Opinion ID: 2640748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Appellees' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on the AOAO's Claims

Text: During a span of approximately two years, the Appellees, Community Planning, and S. Horita filed approximately thirty motions for partial summary judgment against the AOAO. Inasmuch as Community Planning and S. Horita settled with the AOAO, [8] their various motions for partial summary judgment against the AOAO are not relevant and, thus, will not be discussed. The AOAO also filed three motions for partial summary judgment, which are not before this court on appeal and, therefore, likewise will not be discussed. For purposes of clarity and ease of discussion, the following table summarizes the Appellees' relevant motions for partial summary judgment as they relate to the particular claims asserted by the AOAO. CLAIMS PROCEEDINGS (Movant(s)) UNFAIR OR Venture 15, Royal, Lee, and Liu separately moved for partial summary DECEPTIVE judgment on the AOAO's unfair or deceptive acts or practices claims, ACTS OR essentially contending that the AOAO lacked standing to bring such PRACTICES claims inasmuch as the AOAO is not a consumer under HRS § 480-2(d) (Venture 15, (1993), quoted infra. Royal, Lee, & Liu) At a hearing held on 6/6/02, the circuit court orally ruled in favor of Venture 15, Royal, Lee, and Liu, stating, inter alia, that: I don't think that the legislature or the proper analysis under statutory construction law would allow the [c]ourt to give standing to the AOAO to bring this [HRS c]hapter 480 claim. The circuit court GRANTED Venture 15's, Royal's, Lee's, and Liu's motions. BREACH OF Venture 15 moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the WARRANTIES AOAO's breach of warranties claims, contending that it did not extend any (Venture 15) warranties to the AOAO, pursuant to HRS § 514A-61 (1985 & Supp. 1988). [9] Specifically, Venture 15 asserted that the Condominium Public Report expressly stated that [t]here are no express or implied warranties including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness of the apartment for a particular case. According to Venture 15, [t]he Condominium Public Report is a public record available to any prospective purchaser of a unit at Newtown Meadows. Venture 15 also argued that there [is] no implied warranty of habitability with regard to purchasers of residential property[.] At a hearing held on 7/29/02, the circuit court orally ruled in favor of Venture 15 as to the warranty of habitability, stating that the Condominium Public Report complied with HRS § 514A-61(a)(3). The circuit court GRANTED partial summary judgment in favor of Venture 15 as to the warranty of habitability. BREACH OF  Royal, Lee, and Liu separately moved for partial summary judgment WARRANTIES on, inter alia, the AOAO's breach of warranties claims. Essentially, they (Royal, Lee, & contended that such claims were barred by the six-year statute of Liu) limitations contained in HRS § 657-1 (1993) and that the AOAO's breach of implied warranties claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations as purportedly discussed in Larsen v. Pacesetter Systems, Inc., 74 Haw. 1, 837 P.2d 1273 (1992). They also contended that the AOAO's breach of warranties claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose in HRS § 657-8 (Supp.2006) [hereinafter, the statute of repose] and laches. The circuit court GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Royal's, Lee's, and Liu's motions as to the breach of warranties claims. Specifically, circuit court granted the motions on the grounds that the applicable statute(s) of limitations barred the AOAO's breach of express and/or implied warranties claims against Royal, and the AOAO's breach of express warranties claims against Lee and Liu. The circuit court denied the motions on the bases that the statute of repose and laches did not bar the AOAO's breach of warranties claims.  Royal, Lee, and Liu again separately moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the AOAO's breach of warranties claims. Royal and Lee argued that the AOAO's claims were without merit because (1) they are not in privity of contract with the AOAO and (2) they were not the developers or sellers of the units at Newtown Meadows and, therefore, made no warranties to the AOAO. Liu argued that the AOAO has not identified any express written or oral warranties by Liu to [the AOAO] in any of their pleadings or answers to interrogatories and that [the AOAO] has offered no authority for implying [the] warranties [of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose] to a home purchase against a non-seller, non-lessor like Liu. The circuit court GRANTED Royal's, Lee's, and Liu's motions. INTENTIONAL  Venture 15 moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the & NEGLIGENT AOAO's misrepresentation claims, contending that such claims were MISREP. barred by: (1) the two-year statute of limitations contained in HRS (Venture 15) § 514A-69 (2006); [10] and (2) the economic loss rule. [11] The circuit court DENIED Venture 15's motion as to the misrepresentation claims.  Venture 15 again moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the AOAO's misrepresentation claims, asserting that such claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations in HRS § 657-1. The circuit court DENIED Venture 15's motion as to the misrepresentation claims. INTENTIONAL  Royal, Lee, and Liu separately moved for partial summary judgment & NEGLIGENT on, inter alia, the AOAO's misrepresentation claims, arguing that such MISREP. claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations in HRS § 657-1, (Royal, Lee, & the statute of repose, and laches. Liu) The circuit court DENIED Royal's, Lee's, and Liu's motions as to the misrepresentation claims.  Royal, Lee, and Liu again separately moved for partial summary judgment on the AOAO's misrepresentation claims. Royal and Lee argued, among other things, that: (1) the AOAO lacked standing to bring its misrepresentation claims; (2) there is no evidence that Royal or Lee made any representations to the AOAO; and (3) there was no justifiable reliance by the AOAO to support its misrepresentation claims. Royal again argued that the six-year statute of limitations in HRS § 657-1 barred the AOAO's misrepresentation claims. Liu contended that there was no evidence that it made any representations to the AOAO and that the AOAO cannot prove reliance as an essential element of its [misrepresentation] claims[.] (Capital letters altered.)  