Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re United Public Workers, AFSCME

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

September 15, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO, Complainant-Appellee-Appellant,
v.
TIMOTHY A. HOUGHTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; LORI M.K. KAHIKINA, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; CAROLEE C. KUBO, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; AND KIRK CALDWELL, MAYOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Respondents-Appellants-Appellees, and HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, JAMES B. NICHOLSON, CHAIRPERSON; ROCK B. LEY, BOARD MEMBER; AND SESNITA A.D. MOEPONO, BOARD MEMBER, Agency-Appellees-Appellees. IN THE MATTER OF UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO, Complainant-Appellee-Appellant,
v.
TIMOTHY A. HOUGHTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; LORI M.K. KAHIKINA, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; CAROLEE C. KUBO, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; AND KIRK CALDWELL, MAYOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Respondents-Appellants-Appellees, and HAWAII LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, JAMES B. NICHOLSON, CHAIRPERSON; ROCK B. LEY, BOARD MEMBER; AND SESNITA A.D. MOEPONO, BOARD MEMBER, Agency-Appellees-Appellees.

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT CIVIL NOS. 03-1-0546-03, 03-1-0552-03

          Rebecca L. Covert Herbert Takahashi for Complainant-Appellant-Appellant

          Ernest H. Nomura Deputy Corporation Counsel for Respondents-Appellees-Appellees

          NAKAMURA, C.J., and LEONARD, J., with FOLEY, J., DISSENTING

          OPINION

          NAKAMURA, C.J.

         In this appeal, we are called upon to construe Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-5 (Supp. 2015) and its use of the term "original judgment" to determine whether a request to extend a judgment was made in a timely manner. HRS § 657-5 provides that "[u]nless an extension is granted, every judgment . . . of any court of the State shall be presumed to be paid and discharged at the expiration of ten years after the judgment . . . was rendered." HRS § 657-5 permits a judgment to be extended for up to an additional ten years, but imposes a time limit for seeking the extension by providing that "[n]o extension of a judgment . . . shall be granted unless the extension is sought within ten years of the date the original judgment . . . was rendered." (Emphasis added.)

         On September 22, 2003, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) entered a judgment in favor of United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO (UPW). The circuit court denied a motion to stay the judgment pending appeal, but the Hawai'i Supreme Court later stayed the judgment pending appeal on May 6, 2004. The stay was terminated on April 18, 2005, when the supreme court entered its judgment on appeal after dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On March 19, 2015, UPW filed a motion to extend judgment. The circuit court[1] denied the motion, concluding that its September 22, 2003, judgment was the "original judgment" under HRS § 657-5.

         The question presented in this appeal is whether UPW's motion to extend judgment was timely filed. The answer to this question turns on whether the circuit court's September 22, 2003, judgment or the supreme court's April 18, 2005, judgment on appeal is the "original judgment" as that term is used in HRS § 657-5. On appeal, UPW argues that the "original judgment" for purposes of HRS § 657-5 is the supreme court's April 18, 2005, judgment on appeal, and therefore, UPW's March 19, 2015, motion to extend was timely filed within the ten-year period for extending a judgment. We disagree with UPW's argument.

         We conclude that the "original judgment" as that term is used in HRS § 657-5 is the circuit court's September 22, 2003, judgment. The circuit court's judgment created "the rights and responsibilities that the moving party [(UPW)] is seeking to enforce and extend[, ]" and its entry on September 22, 2003, resulted in "a valid and enforceable judgment." Estate of Roxas v. Marcos, 121 Hawai'i 59, 67, 71, 214 P.3d 598, 606, 610 (2009) (discussing the requirements for an "original judgment" under HRS § 657-5). We further conclude that the supreme court's stay of the circuit court's judgment pending appeal tolled the running of the ten-year time period for seeking an extension of the circuit court's judgment for 348 days -- from the supreme court's granting of the stay on May 6, 2004, until the supreme court terminated the stay by filing its judgment on appeal on April 18, 2005. Therefore, UPW had ten years plus 348 days from the entry of the circuit court's September 22, 2003, judgment, that is, until September 4, 2014, to seek an extension of the circuit court's judgment. UPW, however, did not file its motion to extend judgment until March 19, 2015. Accordingly, we hold that UPW's motion to extend the "original judgment" under HRS § 657-5 was untimely and that the circuit court properly denied the motion.

         BACKGROUND

         I.

         On April 19, 2002, UPW filed a prohibited practice complaint with the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board (HLRB) against then Mayor, Jeremy Harris, and other officials of the City and County of Honolulu (collectively, City)[2] regarding an alleged agreement to restore and expand public refuse collection operations on O'ahu. In its Decision No. 440 issued on February 11, 2003, in Case No. CE-01-500, the HLRB concluded that the City had committed a prohibited practice by failing to honor and implement its contractual obligations "to avoid displacements as well as a surplus of manual refuse workers by proceeding in good faith to restore collection services for the City which had been privatized, expand services to businesses, condominiums, and churches, and compete with private haulers to contract services for miliary bases and public schools." The HLRB, however, excused the City's nonperformance of its contractual obligations based on the frustration of purpose doctrine. The HLRB further ruled that "[t]he circumstances that currently frustrate the objective of the [City's agreement with UPW] may be removed" by the Hawai'i Supreme Court's reversal of the HLRB's decision in a separate case, Case No. CE-01-465, in which event the City's "contractual obligations would again attach."

         II.

         On March 13, 2003, UPW appealed the HLRB's Decision No. 440 to the circuit court. On September 17, 2003, the circuit court[3] issued its "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Reversing and Modifying in Part, and Affirming and Enforcing in Part [the HLRB's] Decision No. 440 . . ." (September 17, 2003, Order). In its September 17, 2003, Order, the circuit court held that the HLRB erred in its application of the frustration of purpose doctrine to excuse the City's noncompliance with its agreement with UPW. The circuit court reversed the HLRB's decision solely with respect to the HLRB's invocation and application of the frustration of purpose doctrine and affirmed the HLRB's decision in all other respects. The circuit court ordered that the City

cease and desist from repudiating the agreement with UPW and shall in good faith "restore collection services for the City which had been privatized, . . . expand services to businesses, condominiums, and churches[, ] and compete with private haulers to contract services for military bases and public schools" as set forth in [the HLRB's] Decision 440[.]

         Pursuant to its September 17, 2003, Order, the circuit court entered its judgment in favor of UPW and against the City on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.