25, 2006 “Pog
a8

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.
Defendant-appellant Honolulu University of Arte,

Sciences, and Humanities (Honolulu University) appeals from the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s August 5, 2004 amended

judgment? in favor of plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai'i (state)

office of Consumer Protection (OCP), in which the circuit court

essentially enforced a prior stipulated judgment that had, inter

(2) enjoined Honolulu University from violating several

alia:

‘The Honorable Sabrina $. McKenna presided over the underlying

proceedings:

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

State consumer protection laws regarding unaccredited
institutions; and (2) ordered Honolulu University to provide a
full refund to any degree holder on the condition that the degree
holder returned his or her diploma to Honolulu University.

On appeal, Honolulu University raises twenty-one points
of error, discussed infra, generally raising issues regarding
subject matter jurisdiction, standing, res judicata, the lack of
findings of fact (FOFs) and conclusions of law (COLs), and
constitutional violations, as well as evidentiary matters. For
the reasons discussed below, we affirm the circuit court's August

5, 2004 amended judgment.

 

 

On June 7, 2002, the OcP* filed a complaint against
Honolulu University, a State non-profit organization. The ocP
alleged that Honolulu University is an “unaccredited institution"

as defined by HRS § 4468-1 (Supp. 2005)’ and that it was

 

“engaging in certain acts or practices in violation of [the

State's] consumer protection laws[.]” Specifically, the OcP

2 me OcP ie a division of the state Departaent of commerce and
Consumer Affaire (OCCA) and was created in 1969 by the legislature. Havai'i
Revised statutes (HRS) § 487-2 (1993). The director of the Oc? is designated
the consuner counsel for the state ‘and ahall represent and protect the state,
the respective counties, and the general public se consuneres” HRS 8753
(2393).

   

   

> uRS § 4468-1 provides in relevant part,

cnaccredited institution” means a degree granting
institution that is not accredited or a candidate for
accreditation by at least one nationally recognized
accrediting agency that ie listed by the Unites states
Secretary of Education.

 
 

* ** FOR PUBLICATION *

 

alleged that Honolulu University: (1) failed to disclose that ir
was an unaccredited institution in violation of HRS § 446E-2(a)
(supp. 2005) (Count 1); (2) represented that the state licenses,
approves, or regulates the operation of Honolulu University in
violation of HRS § 4468-5(a) (Supp. 2005)* (Count II); and (3)
accepted or received tuition payments or other fees on behalf of
students while it was not in compliance with the applicable laws
in violation of HRS § 4468-5(e) (Supp. 2005)* (Count Iz). The
ocp algo alleged that violations of HRS §§ 4468-2(a), -5(a), and
-S(e) constitute per se violations of HRS § 480-2(a) (1993).”

‘The OCP prayed for injunctive relief, civil penalties pursuant to

+ HRs § 4468-2 (a) provides in relevant part:

Any unaccredited institution shall disclose in all
catalogs, promotional materials, and contracte for
Shetruetion, the fact chat the institution is not accredited
by any nationally recognized accrediting agency Listed by
the United States Secretary of Education.

 

* ms § 4468-(a) provides in pertinent part that *{nlo unaccredited
institution eball indicate or suggest that the State licenses, approves, OF
regulates ite operations.”

 

 

+ HRS § 4468-5 (0) provides that *{nlo unaccredited institution that
operates ia of trom the dtate or has a presence in this state shall accept oF
Geceive any tuition payment or other fee from or on behalf of a student nlesi
the inseitution complies with ail of the requirements of this chapter.”

 

> HRS § 490-2(a) provides thar. *{ulnéair methods of competition and
unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce
are unlaweul."

 

Although not cited by the cP, RS § 4468-3 (Supp. 2005), entitled
vsanctione,” provides that “(alay person who violates this chapter shall be
jecmed to have engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice pursuant £0
potion 480-2."

 

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION * **

 

 

HRS § 480-3.1 (1993), restitution pursuant to HRS § 487-14

(supp. 2005) ,? an award of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses,

and other relief deemed just and equitable under the
circumstances.
BB 1d Judament

After approximately one year of litigation, the OCP and
Honolulu University agreed to settle the OCP’s claims against
Honolulu University. On July 8, 2003, the circuit court entered
a "Stipulated Permanent Injunction and Pinal Judgment” in favor
of the OcP and against Honolulu University (stipulated judgment) .

The stipulated judgment stated in relevant part:

5. [Honolulu University] shall be and is enjoined
from(:} (a) failing to properly and adequately disclose the
fact that Honolulu University is and was not fully
accredited by any nationally recognized accrediting agency

+ ang § 480-3.2 provides:

civil penalty. Any person, firm, company,
association, or corporation violating any of the provisions

in Of not lege than $500
hor more than $10,000 for each violation, which eum shall be
collected in a civil action brought by the attorney general
of the director of the office of consumer protection oa
behalf of the State. The penalties provided in thie section
are cumulative to the remedies or penalties available under
411 other laws of this State. Each day thst = violation of
ection 480-2 occurs shall be a separate violation.

      
 

 

 

(Bold emphasis in original.)
* wns § 497-14 provides in relevant part:

Restitution. (a) In any action brought by the
Airector of the [OCP], the court may include in its ordere
or judgments such provisions ss may be necessary to effect
Featitution, Any person in whowe favor restitution Le
ordered need not accept restitution, but the person's
acceptance and full performance of restitution shail bar
Fecovery by the person of any other damages in any action on
account of the sane acts or practices against the person
making restitution.

 

 

(Bold emphasis in original.)

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

or association Listed by the United States Secretary of
Sdueation in any and all of ite progotional materials; (b)
Indicating or suggesting that che State of Hawai't Liceng
approves of{,] OF regulates its operations in any and all of
ite promotional materiale; and (ec) failing to comply with
(Gins' chapter 4468 or HRS § 490-2(a)] in any other

particulars.
Fe Gone shall provi

   

 

 

nv dpi ‘Said refund shall be paid by
Eertified check within fourteen daya of receipt of the
Fequest for such and the retura of the diplona, if
‘applicable.

nthe event (Honolulu Universityi faile to
take restitution as required hereia, (onoluly Univeraity
Asrese. in addition to all other payaente required herein,
Ena the oce] civil penalties in the amount of One

7 veagh cone

 

   

‘- iionoluls University] be ana 18 neYeby liable to
pay to the oce] civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs
Br Yinvestigation pursuant to [HRS] § 480-3-1 in the total
‘Snount of $19,500-00[.)

