Opinion ID: 2654147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The LIRAB’s Order Denying McLaren’s Motion for

Text: Reconsideration The LIRAB concluded that the “purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented earlier.” 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI #I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  (Citing Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 27 (1992)). In addition, the LIRAB concluded, “a motion for reconsideration is not the time to relitigate old matters.” (Citing Briggs v. Hotel Corp. of the Pac., Inc., 73 Haw. 276, 287 n.7, 831 P.2d 1335, 1342, n.7 (1992)] The LIRAB found that McLaren’s arguments failed to present new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented earlier. In addition, the LIRAB concluded that McLaren failed to demonstrate that HRS Chapter 91’s requirements were applicable to the DCD. The LIRAB reiterated that McLaren’s argument regarding timeliness of his appeal was without merit because it required a conclusion that the Director had issued a decision after the June 8, 2010 approval of attorney’s fees, or in the alternative, that McLaren filed an appeal before his actual September 7, 2010 appeal to the LIRAB. The LIRAB concluded that neither scenario was supported by the record, and denied McLaren’s Motion for Reconsideration.