Opinion ID: 2533702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Collateral Attack and Collateral Estoppel

Text: Although unclear, UPW appears to allege that the circuit court erred in remanding the case to the HLRB because the proceeding for declaratory ruling constituted an impermissible collateral attack and was barred by collateral estoppel.
A collateral attack is an attempt to impeach a judgment or decree in a proceeding not instituted for the express purpose of annulling, correcting or modifying such judgment or decree. First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks, 70 Haw. 392, 398, 772 P.2d 1187, 1191 (1989) (citing Kapi`olani Estate, Ltd. v. Atcherly, 14 Haw. 651, 661 (1903)) (quotation marks omitted). As a general rule, a collateral attack may not be made upon a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Id.; see also In re Genesys Data Tech., Inc., 95 Hawai'i 33, 40, 18 P.3d 895, 902 (2001). UPW appears to contend that HGEA's pursuit of a declaratory ruling and subsequent appeal of the HLRB's order refusing to issue such a ruling constitute impermissible collateral attacks on a final judgment. In the instant case, the arbitration award became a final judgment under HRS §§ 658-12 and 658-14 (1993) [10] when it was confirmed by the circuit court. However, HGEA filed its petition for intervention in the HLRB proceedings while the arbitration was still ongoing and, thus, well before the arbitration award was rendered or confirmed. As such, the HGEA's petition for intervention and subsequent appeal of the HLRB's order cannot, as UPW contends, be characterized as attempts to impeach a judgment because there was no judgment or award to impeach at the time HGEA brought its petition.
UPW appears to argue that HGEA was collaterally estopped from seeking declaratory relief from the HLRB because HGEA was in privity with the DOT, who was a party to the arbitration proceedings. Collateral estoppel is an aspect of res judicata which precludes the relitigation of a fact or issue which was previously determined in a prior suit on a different claim between the same parties or their privies. Marsland v. Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, 66 Haw. 119, 124, 657 P.2d 1035, 1039 (1983) (citation omitted). In order to establish a claim of collateral estoppel, the party asserting the claim has the burden of establishing that: (1) [T]he issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the one presented in the action in question; (2) there is a final judgment on the merits; (3) the issue decided in the prior adjudication was essential to the final judgment; and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication[.] See Dorrance v. Lee, 90 Hawai'i 143, 149, 976 P.2d 904, 910 (1999). As stated above, a party asserting collateral estoppel must satisfy all four elements of the claim. Inasmuch as the fourth element is lacking in the instant case, UPW's claim is without merit. In addressing privity, this court has previously stated that [p]reclusion is fair in circumstances where the nonparty and party had the same practical opportunity to control the course of the proceedings. Bush v. Watson, 81 Hawai'i 474, 480, 918 P.2d 1130, 1136 (1996) (citation omitted). Preclusion may also be appropriate where the party in the previous action was acting in a representative capacity for the current party. However, several important rules limit the extent of preclusion by representation. The most obvious rule is that the representative must have been appointed by a valid procedure. Id. at 481, 918 P.2d at 1137 (citation, brackets and quotation marks omitted). In the instant case, HGEA's participation in the arbitration proceedings was limited to the testimony of HGEA representatives who were called to testify by UPW. HGEA was not a party in the arbitration and, thus, was not allowed to call its own witnesses or cross-examine witnesses for UPW. As such, it cannot be said that HGEA had the same opportunity as the DOT to control the arbitration proceedings. In addition, although UPW argues that the DOT served as a representative of HGEA, there is no evidence in the record that HGEA appointed the DOT to represent its interests by any valid procedure. Accordingly, because HGEA was not in privity with the DOT, we hold that HGEA was not collaterally estopped from seeking a declaratory ruling from the HLRB.