 

jo! “rhie ain
Ginty out or soneteue-thie stipulation. to modify oF
ten a STE It shall be

mnade to appear to the court that there has been a violation
Of any of the terms of this stipulation, upon motion, thir
Court say enter an order to show cause why. (Honolulu
University) should not be found in contempt. Nothing in
this decument shall bar’ [the cP) from seeking, oF the court
fron Smporing, against (Honolulu University] of any other
person any other relief available under any other applicable
Provision of aw for violation of this document, in addition
Eovor in Liew of the civil penalties provided for above:

 

4. “There are no other remaining claims or parties in

thie manner (sie)

(emphases added.)
c. The op of Six Refi 7

on duly 31, 2003, the OCP received refund requests from
six alleged degree holders from China (the six Chinese students)
who had enrolled at Honolulu University through its foreign
affiliate. the six refund remiests were made on the OcP’s

standard complaint forns available on the OCP’s website. on

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

August 1, 2003, the OCP sent a letter to Honolulu University's
attorney, Randal Y. Yoshida, requesting a full refund for the six
Chinese students." The OCP stated that, once it received the
six Chinese students’ original diplomas, it would “hand over
possession of the original diplomas upon simultaneous receipt of
the certified checks." The OCP attached copies of the six refund
requests to the letter sent to Yoshida.

on August 8, 2003, the OCP sent a second letter to
Yoshida, informing hin that the OCP had received the six Chinese
students’ original diplonas and “certificates of graduation.”
The OCP stated that it would turn over possession of the diplomas
upon receipt of the certified checks on August 18, 2003. Also on

2003, Yoshida sent a letter to the OcP, informing the

 

August
OCP that the president of Honolulu University, Arthur Yamada, was
away on a business trip and to direct all future requeste for

refunds directly to Honolulu University. On Auguat 11, 2003, the
OCP sent a letter directly to Yamada, notifying him of the refund

students. The OcP attached copies of

 

requests by the six Chin

the #ix Chinese studente’ diplomas and certificates of graduation

 

and offered Yamada an opportunity to view and inspect the
original diplomas and certificates of graduation. The ocP

reiterated that restitution was due on August 18, 2003.

© the six refund requests sought reimbursement in the amounts of
$4,791.62, $3,693.73, 54, 900,00, $4,660.00, $4,993.29, and $4,900.00, for a
total of $27,938.64

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

Honolulu University apparently did not respond to the
oce's August 11, 2003 letter to Yamada. On August 19, 2003, 2
day after restitution was due, the OCP sent a letter to Honolulu
University's newly retained counsel, Gary Shigemura," informing
him that Honolulu University was in default of the stipulated
judgment and that an additional $6,000 in civil penalties was now
due.

Honolulu University apparently did not provide
restitution or pay the additional $6,000 in civil penalties on
the alleged ground that the six Chinese students were not
Honolulu University graduates. Subsequently, the OCP subpoenaed
Yamada and Honolulu University’s registrar, Naty Mercado, in
order to investigate Honolulu University’s assertion that the six

Chinese students were not Honolulu University graduates. on

 

September 29, 2003, the OcP deposed Mercado. Mercado testified
that, despite checking Honolulu University’s records, she found
no record of the six Chinese students graduating from Honolulu
University. Mercado also testified that she was unable to
recognize her signature on the diplomas and the certificates of
graduation, On October 15, and 17, 2003, the OCP deposed Yamada.

retained by Honolulu university.

® Te de unclear when Shigemura w
sp Rugust 8, 2003 and

Tt appears that Shigemura was retained somet ine betw
August 19, 2003.

 

 

© as previously stated, the stipulated judgment provided that, in the
event nonolulu University falled to make reaticution within fourteen days of
Feceipt of a refund request, Honolulu University agreed to pay the OCP civil
penalties in the amount of $1,000 for each consumer who did not receive full
Festitution. Inasmuch as there were six Chinese students, the OCP maintained
that Honolulu University was liable for an additional $6,000 in civil
penalties.

  

 

 

 
* * * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

Yamada also testified that he was unable to determine whether it
was his signature on the diplomas and the certificates of
graduation.

D. The ocp’

Inasmuch as the parties were unable to resolve the
claims for restitution by the six Chinese students, the OcP filed
a motion for relief with the circuit court pursuant to the
stipulated judgment on May 10, 2004. The OCP requested the
circuit court to determine that Honolulu University had failed to
pay the claims for restitution by the six Chinese students in
violation of the stipulated judgment. In addition, the ocP
sought $6,000 in civil penalties pursuant to the stipulated
judgment. The OCP further requested that the circuit court enter
relief in the form of an amended judgment. The OCP attached a
proposed amended judgment ae an exhibit to its motion for

of the six

 

relief.” The OCP also attached, inter alia, copie:
Chinese students’ refund requests made on the OcP’s standard
complaint forms, copies of the six Chinese students’ diplomas and
certificates of graduation, and several color copies of

photographs of the six Chinese students allegedly taken at

 

% the proposed amended judgment was identical to the atipulated
judgment, except the proposed anended judguent added new subparagraphs 7(A)
(B), and (¢), which essentially provided chat Honolulu University would be
able for the elaine of restitution by the six Chinese students and $6,000 in
civil penalties. The proposed anended judgment also provided that, in the
event Honolule University failed to make restitution or pay the 36/000 civil
penalty within ten days of the entry of the proposed anended judgnent,
Honolulu University would be enjoined from conducting any further operations.
Finally, the proposed amended judgeent included a provision that eeates.
s(e]nis' judgment supercedes. [sic] the (stipulated judgment) .”

   

 

 
* * * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

Honolulu University's opening and graduating ceremonies, a:
exhibits in ite motion for relief. Furthermore, the OCP informed
the circuit court that it was duplicating a “home video vp"
showing the six Chinese students in Honolulu, Hawai'i, “wearing
caps and gowns at (Honolulu University’s) formal commencement
ceremonies at the Sheraton Waikiki.”

on May 20, 2004, Honolulu University filed its
memorandum in opposition to the OCP’s motion for relief.
Honolulu University described the various relationships it had
with ite foreign affiliates and universities in China.
Specifically, according to Honolulu University, students in
China, including the six Chinese students, work with Honolulu
University’s foreign affiliates and universities in China based
on curricula prepared by Honolulu University but taught by
Chinese professors. Moreover, Honolulu University alleged that
“{c]he total amount of the students’ payments to [the foreign
affiliates is} not known to Fonolulu University since Honolulu
university ie not paid any tuition directly from the students and

payment is only made to Honolulu University from (the foreign

 

affiliates] and/or the Chinese [ulniversit{ies]." Furthermore,

 

it appeared that Honolulu University was disputing the
authenticity of the eix Chinese students’ refund requests,

alleging that a “scheme” was devised in an attempt to extort
money fxom Honolulu University, Finally, Honolulu University

requested the circuit court to compel the OCP “to produce all

 
* * * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

docunents and all students who are making . . . claims for refund
and satisfy the basic due process required of all parties.

