Trs. of the Estate of Bishop v. Au

• Decision Date: 28 June 2019
• Docket Number: NO. CAAP-16-0000235,CAAP-16-0000235
• Parties: TRUSTEES OF the ESTATE OF Bernice Pauahi BISHOP, also known as Kamehameha Schools, Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants/Appellees, v. Ronald G.S. AU, Defendant-Counterclaimant/Appellant
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

443 P.3d 126 (Table)

TRUSTEES OF the ESTATE OF Bernice Pauahi BISHOP, also known as Kamehameha Schools, Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants/Appellees,

v.Ronald G.S. AU, Defendant-Counterclaimant/Appellant

NO. CAAP-16-0000235

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

June 28, 2019.

On the briefs:

Ronald G.S. Au, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant, pro se.

Dennis W. Cheong Kee, Christopher T. Goodin, (Cades Schutte), for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees.

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Reifurth, JJ.)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Defendant-Counterclaimant/Appellant Ronald G.S. Au (Au) appeals from the February 29, 2016 "Order Granting [Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants/Appellees' Trustees of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop also known as Kamehameha Schools (KS) ] Motion to Declare Ronald G.S. Au a Vexatious Litigant Filed on December 29, 2015" (Order) entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).¹

On appeal, Au contends the Circuit Court: (1) erred by interpreting the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 634J-l (2016)² definition of "plaintiff" to apply to a defendant/counterclaimant for the purpose of determining which party may be deemed a vexatious litigant; (2) could not deem Au a vexatious litigant without first finding the underlying motions to have been filed in bad faith, unmeritorious, frivolous, or solely intended to cause delay; (3) abused its discretion by concluding Au's April 22, 2015 Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b) motion constituted an impermissible second motion for reconsideration; (4) erred by failing to specify in what respect his seven motions sought to relitigate the merits of the summary judgment granted in KS's favor and by considering motions on appeal in CAAP-15-0000466 to deem Au to be a vexatious litigant; and (5) erred by not making necessary findings of fact (FOF) and conclusions of law (COL) in determining Au to be a vexatious litigant as required by HRCP Rule 52(a).³

After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues raised and the arguments made by the parties, we resolve Au's arguments as follows and affirm.

1. Au contends the Circuit Court erred by interpreting the HRS § 634J-1 definition of "plaintiff" to apply to him as a defendant-counterclaimant for the purpose of determining which party may be deemed a vexatious litigant.

On the motion, the Circuit Court ruled:

1. In looking at Haw. Rev. Stat. Ch. 634J ("Ch. 634J"), the Court agrees that the individual covered by Ch. 634J, meaning the plaintiff, is not necessarily the plaintiff in and of itself but, as pointed out by counsel for KS, the definition is more expansive, defining plaintiff as a person who commences, institutes, or maintains litigation, or causes it to be maintained.

The court's statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo based on the following factors:

First, the fundamental starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself. Second, where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning. Third, implicit in the task of statutory construction is our foremost obligation to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself.

State v. Dunbar, 139 Hawai‘i 9, 13, 383 P.3d 112, 116 (App. 2016) (citations and block formatting omitted). The language of HRS § 634J-l provides, " ‘Plaintiff’ means the person who commences, institutes or maintains litigation or causes it to be commenced, instituted, or maintained, including an attorney at law acting on the attorney's own behalf." Au urges reading the word plaintiff as it is commonly understood, in accordance with the general rule. HRS § 1-14 (2009) ("The words of a law are generally to be understood in their most known and usual signification.").⁴ However, "[t]he legislature has a broad power to define terms for a particular legislative purpose, and the courts, as a general rule of construction, are bound to follow legislative definitions of terms rather than commonly accepted dictionary, judicial or scientific definitions." State v. Kantner, 53 Haw. 327, 329, 493 P.2d 306, 308 (1972) ; see also Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148 (1947) (statutory definition of "employees" contained in Fair Labor Standards Act held binding on the court).

Here, the Legislature, by providing a unique definition for the word "plaintiff," has manifested a clear intent to give meaning to the word which is different from the dictionary definition. Thus, we must give effect to the intent of the Legislature obtained from the language of the statute.

