*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
25-JUN-2026
11:03 AM
Dkt. 25 OP
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
---o0o---ATC MAKENA N GOLF LLC, ATC MAKENA S GOLF LLC,
ATC MAKENA LAND SF1 LLC, ATC MAKENA LAND MF1 LLC,
ATC MAKENA LAND MF2 LLC, ATC MAKENA LAND MF3 LLC,
ATC MAKENA LAND C1 LLC, ATC MAKENA LAND U1 LLC,
ATC MAKENA LAND B1 LLC, ATC MAKENA LAND MF4 LLC,
ATC MAKENA LAND SF2 LLC AND ATC MAKENA LAND AH1 LLC,
Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
AZIZI KAIAMA,
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
JUNE 25, 2026
DEVENS, C.J., McKENNA, EDDINS, AND GINOZA, JJ.,
AND CIRCUIT JUDGE NAKAMOTO, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY
OPINION OF THE COURT BY DEVENS, C.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal arises from a lawsuit for trespass and
nuisance. Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellees ATC Makena N Golf
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
LLC, et al. (ATC Makena) filed suit in the Circuit Court of the
Second Circuit (circuit court) seeking damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief against self-represented
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Azizi Kaiama (Kaiama). The two
primary issues before us relate to a discovery sanction assessed
against Kaiama and the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment
in ATC Makena’s favor.
During the underlying proceedings, ATC Makena filed a
motion to compel discovery against Kaiama. The circuit court
granted the motion and awarded ATC Makena $5,067.67 in attorney
fees as a discovery sanction against Kaiama. The Intermediate
Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the sanction, finding that the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding such
fees. We agree.
ATC Makena also filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ)
on its claims, which the circuit court granted. As the
prevailing party, ATC Makena was awarded $91,563.72 in attorney
fees and costs. The ICA affirmed the summary judgment decision
but vacated the award of fees and costs. 1
We hold that because there was a genuine issue of material
fact relating to ATC Makena’s asserted ownership of two smaller
1 ATC Makena has not appealed the ICA’s vacatur of this fees and costs award.
2
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
parcels within the larger subject property, summary judgment on
ATC Makena’s claims as it relates to those two parcels was
inappropriately granted.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Parcels At Issue
ATC Makena purchased Tax Parcel 108 of Tax Map Key (TMK)
Number (2) 2-1-005 consisting of approximately 489 acres in the
moku of Honuaʻula, Maui (Property), “as is,” at a public auction
following a foreclosure action. 2 Relevant to this appeal are two
smaller parcels within the larger Property, identified as: (1)
Land Commission Award (LCA) No. 2602 / Royal Patent (RP) No.
6233, ʻĀpana 2 (0.34 of an acre) in the ʻili of Manuanua, awarded
to Piena on September 18, 1854; and (2) Royal Patent Grant (RPG)
1228, ʻĀpana 1 (6.88 acres) in Moʻomuku and Moʻoloa, purchased by
Piena on August 31, 1853 (Piena Parcels).
B. Circuit Court Proceedings 3
1. ATC Makena’s Complaint for Trespass and Nuisance
On April 16, 2020, ATC Makena filed a complaint against
2 Hawaiʻi land divisions include: “moku,” defined in part as “district” or “island”; “ahupuaʻa,” a “land division usually extending from the uplands to the sea”; “ʻili,” “usually a subdivision of an ahupuaʻa”; and “ʻāpana,” defined (in part) as a “piece, slice, portion, . . . land parcel, lot[.]” Mary Kawena Pukui & Samuel H. Elbert, Hawaiian Dictionary, 252, 9, 97, 28 (6th ed. 1986).
3 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill initially presided; after his recusal, the Honorable Kelsey T. Kawano presided.
3
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Kaiama for civil trespass to land (Count I) and nuisance (Count
II). ATC Makena alleged that Kaiama entered and remained on the
Property, altered the land, and placed personal property and
refuse there without ATC Makena’s permission, and did not vacate
the Property when asked repeatedly to remove herself and her
things. ATC Makena’s complaint requested that the circuit
court: declare Kaiama to be a trespasser to the Property; enter
a writ or order and judgment of ejectment or possession
divesting Kaiama and all persons claiming through her of
occupancy and possession of the Property; and award attorney
fees and costs in the matter.
Kaiama answered by claiming that she was “the rightful heir
and owner of all Royal Patent Lands to Piena and Piena Heirs
‘forever’ in Moʻoloa and Moʻomuku,” she had a superior claim to
all “Piena Royal Lands,” including ʻili (plural) within the
Property, and that ATC Makena was a trespasser on the Piena
Parcels.