A hearing was held on the OCP’s motion for relief on
May 27, 2004. Therein, the circuit court noted that many of
Honolulu University’s arguments “appear (ed] to be trying to set
» the

 

 

aside the judgment that was previously enteredl, i

stipulated judgment] .* The following discussion occurred between

 

the circuit court and counsel for Honolulu Universit:

(WoNoLULU UNIVERSITY'S COUNSEL]: [2]he problem with
these students, (Le,, the six Chinese students, ) Your
Honor, is that 'if you look at the so-called complaint that
they filed, ita not certified.

We don't really know whether they are still involved
vith che program. We don't know who they are. But we
Wanted to have a chance to get their original certified
Clains. We wanted co have them eign under oath 20 that we
hhave a chance to go and talk with them, Interview thes, and
Geternine whether in fact it’s true that they're saying that
they were not notified directly by Honolulu University chat
Honolulu University was non-accredited.

‘THE COURT: That's -- I-don’t think that’s = real
Assue before the (clourt. re’s not whether or not they vere
actually deceive. ‘The [stipulated] Judgment says that they

 

 

   

 

sSSptudente =
(HONOLULY UNIVERSITY'S COUNSEL): Uh-huh
THE COURT: =~ upon present -- you know, return of the

 

‘oat Se

 

@iplonas shall be provided full refunds. That:

 

inonououy uinvERsiTy’s coumseL): (ulnder those
cirounatances, the Tetipuiated) Judgment does not say Row we
fare to determine how much is to be paid, if at all.
hae was ay argument, Your Honor, that since we're saying
that ve never conducted the program thenselves and we had
merely set up the curriculum, how can it be that we would be
Feaponsible for the tuition to these students.

T can see, Your Honor, some argument saying that the
amount that wes paid to Honolulu University 12 somehow in
Question here. But I cannot gea the srgunent, Your Henor,
that sy client would be entitied -- or would be responsible
for paying back tuition when they were not the collector of
chat saney and they didn’t get paid that roney.

‘THE COURT: So way is it that ~~ then that your
institution iseues degrees to these persons who -~ over whom
yeu apparently had no control?

(HONOLULY UNIVERSITY'S COUNSEL]: There’s an issue
with the degrees themselves, Your Honor. As we tet forth
Previously, we had tried to get from [the OCP's counsel]
copies of the receipts, copy -- original of the degre
original of all documents and all lettere from the students

     

 

   

 

 

 

-10-
** * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

20 we can determine the truthfulness of what they are
Saying. We have not been able to get those documents for
Guamination, Your Honor. Never. We got copies, Your Honor,
But no originals.

imonouiue UNIVERSITY'S COUNSEL]: Now, it's true, T
cannot argue that. [stipulated] judgment, Your Honor, because
Eke (stipulated) judgment says what it says. And I’ was not
Unvolved in the making of the (stipulated) judguent

However, it’s cur position, Your Honor, that there
matter of falraege here

1f anybody who goes to any school, accredited or non-
accredited, says, ney, 1 don’t Like what happened here, 1
want my money Back, isn't there sone fairness in -- in the
Eourts in saying, look, these students should legitimately
Be challenged on what statenents they make as far as whether
they were in fact misled and whether in fact how mich they
aia pay,

Y'seii1 don’t know what they've paid, Your Monor. The
complaint, Your Honor, chat they filed, che [s]tate ~~ the
Setters are not certified. So it’s not under oath. And we
can't find the stuents.

 

 

 

‘The cireuit court, however, disagreed with Honolulu University’s

position and stated:

okay. The (stipulated judgment] clearly says that the
parties agreed chat this court shail retain jurisdiction of
Riis case for the purpose of enabling any of the parties to
the stipulation to apply to this court at any time for
further orders and directions as may be necessary or
Appropriate to carry out or construe the stipulation, to
enforce compliance, and to punish violations of ite
provisions.

Par 2+ paragraph 7 of the (stipulates) judgment
clearly provised that (Honolulu University! shall provide
fall refund to any degree holders and degree applicants who
enrolled by, in, or through any of its foreign ageste,
Conditioned on the return of any diplona awarded. sald
Tefund shall be by certified check within 14 days of the
feceipt of the request for such and the return of the
diploma, if applicable.

Toch'e Counsel] ae made a sufficient showing that the
Giplonas were proposed to be returned. There —- the

 

 

 

 

eeenier’ was fo be within 14 dave clear

hows chat chere was never any intention fo allow (Honolulu

University to-go to China and investigite these persons

ig. the si Chinese studental, to ee whether ox not they
frsuded oF of that nature:

hie ~~ ehe (stipulated) judgnent was agreed to by the
parties and it eays {ull refund. it is not between the
Students who have been basically victimized by (Honolulu
University] to figure out how, you know -- to chase the
people in China or figure cut how it's to -- to be done.
jed on what has been subsitted, the (court finds that the
persons in the motion{, Le., ene six Chinese students), aid
Day the amounte reflected and pursuant to the [stipulated]
Stugnent are entitied to the full refund of those amounts,

   

 

 

ou.
* ** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

and the [clourt at this time ie granting the [0cP’s) motion
[for relief} and includes the additional $6,000 in penalties
Based on the {atipulated) Judgment also.

So at this time the (clourt is ruling that the first
amended judgnent should be filed

 

 

(Bnphasis added.) At the end of the hearing, the circuit court
requested the OCP’s attorney to “submit the original of the
amended judgment .*

On June 14, 2004, however, the circuit court entered an
amended order proposed by Honolulu University, entitled “Order
Granting Plaintiff's First Motion for Relief Pursuant to the
Stipulated Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment Against
Defendant Honolulu University” (Honolulu University’s order) .
Honolulu University’s order simply provided that Honolulu
University was liable for the full refund to the six Chinese
students and was liable for $6,000 in civil penalties to the
“complaints.”

