Rivera v. Cataldo
| Docket Number | SCPW-23-0000571 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2023 |
| Parties | RICKEY T. RIVERA, JR., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE LISA W. CATALDO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge, and LEONA KALIMA; DIANE BONER; RAYNETTE NALANI AH CHONG, special administrator of the estate of JOSEPH CHING, deceased; CAROLINE BRIGHT; DONNA KUEHU; and JAMES AKIONA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents/Plaintiffs, and STATE OF HAWAI'I; STATE OF HAWAI'I DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS, Respondents/Defendants. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Rickey T. Rivera, Jr. (on the briefs) Petitioner
Carl M. Varady, Thomas R. Grande (on the briefs) for respondents Leona Kalima, Diane Boner, Raynette Nalani Ah Chong, special administrator of the estate of Joseph Ching, deceased Caroline Bright, Donna Kuehu, and James Akiona, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Donna H. Kalama, Craig Y. Iha, Jordan A.K. Ching, Linda Lee K. Farm (on the briefs) for respondents State of Hawaiʻi and State of Hawaiʻi Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
RECKTENWALD, C.J. AND EDDINS, J., CIRCUIT JUDGE VIOLA, IN PLACE OF McKENNA, J., RECUSED, CIRCUIT JUDGE TO'OTO'O AND CIRCUIT JUDGE OCHIAI, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCIES
For decades, thousands of Native Hawaiians waited to lease land pledged to them under the federal government's 1920 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. First the Territory of Hawai'i, then the State of Hawai'i, held homestead land in trust for Native Hawaiian beneficiaries. Both breached their fiduciary duties from the start. See Kalima v. State, 111 Hawai'i 84, 88, 137 P.3d 990, 994 (2006) (Kalima I).
Now Native Hawaiians will receive compensation for the State's failure. In a class action, trust beneficiaries successfully sued the State. The State breached its trustee responsibilities. The State settled.
Many beneficiaries died as the case progressed. Others waited. And waited. Like untold numbers of Native Hawaiians after 1920 who just wanted to live on the promised homelands. Our decision accelerates payout to the beneficiaries.
Because of its extraordinary public importance, we accepted a petition for a writ of mandamus, an appeal challenging final approval of the case's settlement.
We hold that Petitioner Rickey T. Rivera, Jr. has no right to compensation. He was born beyond the statutory period to receive a payout from the settlement.
Rivera also appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA). Our decision ends Rivera's appeal. We direct the ICA to dismiss CAAP-23-0000572.
The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act created a land trust to provide homesteads to Native Hawaiians. Kalima v. State, 148 Hawai'i 129, 133, 468 P.3d 143, 147 (2020) (Kalima II). Kalima I and Kalima II chronicle the messy history of the State's trust breaches. And the snail-paced struggles to redress those betrayals. Kalima I, 111 Hawai'i at 88-97, 137 P.3d at 994-1003; Kalima II, 148 Hawai'i at 133-42, 468 P.3d at 147-56. We recap some history.
In 1991, the legislature waived the State's sovereign immunity. It passed a law that allowed beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act to sue the State. Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 674-17 (2016). The law entitled qualified Native Hawaiians to compensation for individual trust breaches that happened between August 21, 1959 and June 30, 1988. HRS § 674-16 (2016).
In 1999, the plaintiffs filed a class action alleging breaches of the State's trust responsibility. In 2009, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit sided with them. The State was liable. Kalima II, 148 Hawai'i at 136, 468 P.3d 150. Drawn-out litigation, settlement talks, and law-making ensued.
In June 2022, the parties settled. The State agreed to pay the beneficiary class $328 million. The legislature, in turn, appropriated funds for that settlement. S.B. 3041, S.D. 2, H.D. 1, C.D. 1, 31st Leg., Reg. Sess. (2022); see Act 280 (2022).
The settlement agreement has two key terms covering the time frame before eligible class members receive compensation: final approval by the circuit court, and judicial finality - an end to all appellate review.
