Court Opinion

ID: 2721807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-28 19:03:09.998312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:35.367633
License: Public Domain

Electronically Filed
                                                                 Supreme Court
                                                                 SCWC-29553
                                                                 27-AUG-2014
                                                                 11:39 AM

                                  SCWC-29553

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

                          HIROKAZU NAKAJIMA,

           Petitioner/Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant/Appellant,

                                      vs.

                             AKI NAKAJIMA,

            Respondent/Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Appellee.

           CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

              (ICA NO. 29553; FC-DIVORCE NO. 05-1-0587)

              ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

             On August 18, 2014, Petitioner/Plaintiff/Cross-

 Defendant/Appellant Hirokazu Nakajima (Hirokazu) filed a Motion

 for Reconsideration of this court’s August 7, 2014 order

 accepting his application for a writ of certiorari and remanding

 the case to the Intermediate Court of Appeals for further

 proceedings.1    In his motion, Hirokazu argues that this court

 1
        Because this court’s August 7, 2014 order was a dispositional order and

 not merely an order accepting an application for a writ of certiorari, Hawai'i
 Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40.1(h) does not apply. In such

 circumstances, this court’s appellate jurisdiction covers the ten-day time

 period in which a party may file a motion for reconsideration. See HRAP Rule

 40(a).     

misconstrued the scope of the sanctions that the Family Court of

the Second Circuit imposed for abuse of the discovery process. 

He asserts that those sanctions did not extend to the denial of

an evidentiary hearing regarding the valuation of Avalon Cove,

Inc.   Hirokazu’s argument is meritless.      The family court

specifically concluded “that there was no due process violation

in determining the appraised value of the Avalon Cove properties

without an evidentiary hearing because its ruling . . . reflects

sanctions against Hirokazu for concealing assets.”       See Record on

Appeal at 1253 (some capitalization omitted).       The record

confirms that the family court’s sanctions included denying

Hirokazu an evidentiary hearing.    Therefore, 

           IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration is denied.

           DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 27, 2014.

Blake T. Okimoto                        /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for respondent

on the motion                           /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Junsuke Otsuka                          /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

for petitioner

on the response                         /s/ Richard W. Pollack

                                        /s/ Michael D. Wilson

                                   2