2. ATC Makena’s Motion to Compel Discovery; Award of
Discovery Sanctions 4
On June 1, 2020, ATC Makena filed a motion to compel
discovery from Kaiama, asserting that Kaiama’s interrogatory
answers were “incomplete and inadequate,” and she “did not
4 Judge Kawano presided.
4
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
produce any documents” in response to their document requests.
The motion also requested the award of the attorney fees and
costs that ATC Makena incurred in making the motion as a
discovery sanction against Kaiama pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of
Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 37. 5 In opposing the motion, Kaiama
did not provide any discernable justification for failing to
appropriately comply with ATC Makena’s discovery requests.
The circuit court orally granted ATC Makena’s motion to
compel during a hearing held on September 16, 2020. 6
5 HRCP Rule 37(a)(4) (eff. 2015) provided in relevant part that:
If the motion [to compel discovery] is granted or if the
disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the
motion was filed, the court shall, after affording an
opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent
whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or
attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to
the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making
the motion, including attorney’s fees, unless the court
finds that the motion was filed without the movant’s first
making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or
discovery without court action, or that the opposing
party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was
substantially justified, or that other circumstances make
an award of expenses unjust.
HRCP Rule 37(a)(4)(A) (emphases added).
6 Neither party included the hearing transcript in the record on appeal. However, the circuit court’s minutes, although sparse, noted in relevant part:
- hearing held
- court strongly urge defendant to obtain legal counsel
- court grants motion as to all relief being requested
- court denied the oral motion for protective order to the
extent that party seem to suggest that documents should be
submitted as in-court in-camera review
- movant will prepare the order and submit proposed
declaration in support for attorneys[’] fees and costs
5
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Kaiama filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of Sanctions” on
September 22, 2020 and a nearly identical motion two days later. 7
Kaiama’s motion did not provide a discernable reason for
reconsideration of the circuit court’s discovery order and award
of ATC Makena’s incurred fees and costs.
On September 30, 2020, the circuit court entered its
written order granting ATC Makena’s motion to compel discovery
and request for sanctions. 8 Kaiama was ordered to turn over all
requested discovery within seven days, and ATC Makena’s counsel
was directed to submit a declaration of their fees and costs.
On October 7, 2020, ATC Makena’s counsel filed a
declaration itemizing their attorney fees in the total amount of
$5,067.67, which included time incurred by a paralegal. 9 On
October 8, 2020, the circuit court entered a discovery sanction
order awarding $5,067.67 in fees against Kaiama.
On October 16, 2020, Kaiama filed a motion to reconsider
the circuit court’s discovery sanction order but failed to
(Emphasis added.)
7 The second motion for reconsideration mirrored the first except for added citations from the State of Hawaiʻi’s Admissions Act, and the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi’s constitutions of 1852 and 1864.
8 The circuit court’s October 8, 2020 order also denied Kaiama’s oral motion for protective order to have the court review her documents in-camera.
9 ATC Makena’s counsel’s declaration stated that they were not requesting the fees incurred by one of their attorneys (approximately $8,500.00).
6
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
contest the bases or reasonableness of the awarded fees. The
motion was denied on November 6, 2020.
3. ATC Makena’s Motion for Summary Judgment
On August 4, 2021, ATC Makena filed an MSJ on its claims.
ATC Makena’s motion included a declaration from Colleen H.
Uahinui (Uahinui Declaration), who indicated that she had
researched ATC Makena’s title related to the Piena Parcels. 10
Significantly, Uahinui explained that after the Piena
Parcels were granted to Piena in August 1853 (RPG No. 1228) and
September 1854 (LCA No. 2602), “[n]o conveyances appear of
record by PIENA dealing with the subject lands, likewise, there
is no probate proceeding of this estate.” She further explained
that an individual identified as “Kapeka” and her husband S.W.P.
Kaaiai next appear in the chain of title conveying the Piena
Parcels to Mary Waiwaiole in a May 13, 1901 recorded deed. The
Uahinui Declaration appears to quote a translation of the Bureau
of Conveyance’s (BOC) entry of the 1901 deed, originally written
in Hawaiian, where Uahinui characterizes Kapeka as “‘the own
daughter of Piena, deceased[.]’” 11 But the Uahinui Declaration
10 ATC Makena’s MSJ did not reference any prior quiet title or adverse possession proceedings relating to the Piena Parcels.