The circuit court concluded that there were 2,515 eligible class members. 1,351 class members are alive; 1,164 passed away. Class members or their estates will receive $286 million (the remaining funds appropriated by the legislature go to attorney's fees and other expenses).
The settlement excludes class members who are ineligible for payment. HRS § 674-16 has a cut-off date. Per that law, the settlement does not pay anyone who "asserted an individual breach of trust that occurred after June 30, 1988."
This law excludes Rivera. He did not become eligible to apply for a homestead lease until he turned 18 on August 21, 1988.
As final approval neared, the circuit court received objections. The court had to determine - at a Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 fairness hearing - whether the class settlement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate." See Pub. Access Trails Hawai'i v. Haleakala Ranch Co., 153 Hawai'i 1, 32, 526 P.3d 526, 557 (2023) (McKenna, J. concurring) ().
In June 2023, Rivera objected. Later he withdrew his objection. But soon he reappeared, mailing two letters to the circuit court. In the first, Rivera insists that he deserves compensation: the "claim administrator made a mistake." Likewise, the second letter complains that the claim administrator erred. Rivera asks the circuit court to look at his claim.
On July 21, 2023, the court conducted the fairness hearing. The settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate." All objections lacked merit. The court approved the settlement. And on August 1, it entered final judgment.
On August 17, 2023, the circuit court received and filed another letter from Rivera. Now he wanted to appeal: "I wish to file an appeal before the deadline of August 31, 2023." Rivera wrote: "The appeal is limited to the issue of special master and claims administrator failing to process my claim in a timely fashion."
Because of the settlement's finality term, Rivera effectively paused payment to 2,515 class members with vetted claims. The circuit court sought input from the parties. The State said that so long as Rivera's appeal is unresolved, the settlement's finality term (no more appeals possible) is unmet. Class counsel countered: Rivera had no right to appeal.
Circuit Court of the First Circuit Judge Lisa Cataldo expressed dismay. "If any case demands that counsel bring to bear the full measure of their experience, expertise and talents to develop and consider strategies for a thoughtful, constructive, creative and legally-compliant resolution short of disposition by the appellate court, it is this one." The court's invite spurred no helpful solution.
On October 9, 2023, Judge Cataldo ordered the clerk to file Rivera's appeal with the ICA (case number CAAP-23-0000572).
Before the appeal was docketed, Rivera sent a letter to the Hawai'i Supreme Court:
Together with that letter were documents, like notices Rivera received from the Hawaiian Claims Office. Rivera didn't pay the petition filing fee, or ask to waive the fee. Then on October 10, the court clerk received a check from him. That day, the clerk docketed Rivera's letter as an original proceeding in this court.
We treated Rivera's letter as a petition for a writ of mandamus. See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai'i 368, 391, 465 P.3d 815, 838 (2020) (). Because Rivera's petition and appeal raise the same issue, we stayed the ICA proceedings pending resolution of the petition.
We reject Rivera's petition for a writ of mandamus.
Writs are rare. Writs are an exceptional remedy; they are no substitute for appeal. Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 227, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978).
The Hawai'i Constitution and Hawai'i Revised Statutes allow us to issue writs. Art. VI of the Hawai'i Constitution vests the "judicial power of the State" in this court and the lower courts. Judicial power includes the ability to advance justice. State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 55, 647 P.2d 705, 712 (1982).
HRS § 602-5(3) (2016 &Supp. 2022) confers original jurisdiction over writs. And HRS §602-5(5) allows us to issue writs or orders to aid our jurisdiction.
More broadly, HRS § 602-5(6) empowers the Hawai'i Supreme Court to do justice. This court has the power to "make and award such judgments, decrees, orders and mandates, issue such executions and other processes, and do such other acts and take such other steps as may be necessary to carry into full effect the powers which are or shall be given to it by law or for the promotion of justice in matters pending before it." HRS § 6025(6).
The Hawai'i Supreme Court also has general supervisory powers over the state's lower courts. "The supreme court shall have the general superintendence of all courts of inferior jurisdiction to prevent and correct errors and abuses therein where no other remedy is expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial