Opinion ID: 4099183
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Circuit Court’s Rulings on Motions to Dismiss

Text: Say filed two motions to dismiss Appellants’ petition for quo warranto on July 18, 2014. The first was premised on collateral estoppel because earlier challenges to his residency were rejected in other forums. In the second motion, Say made the argument that the House of Representatives, and not the court, was the proper authority to preside over the quo warranto petition per article III, section 12 of the Hawaii Constitution. The House of Representatives also filed a motion to dismiss Appellants’ quo warranto petition on August 29, 2014, arguing that article III, section 12 of the Hawaii Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction to judge the qualifications of its members upon the House of Representatives, therefore rendering the question nonjusticiable by the court. At its September 18, 2014 hearing, the circuit court orally denied Say’s motion to dismiss based on collateral estoppel, concluding the current proceedings involved different issues and parties than those in the prior adjudications. Say’s 8 ____ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ____ and the House of Representatives’ motions premised on nonjusticiability were heard together. On September 30, 2014, the circuit court granted Say’s and the House of Representatives’ motions to dismiss the quo warranto petition. The court ruled that the legitimacy of Say’s qualifications to hold office as a representative presented a nonjusticiable political question, and accordingly dismissed the quo warranto petition. Judgment was entered on October 31, 2014, and Appellants appealed to the ICA on November 28, 2014. At the ICA, the parties filed applications for transfer which were subsequently granted by this court on June 9, 2015.