The Motions for Reconsideration

1, Honolulu University’s Motion for Reconsideration

 

Subsequently, both parties filed cross-motions for
reconsideration of Honolulu University’s order. On June 18,
2004, Honolulu University moved for reconsideration and/or
clarification of Honolulu University’s order; Honolulu University
requested the circuit court to issue FOFs and COLs pursuant to
Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 52 (2003), quoted
infxa. onolulu University stated that the ocp’s actions were
‘in [the] nature of a quasi-criminal matter{.]* Moreover,

Honolulu University contended that the OCP “ha(d] not shown by a

waa-
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

preponderance of the evidence" that the six Chinese students
vwere to be included in this matter or (were) actually students
and/or degree holders of Honolulu University.” Honolulu
University further argued that the stipulated judgment was
“vague, ambiguous, and ha(d] not been satisfied.-

on June 25, 2004, Honolulu University filed a
supplemental memorandum to its motion for reconsideration, in
which Honolulu University contended that *[sJolicitation of
complainants and enforcement of restitution by the OcP must be
prohibited because it inevitably creates an attorney-client
relationship between the OCP and complainants.” Specifically,
Honolulu University argued that counsel for OcP solicited the six
Chinese students’ complaints for refund requests by posting the
terms of the stipulated judgment on a website. Moreover,
Honolulu University alleged that, “(bly soliciting and enforcing
restitution against Honolulu University, the OCP actually acted
on behalf of complainants as their personal attorney to
consequently bind six (6) complainants[, i.e., the six Chinese
studenta] to legally waive other remedies, which he or she may
allegedly otherwise (have) had." As such, Honolulu University
concluded that “the OCP did not have any authority under the law
to commence an enforcement proceeding seeking restitution for
third-parties solicited after the fact and the motion [for
relief) itself is in conflict of interest and void and against

public policy.”

-13-
* * * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

on June 28, 2004, the OCP filed its memorandum in

opposition to Honolulu University’s motion for reconsideration.

 

‘The OCP argued thai

In ite soet recent motion, Honolulu University again
attempts to force a complete reiitigation of the entire case
on a student-by-student basis a6 if the (stipulated
Stagnent] sinply dosen't exist. It has now even served (the
dep} with post-judgnene discovery requet
‘The stipulated (judgsent] was intended as an

expeditious way to process any refund requests from Honolulu
University's studente/gracuates who were enrolled chrough
[ee foreign agente. ie was not intended to require the
students to file completely new cases and litigate then to
ev judgnenta. In fact, if the students were required to do
all that Honolulu University now denands of them, they would
be entitled not merely to a refund of the amounts they paid,
but to treble damages and attorneys fees. Honolule
University apparently has 3 fundamental misunderstanding of
the nature and role of [the OcP], complaining that it
somehow illegally or unethically’ “solicited” complaints. tn
fact, all [ene OCP] has done is notify potential claimants
Of their rights under che stipulated) Judgment

‘The settlement refund provision waa premised on che
mmption that if clains were received, Honolulu University
ould be able to easily check ite records and confirm the
Status of the claimants ae studente/graduates and the
fnounte they had paid since it ie required by law £0 keep
Sach records. When these elx specific refund requeste were
fendered to Honolulu University, it Informed (ehe OCP) that
Sf nad no records of them and denied they were even
atudents. Of course, the photographs of Monolulu University
president Arthur Yanéda handing them their diplomas at the
Eheraton Waikiki put the lie to that claim,

 

 

   

 

 

   

    

 

 

 

on July 1, 2004, Honolulu University filed its reply
memorandum to its notion for reconsideration. It claimed that
the OCP “does not understand the fundanental legal issues
involved in this proceeding.” Honolulu University argued that
‘{tlhere is a procedural lack of indispensable parties to make a
proper evidentiary findinga [eic] for any enforcement.” In
addition, it alleged that “[tJhe OCP . . . lacks standing to

make a decision to enforce restitution on behalf of the

complainants.”

wae
* ** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

2. The OCP’ s Motion for Reconsideration

After Honolulu University moved for reconsideration,
the OcP moved for reconsideration of Honolulu University’s order
on June 21, 2004. The OCP stated:

‘There are at least to problens with (Honolulu
University's] order. First, although it contains language
which reads Like judgeent language (“Defendant be and ia,
hereby liable), it ie not titied a judgment nor would it be
collectible in the event (Honslulu University) simply faile
oF refuses to pay. Unlike a judgrent which is immediately
enforceable ten days after its entry, the corder" haw no
Such enforcenent date. Second, (Honolulu University's)
Order indicates that (Honolulu University] ie liable to
“complaints” [sic] for the additional $6,000 in penalties
Under the terms of the [stipulates judgment], those

Penalties are payable to the (OCP) -~ aot the “complainter
or presumably the complainants

 

 

 

As such, the OCP requested the circuit court to either vacate
Honolulu University’s order and enter the OCP’s “proposed
versions" or enter the proposed amended judgnent that was
attached to the OCP’s motion for relief.

On June 25, 2004, Honolulu University filed ite
memorandum in opposition to the OCP’s motion for reconsideration.
It contended that the OCP could not amend the stipulated judgment
without an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, Honolulu
University argued that:

‘The OcP is soliciting complaints in order to derive monetary
Compensation penalties. Normally, the OcP obtains
jurisdiction, only after [clomplainants make their clains
which is in the nature of an inforeation in a criminal case.
After the complaints are filed, the (defendant) is given an
opportunity to respond and an evidentiary hearing ie
conducted. Then a judguent Le cbtsined as so the complaints
fand jurisdiction ie lost except as to ancillary juriadiction
Over the issue of enforcement

 

 

* The OCP attacked as an exhibit to its motion for reconsideration «
proposed order that was earlier cransmitted to Honolulu University's attorney.
‘The proposed order merely provided that the OCP's notion for relief "be and
hereby ie granted.”

 

-15-
* * * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

Po Bntr nded Jude ion of the Motions
for Reconsideration

on August 5, 2004, the circuit court entered a “First
Amended Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment Against Defendant
Honolulu Univeraity” (amended judgment). The amended judgment
appeared to be the proposed amended judgment that the ocP had
attached to ite motion for relief. See aupra note 13. In
addition to the provisions contained in the stipulated judgment,
the amended judgment essentially provided that Honolulu
university would be liable for the claims of restitution by the
six Chinese students and $6,000 in civil penalties. The amended
judgment also provided that, in the event Honolulu University
failed to make restitution or pay the $6,000 civil penalty within
ten days of the entry of the amended judgment, Honolulu
university would be enjoined from conducting any further
operations. Finally, the anended judgment included a provision
that stated, “[e]his judgment supercedes [sic] the (stipulated
judgment] .*

Also on August 5, 2004, the circuit court entered an
order granting the OCP’s motion for reconsideration. on the same
Gay, the circuit court also entered an order denying Honolulu
University’s motion for reconsideration. Honolulu University

timely appealed on August 13, 2004.

-16-
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Subject ion

“The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a
question of law that is reviewable de nove under the right/wrong
standard.” Aames Funding Corp, v. Mores, 107 Hawai'i 95, 98, 110
P.3d 1042, 1045 (2005) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and
citations omitted).
B. Standing

‘This court reviews a circuit court’s decision regarding
a party’s standing de novo under the right/wrong standard. Mott]
wa Miyahira, 95 Hawai'i 361, 388, 23 P.3d 716, 723 (2002).
c. Statutory Interpretation

Statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo by this
court. Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai'i 247, 253, 21 P.3d 452, 458
(2001) (citations omitted).