11 ATC Makena’s MSJ included the Declaration of Doris Moana Rowland (Rowland Declaration), the translator of the 1901 recorded deed. The Rowland Declaration stated that the phrase used in the 1901 deed was “kaikamahine ponoi a Piena I make[.]” The Rowland Declaration and the circuit court’s
7
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
did not trace or explain how Kapeka came into ownership of the
parcels during the nearly fifty-year gap that elapsed between
the initial award and grant of the parcels to Piena in the
1850’s and Kapeka’s appearance and conveyance to Mary Waiwaiole
in 1901. Nor did the declaration specify what Kapeka’s
ownership interest was in the Piena Parcels, which Kapeka
purported to convey.
Uahinui concluded that following the subsequent conveyances
in the “chain of title to the Piena Parcels and Subject
Property, it is my opinion that title is insurable to [ATC
Makena].”
ATC Makena’s MSJ also included Kaiama’s answer to the
complaint and her answers to ATC Makena’s interrogatory
requests, in which Kaiama (inter alia) asserted that she was the
rightful owner of the Piena Parcels and ATC Makena were not the
real titled land owners; and she also provided names in her
genealogy allegedly tracing back to “Piena” to whom the land
award and land grant for the Piena Parcels was issued. 12
During the September 1, 2021 hearing on ATC Makena’s MSJ,
Kaiama contested, among other things, the genealogy of Kapeka
findings slightly misquoted the exact language of the deed’s phrase: “ke kaikamahine ponoi a Piena (k) i make[.]”
12 Kaiama did not file an opposition to the MSJ.
8
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
and ownership of the Piena Parcels. The circuit court orally
granted ATC Makena’s MSJ.
On September 10, 2021, Kaiama filed a motion to vacate the
circuit court’s grant of summary judgment.
On September 22, 2021, the circuit court entered: (1)
written Findings of Fact [(FOFs)], Conclusions of Law [(COLs)]
and Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
Filed on August 4, 2021 (summary judgment order); (2) an Order
Denying Non-Hearing Motion to Vacate Judgment From September 1,
2021 Hearing, Filed On September 10, 2021; (3) a Writ of
Possession against Kaiama; and (4) Final Judgment for ATC
Makena. The circuit court awarded ATC Makena, the prevailing
party, their attorney fees and costs in the amount of
$91,563.72.
Relevantly, the circuit court’s FOF 6 stated that
“Plaintiffs’ title to the Piena Parcels is continuous and
unbroken from PIENA’s daughter, KAPEKA, to Plaintiffs”; and that
“Through KAPEKA, Plaintiffs’ title traces back to KAPEKA’s
father, PIENA, the original grantee of the Piena Parcels.” And
in COL 12, the circuit court concluded that “Plaintiffs’ title
to the Piena Parcels is continuous and unbroken from PIENA’s
daughter, KAPEKA, to Plaintiffs.”
9
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
4. ICA Proceedings
Kaiama appealed to the ICA, challenging the circuit court’s
grant of summary judgment, the discovery sanction against her,
and the award of prevailing party attorney fees and costs to ATC
Makena.
In its summary disposition order (SDO), the ICA concluded
that “the circuit court found that ATC Makena’s title to the
subject property was continuous and unbroken, and that ATC
Makena paid the property taxes since acquiring the subject
property.” Further, the ICA determined that “[t]hese findings
[were] not challenged and are supported by the record,” citing
to Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450,
458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002) for the principle that “[f]indings of
fact . . . not challenged on appeal are binding on the appellate
court[.]”
The ICA also concluded that the discovery sanction assessed
against Kaiama was not an abuse of discretion. However, the ICA
found that the prevailing party award of attorney fees and costs
to ATC Makena exceeded the circuit court’s discretion. 13 The ICA
reversed, in relevant part, the circuit court’s Final Judgment
and summary judgment order pertaining to the prevailing party
13 As stated, the ICA’s vacatur of ATC Makena’s prevailing party fees and costs is not before us.
10
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
fees and costs award, but otherwise affirmed. Judgment on
appeal was entered on March 20, 2025.
We granted Kaiama’s application for writ of certiorari.
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Summary Judgment
We review the circuit court’s grant or denial of summary
judgment de novo. Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State, 156 Hawaiʻi
478, 486-87, 575 P.3d 568, 576-77 (2025). “[F]indings of fact
made by a trial court in relation to a summary judgment ruling
are not binding on appeal, nor do they alter our de novo
standard of review regarding a summary judgment ruling.” Id. at
487, 575 P.3d at 577.