For the purposes of HRS § 634J-1, Au is a plaintiff because he is "the person who ... maintains litigation or causes it to be ... maintained [.]" HRS § 634J-1 (emphasis added). Webster’s provides two definitions that support this reading; maintain means "to sustain against opposition or danger" or "to continue or persevere in[.]" Maintain, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003). HRS § 634J-1 provides " ‘Litigation’ means any civil action or proceeding, commenced, maintained, or pending in any state or federal court of record." It is undisputed that Au filed his counterclaims as well as numerous motions, and that several of these filings prolonged the proceedings after the granting of summary judgment.^{5 ,6}

Au further appears to argue that, because some of his counterclaims were compulsory, the Circuit Court could not consider the Motion for Reconsideration to constitute a basis for deeming him a vexatious litigant. Au cites no authority supporting this argument. In- any event, the issue is not whether the counterclaims were compulsory, but whether a counterclaimant meets the definition of plaintiff for the purposes of a vexatious litigant provided by HRS § 634J-1 as determined by his conduct of litigation.

Therefore, Au's first argument is without merit.

2, 3, and 4. Au argues that the Circuit Court erred in its determination that he was a vexatious litigant.

The standard of review for a vexatious litigant determination is abuse of discretion. Ek v. Boggs, 102 Hawai‘i 289, 294, 75 P.3d 1180, 1185 (2003). "The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." State v. Plichta, 116 Hawai‘i 200, 214, 172 P.3d 512, 526 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We have previously said, "HRS § 634J-l sets forth three separate definitions for ‘vexatious litigant[,]’ and a plaintiff is a vexatious litigant if he or she meets any of the three definitions." Grindling v. Maui Police Dept., 127 Hawai‘i 241, 277 P.3d 335, CAAP-11-0000004, 2012 WL 1834686, at *1 (App. May 21, 2012) (SDO) (footnote omitted).

Here, the court concluded Au met two of the definitions of a vexatious litigant, either under HRS § 634J-1(2) (relitigation of claims finally resolved) or, in the alterative, subsection (3) (filing bad faith, unmeritorious filings, unnecessary discovery or frivolous tactics). See n.2 supra.

Supporting its determination, the Circuit Court identified the fact that summary judgment was granted against Au on September 18, 2013, as representing a final determination, (the Summary Judgment Order) the court denied his formal motion for reconsideration on April 30, 2014, and thereafter, Au filed "approximately seven motions" under different titles asking the court to relitigate the Summary Judgment Order. These motions were not identified in the Order, however KS identified Au's seven motions in its motion to declare Au a vexatious litigant and at the hearing on its motion, identifying each of Au's motions by their filing dates.⁷

After conducting an independent review of these motions, we agree with the Circuit Court that the motions essentially "relitigate the merits of the issues that the Court already disposed of by granting the Summary Judgment Motion." "[M]otions for reconsideration or for relief from judgment under [HRCP] Rule 60(b) (2006) are not ‘device[s] to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence that could and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding.’ " Trs. of the Estate of Bishop v. Au, 141 Hawai‘i 248, 407 P.3d 1284, CAAP-15-0000466, 2017 WL 6614566, at *3 (App. Dec. 22, 2017) (SDO) (Au I), (quoting Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawaii 92, 104, 176 P.3d 91, 103 (2008) ). In his September 25, 2013 motion for reconsideration, Au argued that the Circuit Court should have considered matters that were on file at the time of KS's motion for summary judgment on their claims. As this court held in Au I, Au's April 22, 2015 HRCP Rule 60(b) motion presented an argument based on information—the county's property tax refund--that Au knew or should have known about at the time of the summary judgment motions (the Overcharge Argument). Au I, at *3. In his May 21, 2015 motion for reconsideration, Au again asserted the Overcharge Argument, that there was a "gross error" in the computation of the summary judgment's damage award. The May 29, 2015 motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment granted on his counterclaim again makes the Overcharge Argument and adds Au's claim that KS unilaterally imposed financial qualifications on his assignee and repeats arguments in opposition to the summary judgment. In his June 29, 2015 motion to vacate the June 12, 2015 Judgment, he argues the judgment was premature because a motion to reconsider had not been decided but also makes the Overcharge Argument. Au's August 25, 2015 HRCP Rule 60(b) motion alleged that the June 12, 2015 Judgment was not in fact the final judgment and was a mistake, depriving him of his right to appeal.⁸ Finally, more than six months after the June 12, 2015 Final Judgment was entered, Au filed a...