Source: http://hi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20160915_0001337.HI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-05-28 12:22:47
Document Index: 555610293

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 657', '§ 657', '§ 657', '§ 657', '§ 657', '§ 657', '§ 657', '§ 657', '§ 657']

| In re United Public Workers, AFSCME
In re United Public Workers, AFSCME
IN THE MATTER OF UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO, Complainant-Appellee-Appellant,v.TIMOTHY A. HOUGHTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; LORI M.K. KAHIKINA, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; CAROLEE C. KUBO, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; AND KIRK CALDWELL, MAYOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Respondents-Appellants-Appellees, and HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, JAMES B. NICHOLSON, CHAIRPERSON; ROCK B. LEY, BOARD MEMBER; AND SESNITA A.D. MOEPONO, BOARD MEMBER, Agency-Appellees-Appellees. IN THE MATTER OF UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO, Complainant-Appellee-Appellant,v.TIMOTHY A. HOUGHTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; LORI M.K. KAHIKINA, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; CAROLEE C. KUBO, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; AND KIRK CALDWELL, MAYOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Respondents-Appellants-Appellees, and HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, JAMES B. NICHOLSON, CHAIRPERSON; ROCK B. LEY, BOARD MEMBER; AND SESNITA A.D. MOEPONO, BOARD MEMBER, Agency-Appellees-Appellees.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT CIVIL NOS.
03-1-0546-03, 03-1-0552-03
Rebecca L. Covert Herbert Takahashi for
Complainant-Appellant-Appellant
H. Nomura Deputy Corporation Counsel for
Respondents-Appellees-Appellees
NAKAMURA, C.J., and LEONARD, J., with FOLEY, J., DISSENTING
appeal, we are called upon to construe Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 657-5 (Supp. 2015) and its use of the
term "original judgment" to determine whether a
request to extend a judgment was made in a timely manner. HRS
§ 657-5 provides that "[u]nless an extension is
granted, every judgment . . . of any court of the State shall
be presumed to be paid and discharged at the expiration of
ten years after the judgment . . . was rendered." HRS
§ 657-5 permits a judgment to be extended for up to an
additional ten years, but imposes a time limit for seeking
the extension by providing that "[n]o extension of a
judgment . . . shall be granted unless the extension is
sought within ten years of the date the original judgment
. . . was rendered." (Emphasis added.)
September 22, 2003, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
(circuit court) entered a judgment in favor of United Public
Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO (UPW). The circuit court
denied a motion to stay the judgment pending appeal, but the
Hawai'i Supreme Court later stayed the judgment pending
appeal on May 6, 2004. The stay was terminated on April 18,
2005, when the supreme court entered its judgment on appeal
after dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On
March 19, 2015, UPW filed a motion to extend judgment. The
circuit court[1] denied the motion, concluding that its
September 22, 2003, judgment was the "original
judgment" under HRS § 657-5.
question presented in this appeal is whether UPW's motion
to extend judgment was timely filed. The answer to this
question turns on whether the circuit court's September
22, 2003, judgment or the supreme court's April 18, 2005,
judgment on appeal is the "original judgment" as
that term is used in HRS § 657-5. On appeal, UPW argues
that the "original judgment" for purposes of HRS
§ 657-5 is the supreme court's April 18, 2005,
judgment on appeal, and therefore, UPW's March 19, 2015,
motion to extend was timely filed within the ten-year period
for extending a judgment. We disagree with UPW's
conclude that the "original judgment" as that term
is used in HRS § 657-5 is the circuit court's
September 22, 2003, judgment. The circuit court's
judgment created "the rights and responsibilities that
the moving party [(UPW)] is seeking to enforce and extend[,
]" and its entry on September 22, 2003, resulted in
"a valid and enforceable judgment." Estate of
Roxas v. Marcos, 121 Hawai'i 59, 67, 71, 214 P.3d
598, 606, 610 (2009) (discussing the requirements for an
"original judgment" under HRS § 657-5). We
further conclude that the supreme court's stay of the
circuit court's judgment pending appeal tolled the
running of the ten-year time period for seeking an extension
of the circuit court's judgment for 348 days -- from the
supreme court's granting of the stay on May 6, 2004,
until the supreme court terminated the stay by filing its
judgment on appeal on April 18, 2005. Therefore, UPW had ten
years plus 348 days from the entry of the circuit court's
September 22, 2003, judgment, that is, until September 4,
2014, to seek an extension of the circuit court's
judgment. UPW, however, did not file its motion to extend
judgment until March 19, 2015. Accordingly, we hold that
UPW's motion to extend the "original judgment"
under HRS § 657-5 was untimely and that the circuit
court properly denied the motion.
April 19, 2002, UPW filed a prohibited practice complaint
with the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board (HLRB) against
then Mayor, Jeremy Harris, and other officials of the City
and County of Honolulu (collectively, City)[2] regarding an
alleged agreement to restore and expand public refuse
collection operations on O'ahu. In its Decision No. 440
issued on February 11, 2003, in Case No. CE-01-500, the HLRB
concluded that the City had committed a prohibited practice
by failing to honor and implement its contractual obligations
"to avoid displacements as well as a surplus of manual
refuse workers by proceeding in good faith to restore
collection services for the City which had been privatized,
expand services to businesses, condominiums, and churches,
and compete with private haulers to contract services for
miliary bases and public schools." The HLRB, however,
excused the City's nonperformance of its contractual
obligations based on the frustration of purpose doctrine. The
HLRB further ruled that "[t]he circumstances that
currently frustrate the objective of the [City's
agreement with UPW] may be removed" by the Hawai'i
Supreme Court's reversal of the HLRB's decision in a
separate case, Case No. CE-01-465, in which event the
City's "contractual obligations would again
March 13, 2003, UPW appealed the HLRB's Decision No. 440
to the circuit court. On September 17, 2003, the circuit
court[3] issued its "Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order Reversing and Modifying in Part,
and Affirming and Enforcing in Part [the HLRB's] Decision
No. 440 . . ." (September 17, 2003, Order). In its
September 17, 2003, Order, the circuit court held that the
HLRB erred in its application of the frustration of purpose
doctrine to excuse the City's noncompliance with its
agreement with UPW. The circuit court reversed the HLRB's
decision solely with respect to the HLRB's invocation and
application of the frustration of purpose doctrine and
affirmed the HLRB's decision in all other respects. The
circuit court ordered that the City
cease and desist from repudiating the agreement with UPW and
shall in good faith "restore collection services for the
City which had been privatized, . . . expand services to
businesses, condominiums, and churches[, ] and compete with
private haulers to contract services for military bases and
public schools" as set forth in [the HLRB's]
Decision 440[.]
to its September 17, 2003, Order, the circuit court entered
its judgment in favor of UPW and against the City on