The circuit court GRANTED Royal's, Lee's, and Liu's motions on the AOAO's misrepresentation claims. BREACH OF  Royal and Lee separately moved for partial summary judgment on, CONTRACT inter alia, the AOAO's breach of contract claims. Basically, they argued (Royal & Lee) that such claims were without merit because there is no contract between (1) the AOAO (or its members) and Royal and (2) the AOAO and Lee. Royal also pointed out that there has been no allegation that the AOAO or its members are third-party beneficiaries of the contract between Venture 15 and Royal and that there is no allegation that the AOAO is a third-party beneficiary of the contracts between the buyers [of the units at Newtown Meadows] and Venture 15. The circuit court GRANTED Royal's and Lee's motions as to the AOAO's breach of contract claims.  Royal and Lee again separately moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the AOAO's breach of contract claims, maintaining that the AOAO's breach of contract claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations in HRS § 657-1, the statute of repose, and laches. The circuit court GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Royal's and Lee's motions as to the breach of contract claims. Specifically, the circuit court granted the motions on the basis that HRS § 657-1 barred the AOAO's breach of contract claims. The circuit court denied the motions on the bases that the statute of repose and laches did not bar the AOAO's breach of contract claims. BREACH OF  Liu moved for summary judgment on, inter alia, the AOAO's breach of CONTRACT contract claims, asserting that such claims were barred by the six-year (Liu) statute of limitations in HRS § 657-1, the statute of repose, and laches. The AOAO argued in its memorandum in opposition that, among other things, there is no contract between Liu and [the AOAO]; therefore[,] HRS § 657-1 is inapplicable. The circuit court GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Liu's motion. Specifically, the circuit court granted the motion on the ground that HRS § 657-1 barred the AOAO's breach of contract claims. The circuit court denied the motion on the ground that the statute of repose and laches did not bar the AOAO's breach of contract claims.  Liu again moved for summary judgment on the AOAO's breach of contract claims, asserting that [t]here is no evidence of a contract between [the AOAO], either as an association of apartment owners or as individual apartment owners, and Liu. The AOAO argued in its memorandum in opposition that, among other things, [t]he individual apartment owners, as well as the [AOAO], are clearly third-party beneficiaries of the contract between Liu and [S.] Horita for work done by Liu at Newtown Meadows. (Citations omitted.) The circuit court DENIED Liu's motion. BREACH OF Venture 15 moved for partial summary judgment on the AOAO's breach CONTRACT of contract claims, merely incorporat[ing] by reference the arguments (Venture 15) made in Royal's, Lee's, and Liu's motions for partial summary judgment relating to HRS § 657-1, the statute of repose, and laches. The circuit court GRANTED Venture 15's motion. [12] NEGLIGENCE  Venture 15 moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the (Venture 15) AOAO's negligence claims, contending that the economic loss rule bars such claims. The circuit court DENIED Venture 15's motion as to the AOAO's negligence claims.  Venture 15 again moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the AOAO's negligence claims, asserting that the two-year statute of limitations in HRS § 657-7 (1993), quoted infra, bars the AOAO's negligence claims and that the two-year statute of limitations contained in HRS § 657-8 bars the AOAO's negligent design and construction claims. The circuit court GRANTED Venture 15's motion as to the AOAO's negligence claims. [13] NEGLIGENCE  Royal, Lee, and Liu moved for partial summary judgment on, inter (Royal, Lee, & alia, the AOAO's negligence claims, maintaining that HRS § 657-7, the Liu) statute of repose, and laches bars such claims. The circuit court GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Royal's, Lee's, and Liu's motions as to the negligence claims. Specifically, the circuit court granted the motions on the basis that HRS § 657-7 bars the AOAO's negligence claims. The circuit court denied the motions on the bases that the statute of repose and laches did not bar the AOAO's negligence claims.  Royal, Lee, and Liu again moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the AOAO's negligence claims, alleging that the economic loss rule bars such claims. The circuit court DENIED Royal's, Lee's, and Liu's motions. NEGLIGENCE Geolabs moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the AOAO's (Geolabs) negligence claims, essentially contending that such claims were barred by HRS § 657-7. The circuit court GRANTED Geolabs' motion. STRICT PRODUCTS  Liu moved for partial summary judgment on, inter alia, the AOAO's LIABILITY strict products liability claims, asserting that HRS § 657-7, the statute of (Liu) repose, and laches bars such claims. The circuit court GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Liu's motion. Specifically, the circuit court granted the motion on the basis of HRS § 657-7. The circuit court denied the motion on the bases of the statute of repose and laches.  Liu again moved for summary judgment on, inter alia, the AOAO's strict products liability claims, arguing that the economic loss rule bars such claims. The circuit court GRANTED Liu's motion as to the AOAO's strict products liability claims. [14] PUNITIVE Royal, Lee, and Liu moved for partial summary judgment on the AOAO's DAMAGES claims for punitive damages. Essentially, they contended that the evidence (Royal, Lee, & does not support an award of punitive damages against them. Liu) The circuit court GRANTED Royal's, Lee's, and Liu's motions.