Zhang v. Administrative Director of Courts of State, 011921 HIICA, CAAP-19-0000167

Docket NºCAAP-19-0000167
Party NameSHUN ZHANG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee
AttorneyTimothy I. Mac Master, for Petitioner-Appellant. Christopher J.I. Leong, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent-Appellee.
Judge PanelGinoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.
Case DateJanuary 19, 2021

SHUN ZHANG, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee

No. CAAP-19-0000167

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

January 19, 2021

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DAA-18-00019)

Timothy I. Mac Master, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Christopher J.I. Leong, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent-Appellee.

Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Petitioner-Appellant Shun Zhang (Zhang) appeals from the Judgment on Appeal, filed on February 28, 2019, in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court).1

On appeal, Zhang claims the District Court erred by affirming the October 29, 2018 Notice of Administrative Hearing Decision by Respondent-Appellee the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office (ADLRO). Zhang contends the District Court erred in upholding the ADLRO's administrative revocation of her license because the October 9, 2018 Notice of Administrative Review Decision (Notice of Review) issued by Tania Kimura (Kimura) was not issued in compliance with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-37 (Supp 2019) .2 Specifically, Zhang contends that Kimura was not appointed by the Administrative Director of the Courts Rodney Maile (Administrative Director) as required by HRS § 291E-1 (2007 Repl.).3

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we affirm the District Court.

As we stated in McGrail v. Administrative Director of

Courts, 130 Hawai'i 74, 78, 305 P.3d 490, 494 (App. 2013):

We review the District Court's decision to affirm the Director's administrative revocation of McGrail's driver's license to determine if the District Court was right or wrong in its decision. Brune v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, 110 Hawai'i 172, 176-177, 130 P.3d 1037, 1041-42 (2006). The District Court's review of the Director's decision is limited to the record of the administrative hearing and the issues of whether the Director:

(1) Exceeded constitutional or statutory authority;

(2) Erroneously interpreted the law;

(3) Acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner;

(4) Committed an abuse of discretion; or

(5) Made a determination that was unsupported by the evidence in the record.

HRS § 291E-40(c) (2007) .

Zhang argues that, under HRS § 291E-1, the District Court was wrong to uphold the ADLRO's revocation of her license because the Administrative Director did not directly hire Kimura and could not delegate his authority to another person to appoint Kimura. Zhang thus contends that Kimura did not have the legal authority to conduct the initial administrative review and issue the Notice of Review.

As Zhang states in her reply brief, "[t]here are no disputed facts here." The District Court's "Decision and Order Affirming Administrative Revocation" states that the Administrative Director approved the position description for the position held by Kimura. Further, the Administrative Director "delegated his powers and authority to Human Resources Director Dee Wakabayashi, and to other persons involved in the hiring process, including Chief Adjudicator George Tran, for the purposes of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP