Opinion ID: 2519932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Court Has Jurisdiction To Address The Merits Of The Trustees' Appeal Of The Circuit Court's Order Granting Daiichi's Motion To Vacate The Arbitration Decision.

Text: As a threshold matter, Daiichi asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the trustees' appeal, on the basis that the circuit court's order granting its motion to vacate the arbitration decision was not a final order. Daiichi points out that, in awarding Daiichi reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, the circuit court ordered Daiichi to file an affidavit documenting its fees and costs and permitted the trustees to file a response, after which the circuit court would render a decision as to the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs that it would award Daiichi. Daiichi contends that only after the circuit court rendered the foregoing award of attorneys' fees and costs would the order granting the motion to vacate the arbitration decision be final. Daiichi argues that, because the trustees filed their notice of appeal only one minute after submitting [their] response to Daiichi's affidavit on fees and costs, thereby allegedly divesting the circuit court of jurisdiction to finalize the matter of attorneys' fees and costs (which was still sub judice ), the trustees' notice of appeal was premature. The trustees respond that their notice of appeal was timely filed, pursuant to HRS ง 658-15 (1993). We agree with the trustees that we have jurisdiction to address the merits of the circuit court's order granting Daiichi's motion to vacate the arbitration decision. HRS ง 658-15 provided that, [u]nless the agreement for award provides that no appeal may be taken[,] an appeal may be taken from an order vacating an award.... [9] See Oppenheimer v. AIG Hawai'i Ins. Co., 77 Hawai'i 88, 92, 881 P.2d 1234, 1238 (1994) (concluding that the more specific Arbitration and Award statute, HRS chapter 658, must prevail over the general appeal statute, HRS ง 641-1). The trustees filed their notice of appeal of the circuit court's February 18, 2000 order on March 17, 2000, which was within the thirty-day period prescribed by Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(1) (2000). That being the case, this court has jurisdiction to address the merits of the trustees' appeal of the circuit court's order granting Daiichi's motion to vacate the arbitration decision.