Summary judgment shall be granted “if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” HRCP Rule 56(c)
(eff. 2000). “A fact is material if proof of that fact would
have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential
elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the
parties.” Gima v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 156 Hawaiʻi 78,
88, 569 P.3d 1262, 1272 (2025) (quotation and citation omitted).
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment,
11
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
[t]he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. In other words, we must view all
of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light
most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
Nuuanu Valley Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 119 Hawaiʻi 90,
96, 194 P.3d 531, 537 (2008) (quotation and citation omitted);
Gima, 156 Hawaiʻi at 88, 569 P.3d at 1272; see HRCP Rule 56(c).
B. HRCP Rule 37 Sanctions
“This court reviews the circuit court’s imposition of
sanctions for discovery abuse . . . under the abuse of
discretion standard.” Fujimoto v. Au, 95 Hawaiʻi 116, 137, 19
P.3d 699, 720 (2001) (cleaned up). See also Wong v. City and
County of Honolulu, 66 Haw. 389, 394, 665 P.2d 157, 161 (1983)
(applying the abuse of discretion standard to HRCP Rule 37
sanctions).
IV. DISCUSSION
This court has held that filings by self-represented
litigants should be “liberally interpreted in order to promote
access to justice.” Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 391, 465
P.3d 815, 838 (2020). So construed, Kaiama’s appeal asserts
that the ICA erred in affirming the circuit court’s findings and
conclusions related to ATC Makena’s trespass and nuisance claims
and the award of discovery sanctions against her.
A. Summary judgment was improperly granted.
Kaiama argues that ATC Makena’s MSJ provided “broken title”
12
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
and did not establish ownership of the Piena Parcels, and thus
the ICA erred in affirming that there was no genuine issue of
material fact as to ATC Makena’s ownership of the Piena
Parcels. 14 We agree.
In an action for trespass, the essence of the tort lies in
the deprivation of or interruption in the possession. Gomes v.
Perry, 26 Haw. 661, 664 (Haw. Terr. 1922). But where title is
at issue in such an action, “it becomes similar to the action of
ejectment, and the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove [their]
title.” Mew Kung Tung v. Wong Ka Mau, 8 Haw. 557, 559 (Haw.
Prov. Gov. 1893). And “an action of trespass settles nothing in
regard to the title beyond the action tried.” Id.
This court has stated that to meet the requirements for
ejectment,
the plaintiff “must necessarily prove that [he or she] owns
the parcel[] in issue,” State v. Magoon, 75 Haw. 164, 175,
858 P.2d 712, 718-19 (1993); see State v. Midkiff, 49 Haw.
456, 460, 421 P.2d 550, 554 (1966), meaning that he or she
must have “the title to and right of possession of” such
parcel, Carter v. Kaikainahaole, 14 Haw. 515, 516 (Haw.
Terr. 1902). Additionally, the plaintiff must establish
that “possession is unlawfully withheld by another.” Id.
Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Matsuyoshi, 136 Hawaiʻi 227, 241, 361
P.3d 454, 468 (2015) (brackets in original). Further, “in
ejectment a plaintiff must recover upon the strength of his own
14 Kaiama’s filings, and the record on appeal, do not present a discernable challenge to other specific parcels within the Property other than the Piena Parcels.
13
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
title and not upon any weakness in the defendant’s title.”
Midkiff, 49 Haw. at 460, 421 P.2d at 554 (quoting Fong Hing v.
Yamaoka, 31 Haw. 436, 438 (Haw. Terr. 1930)).
In Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui, this court observed that
“[t]o establish legally cognizable private title to land .
. . one must show that he or a predecessor-in-interest
acquired a [LCA], a Royal Patent, a Kamehameha Deed, a
Grant, a Royal Patent Grant, or other government grant for
the land in question.” [State by Kobayashi v. Zimring, 58
Haw. 106, 114, 566 P.2d 725, 731 (1977)] (citing Thurston
v. Bishop, 7 Haw. 421 ([Haw. Kingdom] 1888); In re Title of
Pa Pelekane, 21 Haw. 175 ([Haw. Terr.] 1912)); see also
Rose v. Yoshimura, 11 Haw. 30, 32 ([Haw. Rep.] 1897)
(stating that “neither the Mahele . . . nor an application
for an award gave any title, and . . . until an award was
made by the [Land Commission] or by the Minister of the
Interior (after 1860), the land must be considered to still
belong to the government[ ]” (internal citations omitted)).
