Opinion ID: 871200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Motion for reconsideration of the ICA's decision

Text: On June 14, 2010, Buffington and Integrity moved for reconsideration of the ICA's dismissal order because the order was based on an incorrect assumption regarding the status of the case in regards to bankruptcy proceedings, and [] was incorrect regarding the [c]ourt's jurisdiction. Buffington and Integrity also noted that the ICA did not have a complete record to review [because t]he record in this case does not yet contain any of the substantive filings made in the [a]dversary [p]roceeding in relation to the appeal issues. (Footnote omitted). Regarding the pendency of Hokulani's bankruptcy case, Buffington and Integrity asserted that all cross-claims against Hokulani were obviated through a separate settlement agreement, which was determined to be in good faith. Accordingly, Buffington and Integrity argued that Hokulani has nothing to gain or lose in this action[,] and [Hokulani's] pending bankruptcy should not impede Buffington and Integrity's appeals. Regarding the ICA's interpretation of HRS § 663-15.5, Buffington and Integrity argued that it is not reasonable to infer that the word `court' in [HRS §] 663-15.5(e) refers only to Hawaii state courts [because s]uch an inference would effectively deprive Integrity and Buffington of their legislatively mandated appeal rights. They also argued that because the adversary proceeding had been remanded, the [b]ankruptcy [c]ourt no longer has jurisdiction over this case and has no power to reconsider the Good Faith Settlement Order. It is the Hawaii state courts that now have jurisdiction over the case. The ICA denied the motion for reconsideration on June 21, 2010.