HI Rev Stat § 480-24 (2021)
2021 Hawaii Revised Statutes|Title 26. Trade Regulation and Practice|480. Monopolies; Restraint of Trade|480-24 Limitation of actions.

  §480-24 Limitation of actions. Any action to enforce a cause of action arising under this chapter shall be barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrues, except as otherwise provided in section 480-22. For the purpose of this section, a cause of action for a continuing violation is deemed to accrue at any time during the period of the violation. L 1961, c 190, §22; Supp, §205A-22; HRS §480-24; am L 1989, c 230, §2; am L 2016, c 7, §2 Case Notes  Relation back of counterclaim to date of complaint. 473 F. Supp. 1296.  Plaintiffs may recover for §480-2 violations which occurred prior to four-year statute of limitations if they can prove fraudulent concealment; series of fly-drive arrangements constituted alleged continuing violation; section did not bar claims for fly-drives occurring less than four years prior to filing of action. 491 F. Supp. 1199.  If State proved a continuing violation, it would be entitled to seek provable damages for the entire period of the continuing violation; this could include damages that might have occurred prior to the four years before suit was filed, if the continuing violation occurred during that period. 168 F. Supp. 2d 1180.  Plaintiff's claim under §480-2 failed, where the statute of limitations barred any unlawful business practice claim that occurred prior to the four-year limitation period and although the additional alleged occurrences would not be time-barred, plaintiff's asserted damages flowing from the violation were unrecoverable because they were speculative. 522 F. Supp. 2d 1272.  Fraudulent concealment may toll this section's statute of limitations. 777 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (2011).  The court found it inappropriate to decide the date of accrual and the statute of limitations issue, as it was unclear from the speculative allegations in the amended complaint which specific acts, other than those addressed by the court's order, plaintiffs claimed to be unfair or deceptive acts or practices. 1 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (2014).  Court found that plaintiffs', timeshare owners, alleged injuries arose from the implementation of defendants', timeshare resort operators, points-based program in 2010, which was allegedly a discrete act and not a continuing pattern and course of conduct. Therefore, court concluded that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply and that portions of plaintiffs' claims arising from their ability to use their floating interests in a weeks-based program were time-barred because plaintiffs filed their Complaint more than four years after the implementation of the points-based program. 165 F. Supp. 3d 955 (2016).  Plaintiffs, timeshare owners, argued that because neither Chapter 481A nor Chapter 514E had a specific statute of limitations, the six-year limitations period in §657-1 applied in their action against defendants, timeshare resort operators. However, the court found that the nature of plaintiffs' claim was a Chapter 480 unfair deceptive acts and practices claim and, therefore, the four-year limitation period of this section applied. 165 F. Supp. 3d 955 (2016).  An unfair or deceptive acts or practices claim accrues four years from the date of the occurrence of the violation, as opposed to plaintiff's discovery of the violation. 250 F. Supp. 3d 658 (2017).  Pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, plaintiff could toll the statute of limitations for a claim against defendants, a lender and loan servicer, under the state's unfair or deceptive acts or practices law, where it was undisputed that plaintiff was on active duty status in the United States Army during the specified time. 250 F. Supp. 3d 658 (2017).  Where plaintiff, a servicemember, alleged that defendants, a lender and loan servicer, sought to conceal a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding against plaintiff, the court found that plaintiff failed to allege facts that would justify tolling the statute of limitations under this section on grounds of fraudulent concealment. Defendants' failure to notify plaintiff of the non-judicial foreclosure of plaintiff's property did not constitute an affirmative action of concealment, considering: (1) prior loan servicer sent a letter to plaintiff's last known address stating that plaintiff was in default and that mortgage on property would be foreclosed if it did not receive payment from plaintiff within sixty-five days; and (2) defendants published a notice of the pending foreclosure. 250 F. Supp. 3d 658 (2017).  In an action to invalidate a mortgage that was the subject of a pending foreclosure action, despite constructive and actual notice, plaintiffs-mortgagors failed to bring their unfair and deceptive trade practices (UDAP) claim based upon the recording of a "forged" assignment of mortgage within the four-year limitations period. Further, plaintiffs-mortgagors did not provide plausible allegations suggesting that equitable tolling may apply to the UDAP claim based upon fraudulent concealment. 329 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (2018).  Discussed: 792 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (2011); 907 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (2012).