Background
This case arose from a civil district court action (CIV. NO. 1DRC-25-0004107) in which Anthony Mark Lakana Takemoto, as personal representative of the Estate of Moses Kapuhilani Takemoto, was the plaintiff. The Preston and Maiava family members — twelve petitioners in all — were the defendants and appellants. The dispute was appealed through the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), where a panel consisting of Judges Keith K. Hiraoka, Clyde J. Wadsworth, and Sonja M.P. McCullen presided.
The petitioners sought review before the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court by way of an original proceeding. The Supreme Court previously issued a ruling in that proceeding, after which the respondent/plaintiff-appellee filed a Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification on June 29, 2026, contending that the court had overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification, finding that it had neither overlooked nor misapprehended any points of law or fact. The court applied the standard governing reconsideration motions set forth in Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(b), which limits relief to circumstances where the court has made such an error.
The order was issued per curiam and signed by Chief Justice Vladimir P. Devens and Justices Sabrina S. McKenna, Todd W. Eddins, and Lisa M. Ginoza, along with Circuit Judge John M. Tonaki, who was assigned by reason of vacancy on the court.
Key Takeaways
- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court denied reconsideration, confirming its prior ruling stands without modification or clarification.
- Under HRAP Rule 40(b), a motion for reconsideration succeeds only by demonstrating that the court overlooked or misapprehended a point of law or fact — a high bar the movant failed to meet here.
- The order resolves the post-decision motion phase of this original proceeding, leaving the ICA’s underlying handling of the appeal as the operative posture.
Why It Matters
This brief procedural order reinforces the limited scope of reconsideration practice before the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court. Litigants seeking to reopen a decided matter must identify a concrete error in the court’s reasoning — disagreement with the outcome or a desire for further explanation is insufficient under HRAP Rule 40(b).
For practitioners, the denial signals finality on the supreme court’s prior ruling in this original proceeding, and any further relief for the parties would need to come through other available channels, if any remain.