IIT. DISCUSSION
As previously stated, Honolulu University asserts on

appeal i regarding subject matter jurisdiction, standing,

 

 

xea judicata, the lack of FOFs and COLs, and constitutional

violations, as well as evidentiary matters. Honolulu University

 

also alleges that it was entitled to a plenary, rather than a

ed

 

summary, proceeding. Each of its contentions will be discu

in turn.

aye
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Honolulu University contends that the circuit court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the ocP’s new
complaints, i.e,, the six Chinese students’ refund requests,
brought after entry of the stipulated judgment when there was no
order vacating the stipulated judgment. Honolulu University
argues that “it is well established that [,] unless the ‘vacatur

is first granted,’ the court would have no jurisdiction to enter

 

any remedial orders in the case.” In support of the foregoing
contention, Honolulu University relies on Anantiad v. Odum, 90
Hawai'i 152, 977 P.2d 160 (1999). The OCP contends that
“{clourts generally retain jurisdiction with respect to the
enforcement of a judgnent(.]* Moreover, the OCP argues that the
stipulated judgment specifically provided that the circuit court

ie to retain jurisdiction “for further orders and directions as

 

may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe th{e)
stipulat (ed judgment] .*

In Amantiad, the dispositive issue that this court
faced was ‘whether the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to
enforce an oral settlement, entered on the record before the
circuit court, after all parties stipulated to dismiss with
prejudice all clains and parties.” 90 Hawai'i at 159, 977 P.24
at 167. In answering the foregoing in the affirmative, this

court adopted the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) analysis

-18-
* ** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

in Gilmartin v , 10 Haw. App. 283, 869 P.2d 1346

(1994), stating:
Al dismissal of o lewust with preiudice

i generally regarded as an adjudication on the
nerite of ail lesues that were raised of could
have been raised in the pleadings, thus barring,
on Fea judicata grounds, any subscquent
UTeigation involving the same claims, and
terminating the triai court's juriediction over
the Lawsuit

 

   

 

ae part of a settlenent agreement which te
Subsequently breached, che trial court
fo jurieasetion to enforce the

   

Settlement agreement.
‘Second, a motion to vacate the dismissal

order and reopen the original proc

ileg. “Unless the vacatar ss firs

however, no jurisdiction would exi

court to enter any remedial orders in the case.

 

Amantiad, 90 Hawai' at 159, 977 P.2d at 167 (quoting Gilmartin,
10 Haw. App. at 288-89, 669 P.2d at 1349-50) (internal citations,
brackets, and some emphases omitted) (some emphases added) .
Inasmuch as the parties in Amantiad entered into a stipulation to
dismiss with prejudice as to all parties and claims, which was
filed with the circuit court, “but no party either (1) moved to
vacate the dismissal or (2) instituted a separate action for
specific performance of the settlement," id. at 160, 977 P.2d at
168, this court held that “the circuit court lacked jurisdiction
to enforce the oral settlement entered on the record." Id.

In the instant case, however, the OCP and Honolulu
University did not enter into a stipulation to dismiss with
prejudice all claims and parties. As such, the circuit court's

jurisdiction over the instant action was not terminated, and,

w19-
* ** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

therefore, Amantiad and Gilmartin are distinguishable from this
case. Inasmuch as the circuit court had the inherent authority
to enforce the stipulated judgment, the circuit court did not
lack subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the OCP’s motion
for relief. See Jardine v, Jardine, 918 So.2d 127, 131 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2005) (holding that ‘a trial court has the inherent
authority to interpret, implement, or enforce its own
judgnents”"); gee also State Personnel Bd, v. Akers, 797 So.24
422, 424 (Ala. 2000) (same); Mulei v. Jet Courier Serv.. Inc.,
860 P.2d 569, 571 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993) (same); Illinois Health
Maint. ora, Guar. Ass'n v. Shapo, 826 N.B.24 1135, 1152 (711.
App. Ct. 2005) (same); Lenette Realty & Inv, Co, v, City of
Chesterfield, 35 8.W.34 399, 408 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (same). cf.
TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp,, 92 Hawai'i 243, 265, 990 P.2a

713, 735 (2998) (stating that “the circuit court retains

 

jurisdiction to enforce the judgment" even after the filing of a
notice of appeal) (citations omitted) .
Moreover, the stipulated judgment specifically provided

that the circuit court

Zo this stipulation to spol
‘and direct ion aa
may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe
Enis stipulation, to modify or terminate any of their
provisions, to enforce comp) ia jah violations

sf ite provisions
(Emphases added.) Consequently, the circuit court retained

 

jurisdiction in order to entertain the OCP’s motion for relief,

which essentially requested the circuit court to enforce

-20-
* © * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

compliance with the stipulated judgment and to penalize Honolulu
University for allegedly violating certain provisions of the

stipulated judgment. See Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842
80.24 797, 803 (Fla. 2003) (holding that, ‘when a court
|. . approves a settlement agreement by order and retains
jurisdiction to enforce its terms, the court has the jurisdiction
to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement”); Cambridge
x North Salem, 644 N.¥.8.24 775, 776 (N.Y. App.
Div. 1996) (stating that, inasmuch as the New York Supreme Court
“expressly retained juriediction over the ‘disputes and claims of
the respective parties for the purpose of enforcing the
provisions of th{e j]udgment’* in a judgment incorporating a
settlement agreement, the New York Supreme Court retained
jurisdiction over the matter). Thus, the circuit court did not
lack subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the ocP’s motion
for relief.
B. Standing
Honolulu University next contends that the OcP “lacks
statutory standing to enforce restitution judgment.” (Capital
letters altered and emphasis added.) Instead, Honolulu
University alleges that “[o]nly the actual [clomplainants[, i.e.,
the six Chinese students,] have standing and they have to bring
enforcement proceedings under his or her own name." At the same
time, however, Honolulu University also alleges that *[t]he ocP

has statutory standing to seek a judgment for restitution.”

-21-
 

FOR PUBLICATION * **

 

(Bmphasis added.) Although Honolulu University’s contentions
appear contradictory, it seems to argue that the OCP has standing
to obtain a judgment for restitution but not to enforce a
judgment for restitution. Specifically, Honolulu University
contends that HRS § 487-14 “is very clear that only the
complainants and not the OCP can elect remedies because [the]
legal consequences of enforcing the restitution judgment procured
by the OCP would be to bar the beneficiaries from seeking any
other damages in any action on the account of the same acts or
practices." (Emphasis added.)

As previously noted, the director of the OCP (the
Girector) is designated the consumer counsel for the State “and
shall represent and protect the State, the respective counties,
and the general public as consumers.” HRS § 487-5. See supra
note 2, HRS § 487-5(6) provides that the director shall
sinvestigate reported or suspected violations of laws enacted and
rules adopted for the purpose of consumer protection and shall
enforce such laws and rules by bringing civil actions or
proceedings [.]" In bringing such civil actions or proceedings,
the director ie statutorily authorized to obtain restitution for

injured consumers. HRS § 487-14 provides in relevant part

(a) in_any action brought by the director of the
cor), “the court may incluce im ite orders or juasients such
brovitlons as nay be necessary to effect reatitution. Any

Person in whose favor restitution is ordered need aot accept
Festitution, but the person's acceptance and full
pertoreance of restitution shall bar recovery By the person
Se any other damages in any action on account of the Sane
acte or practices againat the person making restitution

 

   

 

-22-
** * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

(@) The [ocP) nav establigh and maintain an account
1: purposes of bol
covered by it and which art fen
Ye) The director of the (0c?) may assign to 3 consumer
for collection that portion of any judgnent awarding
restitution to that cossumer:

 

(emphases added.) Indeed, the legislative history behind Rs
§ 487-14 further confirms that the OCP has standing to obtain

restitution on behalf of injured consumers:

[Prior to the enactment of HRS § 487-14], the (0cP]
Iwa]o not specifically authorized to take Tegai action
seeking restitution for consumers who have been damaged by
Unfair or deceptive business practices. These consumers are
often the witnesees for the State in actions filed by the
{ocP] to collect civil penalties for violation of co!
protection laws of to enjoin unfair or deceptive busine
Practices. However, upon success
bythe [oce], the consumers. who
ieee to file their own actions in order to recover €!
damages. Your Comittee believes that such consumers should
hive the opportunity to receive ragtitusion without the
hecegeity of filing a-separace action.

Sots, the bill behind the enactment of HRS

‘thie bit
5 487-24,1 authorizes the courts to order restitution to
Sonsuners in cages filed iy the [OCP] to collect civil
SSUES SD SEE ital or decent ive business Sractices.
Sen, Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 716, in 1975 Senate Journal, at 1104

 

   

   

 

 

 

 
 

 

(emphases added); gee aleo Hse, Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 139, in
1975 House Journal, at 983.

As stated supra, HRS § 487-14 plainly states that
“lalny person in whose favor restitution is ordered need not
accept restitution, but the person's acceptance and full
performance of restitution shall bar recovery by the person of
any other damages in any action on account of the sane acts or
practices against the person making restitution." (Emphasis
added.) Moreover, the legislative history indicates that
“consumers in whose favor restitution is ordered may refuse

restitution and file their own actions{,] but acceptance and full

-23-
* © * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

performance of restitution bars recovery of further damages by
consumers who accept restitution from the person making
restitution.” Sen. stand. Comm. Rep. No. 736, in 1975 Senate
Journal, at 1104. As such, the six Chinese students in the
instant case are free to either (1) refuse restitution and file
their own actions or (2) accept restitution and be precluded from
recovering “any other damages in any action on account of the
same acts or practices against” Honolulu University. In other
words, once the OCP obtained a judgment for restitution on behalf
of the six Chinese students, the ix Chinese students are
entitled to “elect their renedy* by deciding whether to accept or
reject restitution. Inasmuch as there is nothing in the record
to indicate that the OcP is “electing remedies" or is forcing the
fix Chinese students to accept restitution, Honolulu University’s

argument is without merit.”

 

™ ponolulu University also raises on appeal that, because HRS § 467-14
srequires the (clonpiainanté (and) ‘not the OCP to elect ‘their remedies,” the
Complainants are cindispensable parties" to the instant action, and there is
Gh "inadvertent legal consequence of creating a de facto attorsey-client
felationship between the Oc? and [che cJomplainants." As stated infra,
Thasmich ee there ip nothing in the record to indicate that the OCP is
electing the six Chinese studenta’ remedies, Honolulu University’s contentions

Gre without werit.

im addition, Honolulu University contends that the OCP "has no standing

to sue for unfair or deceptive acts because the OCP or the State of Hawai'i
pas not sustained nor ha(s) nexus to any actual injuries." However, HRS
f'4e7-15 (1993), entitled “Injunction,” plainly states that “the [OCP] may
being cluprodesdings’ to enicin any wiblation Of + unefal act

fice affecting consunere, trade, or commerce.” ‘Moreover, as stated supra,
the legislative history behind HRS § 487-14 (relating to restitution)
Fecognizes that the OCP nay enjoin unfair or deceptive business practices.
fee Sen, stand. Conn, Rep. No. 716, in 1978 Senate Journal, at 1104
(Fecognizing that the O¢e nay initiate actions in order to’ enjoin unfair or
Geceptive business practices). As such, Honolulu University’s argunest is
wiehout merit.

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

-24-
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

C. Res Judicata

Honolulu University claims that the circuit court erred
in entertaining the six Chinese students’ refund requests in the
oce’s motion for relief inasmich as the refund requests were
barred due to the doctrine of res judicata.

HRCP Rule 8(c) (2003) provides that, “[iJn pleading to
a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively

. ves judicata . . . and any other matter constituting an
avoidance or affirmative defense." As such, “[rles judicata is
an affirmative defense which must be pleaded [at the circuit
court level].” Ince Keamo, 3 Haw. App. 360, 363, 650 P.2d 1365,
1368 (1982) (citation omitted). In this case, Honolulu
University did not plead rea judicata as an affirmative defense
in its answer nor did it raise the doctrine of res judicata
during the circuit court proceedings. Consequently, Honolulu

univ

 

ity has waived the affirmative defense of res judicata.
Tnasmich as Honolulu University raises the doctrine of rea

1, this court need not

 

dudicata for the first time on appt
address Honolulu University’s rea judicata argument. See id.
(declining to consider res judicata when it was raised for the
first time on appeal)

D. The Circuit Court's Refusal to Enter FOFs and CoLs

Honolulu University alleges that the circuit court “has
a duty to enter [FOFs] and [CObs] for those cases which were

disposed without a jury." (Capital letters altered.) Honolulu

-25-
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

university contends that it had requested the circuit court to

enter FOFs and COLe to ‘itemize’ the circuit court's ruling.
Honolulu University clains that *(t]here were no [FOFs] that
[Honolulu University] had engaged in unfair and deceptive trading
practices but awarded the OCP additional civil penalties as well
as restitution.”

‘The OCP argues that its motion for relief was not van
action tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory
jury, the triggering requirement for the application of (HRCP
Rule] 2(a)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The OCP
maintaine that, if the circuit court was required to enter FOFs
land COLe on its motion for relief, then circuit courts “would
have to issue [FOF] on sunmary judgment motions, default
judgment motions, discovery motions, motions in limine,
theoretically virtually every motion heard.”

HRCP Rule 52 provides in relevant part:

(a) Effect. mm all actions tried upon the facts without a
juty of with an advisory jury, the court shall find the
tacts specially and state separately ite conclusions of law
thereon, and judgeent shall be entered pursuant to Mule
Si.) Requests for findings are not necessary for pursoses

of teview
2 unnect ins jong under Rules 12

 

re her ae provided in

ib) ahendnent. Upon notion of @ party sade not later than
to days after entry of judgment the court may amend its
Hadinge or make additional findings and may anend the
Sodgnent accordingly. the motion may be made with a motion
for a new trial pure a

‘ch ane of it during a trial
without a jury @ party has been fully heard on an iseue and
the court Finds apeinge the party on that issue, the court
wy enter judgeent ae a matter of law against that parcy
Wn respect fo a claim or defense that cannot under the
Controlling law be maintained or defeated without a
favorable finding on that issue (.]

 

 

 

 

-26-
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

(some emphases in original and some added.) HRCP Rule $2 plainly

states that *(FOFs) and (cOLs] are unnecessary on decisions of
motions under Rules 12 or 56 or any other motion except as

provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule." (Emphases
added.) Inasmuch as the OcP’s motion for relief was a motion
brought pursuant to HRCP Rule 7 (2003)* and subdivisions (b) and
(c) of HRCP Rule 52 are inapplicable to the instant case, the
circuit court was not required to enter FOFs and Cols. Cf.

Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Bartolome, 94 Hawai'i 422, 440, 16
P.3d 827, 845 (App. 2000) (holding that, because “(t]he trial

court made its decision on a [HRCP] Rule 60(b) motion, . . . it
was not required to issue [FOFs]*) (emphasis in original). Thus,

the circuit court did not err in declining to enter FOFs and COL
with respect to the OCP’s motion for relief brought pursuant to
HRCP Rule 7.
B. Honolulu University’s Remaining Contentions

Lastly, Honolulu University contends that: (1) it was
“entitled to a plenary proceeding rather than [a] summary

proceeding;" (2) the circuit court erred by permitting multiple

 

 

MRCP Rule 7 provides in pertinent part

(b) Motions and other papers.
(G) An application fo the court for an order ghall be by
notion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall
be made in writing, shall state with particularity the
grounds therefor, snd shall get forth the relief or order
Bought. The requirenens of writing 1s fulfliled if the
Shotion ie stated in a written notice of the hearing of the
motion

 

 

in original.)

 

(pephas!
-27-
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

violations of the state and federal constitutions inasmich as the
instant case was a quasi-criminal proceeding; and (3) “there was
no evidentiary foundation for the complaints, (""] diplomas,
photos, or the vcD[.]*

‘The OCP contends that, inasmich as Honolulu University
failed to properly preserve the legal issues raised in this
appeal, Honolulu University has waived such issues.
specifically, the OCP alleges that none of Honolulu University’s
points of error were raised in its opposing memorandum to the
ocP’s motion for relief, but, rather, its points of error were
raised improperly in its supplemental memorandum in opposition to
the OcP’s motion for reconsideration. Because a motion for
reconsideration “is not a device to raise arguments that could
have been brought earlier[,]* the OCP contends that Honolulu
University’s arguments are waived.

‘This court hae previously stated that “(t]he purpose of
a motion for reconsideration is to allow the parties to present
new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented
during the earlier adjudicated motion.” Amfac, Inc, v. Waikiki
Beachcomber Inv, Co., 74 Hawai'i 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 27 (1992)
(citations omitted). Stated differently, *{rleconsideration is
not_a device to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or

vidence uid

 

© te appears that Honolulu University refers to the aix Chinese
etudenta’ refund requeste sade on the OCP’s standard complaint forms as the
Seomplaints.*

-20-
* ** FOR PUBLICATION * **

 

earlier proceeding.” Sousaria v, Miller, 92 Hawai'i 505, 513,
993 P.2d 538, 547 (2000) (footnote and citations omitted)
(emphases added) .
1. Honolulu University’s “Plenary Proceeding Argument”

Honolulu University contends that it raised ite plenary
proceeding argunent in its memorandum in opposition to the OCP’s
motion for reconsideration. As such, Honolulu University argues
that it properly preserved its argunent for appeal. A review of
Honolulu University’s menorandum in opposition to the ocp’s
motion for reconsideration, however, reveals that Honolulu
University did not present any argument in support of its alleged
entitlement to a plenary proceeding. Although the heading of one
of the sub-sections in Honolulu University's “argument* section
ie entitled "(The OCP} cannot amend the judgment without an
evidentiary hearing{,]* Honolulu University presented no argunent
to the circuit court as to why an evidentiary hearing was
required. Instead, Honolulu University focused its attention on

the alleged “fact” that the OcP was “soliciting complaints in

 

order to derive monetary compensation penalties.” Because
“failure to raise or properly preserve issues at the trial level
would be deened waived{,]* Enoka v. AIG Hawai'i Ins. co., 109
Hawai'i 537, 546, 128 P.3d 850, 859 (2006) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted), Honolulu University’s plenary

proceeding argument is waived.

-28-
*** FOR PUBLICATION * **

eee
Moreover, Honolulu University’s plenary proceeding

argument was not in response to any of the argunents raised in
the ocp’s motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, Honolulu
university could and should have raised its plenary proceeding
argument in its menorandum in opposition to the OCP’s motion for
relief or at the hearing on the OCP’s motion for relief inasmuch
as reconsideration is not a device to raise arguments that could
and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding.
Sougaria, 92 Hawai'i at 513, 993 P.2d 547. Thus, the circuit
court did not err in rejecting Honolulu University’s plenary
proceeding argument.

2. Nonolulu University’s “Quasi-Criminal Proceedings
Argument” and Allegations of Constitutional Violations

Honolulu University claima that, in its motion for
reconsideration, it “notified its position” to the circuit court
that the instant proceeding was “quasi-criminal in nature.
Honolulu University concedes that it did not raise any of its
eight points of error constituting its allegations of
constitutional violations at any point during the circuit court
proceedings, but, rather, it maintains that such points of error
were “implicitly raised” by the fact that the proceedings were

quasi-criminal in nature.

motion for

 

Again, a review of Honolulu University
reconsideration indicates that Honolulu University did not
provide any argument in support of its allegation that the

instant proceeding was quasi-criminal in nature. Instead,

-30-
* ** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

Honolulu University merely concluded that “it was clearly
established that the action of the [OCP] is ina nature of a
quasi-criminal matter requesting the repayment and return of
tuition and payments from Honolulu University to the alleged six
(6) Chinese students. As previously stated, inasmuch as
“failure to raise or properly preserve issues at the trial level
would be deemed waived(,]* Enoka, 109 Hawai'i at 546, 128 P.3d at
859 (internal quotation marke and citation omitted), Honolulu
University essentially waived its quasi-criminal proceedings
argunent. Moreover, Honolulu University could and should have
raised its quasi-criminal proceeding argument in its menorandun
in opposition to the OcP’s motion for relief or at the hearing on
the OcP’s motion for relief because, as previously mentioned,
reconsideration is not a device to raise arguments that could and
should have been brought during the earlier proceeding.

Sousaris, 92 Hawai'i at 513, 993 P.2d 547. Thus, the circuit
court did not err in rejecting Honolulu University’s quasi-

criminal proceeding argument .”*

 

allegations
proceeding was qu
Goastituelonal allegations at the circuit court level, Honolulu University’s
Segumente with reepect to alleged constitutional violations are waived. Se
Bueka, 109 Hawai'i at S46, 128 P24 at e589 ("(P]ailure to raise or properly
preserve issues at the trial level would be deened waived.” (Internal
Quotation marke and citation omitted.))«

  

 

   

-31-
* * * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

3. Honolulu University’s Evidentiary Contentions
Honolulu University alleges that it raised its
evidentiary contentions, specifically, its concerns over the lack

of authentication, regarding the admission of the complaints,
diplomas, photos, and the VcD in its motion for reconsideration.
As such, Honolulu University claims that it properly preserved
ite evidentiary arguments for appeal.

As previously nentioned, “[r]econsideration is not a
device . . . to raise arguments or evidence that could and should
have been brought during the earlier proceeding.” Sousaris, 92
Hawai'i at 513, 993 P.2d 547 (footnote and citations omitted) .
Here, Honolulu University could and should have raised its
evidentiary contentions either in its memorandum in opposition to
the OCP’s motion for relief or at the hearing on the OcP’s motion
for relief.

At the hearing on the OcP’s motion for relief, Honolulu
vniveraity’s main contention with respect to the complaints was
that they were not *certified,” and, thus, Honolulu University

could not determine whether the six Chinese students were aware

 

However, as the

 

that Honolulu University was unaccredit
circuit judge correctly noted, the students’ knowledge regarding
Honolulu University’s lack of accreditation was not relevant to
Honolulu University’s obligation to make restitution pursuant to
the stipulated judgnent. On appeal, Honolulu University’s main

contentions with respect to the complaints is that there was no

-32-
* * * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

proof that the complaints were properly translated (from Chinese
to English), that the aix Chinese students understood English,
and that the conplainta were hearsay. As such, Honolulu
university essentially raises different objections on appeal from
the objections raised to the circuit judge at the hearing.
Because Honolulu University did not properly preserve its
objections it now raises on appeal and it improperly raised such
objections for the first tine on reconsideration when it could
have raised its objections earlier, Honolulu University’s
contention with respect to the admission of the complaints is
without merit.

Also at the hearing, Honolulu University did not raise
any objections when the circuit judge reviewed the original

diplomas:

THE COURT: Where are those degrees?

that exhibit are sone of the sample degrees, your
degrees actually attached to, Mr. Brunton [(counsel for the
ce)?

‘oh, here it is. Exhibie 5.

{rim Ocb'3.COUNSBL]: I have the originals with we,
Your Honor, Lf the [eloure would Like to look at one of the
actual

‘Ti COURT: 1 would actually Like to see one of the
original degrees that's been conferred by Honolulu
University.

{THE OcP's COUNSEL]: There is a degree in there, and
they were also conferred a certificate of graduation,

THE COURT: Certificate of Graduation, Master of
Business Aaninistrat ion.

The degree of master of business administration with
all of -- all the rights, privileges, and honors hereunto
appertaining, in testimony whereof we have subscribed our
hanes. and affixed the seal of this university in Honolulu,
Hawal'd, U.8-A.

nd it saya the Regents, of Honolulu University, on
the recommendation of the faculty and by the virtue of the
authority in then vested by the state of Mavai's hereby
Confer upon this person the degree of naster of business
Séninietration

 

 

 

 

-33-
*** FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

And you were basically conceding that your client (,
ies, Honolulu tniversity,] never conducted any courses here
Teionolulu oF did any work, “Tt just got a little bie of
Payment for conferring these degrees. Okay?

 

 

(counset for
onolwls Unaversiey) 1?

{iooLvie UsvaRSrTy's COURSED): Xone, Your Honor.
(Emphases added.) Inasmuch as Honolulu University did not raise
any evidentiary objections in its memorandum in opposition to the
ocp’s motion for relief or at the hearing on the OCP’s motion for
relief when it had the opportunity to do so, Honolulu University
improperly raised such argunents for the first time in its motion
for reconsideration.

In addition, with respect to Honolulu University's
objections regarding the admission of the photos and the VcD, it
appears that the circuit court did not even consider the
foregoing evidence when it decided the OcP’s motion for relief
nor was such evidence neceseary in order for the circuit court to
rule on the OCP’ motion for relief. As previously stated, the
stipulated judgnent provided in relevant part that * [Honolulu
University] shall provide a full refund to any degree holders and

degree applicants who enrolled by, in or through any of its

foreign agents, conditioned on the return of any diploma
awarded.” (Emphasis added.) Inasmuch as the stipulated judgnent

only required that the diploma be returned in order to receive a
full refund from Honolulu University, the OCP was not required to
attach the photos and the VCD in support of its motion for

relief. Moreover, at the hearing on the OCP’s motion for relief,

-34-
* * * FOR PUBLICATION * * *

 

the circuit judge indicated that the VCD was not necessary in

 

order to rule on the OcP’s motion for relie!

[comsEL FOR THE OCP]: one sore thing if 1 might. Wi
submitted a video, hone ~~ a video disc, Ved, which contains
avhone movie of these people requesting a refund, redundant
fo'the photographic evidence which was attached. But ve
have located state laptop which is capable of opening
those discs and playing then. If the (clout would 1ike
that, we're willing to Leave the laptop here.

True court]; Ivactually have a laptop provided by the
state so 1 vill view if, although it’s not necessary to my

And also i'm very concerned that these types of

activities not continue:

 

 

 

(emphasie added.) As such, Honolulu University’s contentions
with respect to the admission of the photos and the VCD are
without merit, Thus, the circuit court did not err in rejecting
Honolulu University’s evidentiary contentions.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court’s

August 5, 2004 amended judgment.

on the briefs:
Gary ¥. shigenura and FG
Sunsuke Otauka (of the .
Law Office of Gary ¥. BRA inerm
Shigemira) for
defendant appellant Nass Corel yr.

Honolulu University of Arts,
Services and Humanities

Jeffrey 8. Brunton
for plaintiff-appellee Yormc. Deas Br
State of Hawaii, by Its

Office of Consumer Protection

-35-