116 Hawaiʻi 239, 248, 172 P.3d 983, 992 (2007) (emphases added).
In the present case, ATC Makena sued Kaiama for damages, in
part, for her trespass upon the Property; and Kaiama challenged
ATC Makena’s title to the Piena Parcels, a subsection of the
Property. With title challenged in a trespass claim treated
similarly to an action for ejectment, ATC Makena was required to
establish their title to the Piena Parcels (the burden of
proving title in themselves).
Reviewing de novo, we therefore examine whether ATC
Makena’s evidence affirmatively established no genuine issue of
material fact as to their required showing that a predecessor in
interest acquired the land commission award and the government
14
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
grant for the Piena Parcels. 15 Based on the evidence submitted
by ATC Makena, viewed in the light most favorable to Kaiama, we
conclude that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether and how Kapeka acquired title to or an ownership
interest from Piena in the Piena Parcels before she purportedly
sold those parcels in the 1901 recorded deed.
The ICA stated that “the circuit court found that ATC
Makena’s title to the subject property was continuous and
unbroken[.]” Respectfully, this was a mischaracterization, as
the circuit court instead found that “Plaintiffs’ title to the
Piena Parcels is continuous and unbroken from PIENA’s daughter,
KAPEKA, to Plaintiffs” (emphasis added). 16 The circuit court
then stated that “[t]hrough KAPEKA, Plaintiffs’ title traces
back to KAPEKA’s father, PIENA, the original grantee of the
15 In reviewing a circuit court’s findings and conclusions in its summary judgment order, an appellate court is not bound by findings unchallenged by an appellant. Hilo Bay Marina, 156 Hawaiʻi at 487-88, 575 P.3d at 577-78 (ruling that “[c]onsistent with this holding, we overrule past decisions to the extent that they treat a trial court’s unchallenged findings associated with summary judgment rulings as binding on the appellate court”).
Here, the ICA, citing to Okada Trucking Co., 97 Hawaiʻi at 458, 40 P.3d at 81, characterized the circuit court as having found that “ATC Makena’s title to the subject property was continuous and unbroken” and “that ATC Makena paid the property taxes since acquiring the subject property”; and then, for lack of Kaiama’s express challenge of these findings, the ICA concluded these findings were binding on the appellate court. As the ICA’s SDO here was issued prior to our Hilo Bay Marina published decision, we note that pursuant to Hilo Bay Marina, unchallenged findings are not binding on an appellate court reviewing a summary judgment decision.
16 The circuit court repeated this in COL 12, concluding that “Plaintiffs’ title to the Piena Parcels is continuous and unbroken from PIENA’s daughter, KAPEKA, to Plaintiffs.” (Emphasis added.)
15
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Piena Parcels.” (Emphases added.) The circuit court did not
find that ATC Makena established “continuous and unbroken” title
from Piena to themselves, and more importantly, there is no
evidence as to how Kapeka acquired title to or her ownership
interest in the Piena Parcels in the first instance.
ATC Makena’s evidence did not demonstrate how Kapeka may
have acquired the Piena Parcels from Piena. The Land Commission
issued Award No. 2602, ʻĀpana 2 to Piena in 1854 (with RP No.
6233 issued by the Minister of the Interior on the same in June
1869), and RPG No. 1228, ʻĀpana 1 was granted to Piena in 1853 by
the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. The Uahinui Declaration unequivocally
stated that “[n]o conveyances appear of record by PIENA dealing
with the subject lands, likewise, there is no probate proceeding
of this estate” of Piena. And Kapeka’s conveyance of her
putative interest in the Piena Parcels to Mary Waiwaiole was in
1901.
The challenge to title in a trespass action requires a
plaintiff recover upon the strength of their own title and not
upon any weakness in the defendant’s title. Midkiff, 49 Haw. at
460, 421 P.2d at 554; Fong Hing, 31 Haw. at 438.
With all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the
evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Kaiama, ATC
Makena’s evidence presents an unexplained break of nearly five
16
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
decades in the chain of their claimed title to the Piena
Parcels. It is unclear how the evidence that Kapeka was Piena’s
“kaikamahine ponoi,” in the absence of other evidence,
necessarily establishes Kapeka’s valid receipt of a property
interest in the Piena Parcels during the almost fifty years in
which, according to the Uahinui Declaration, no conveyances from
Piena or probate proceedings appear.
ATC Makena’s evidence established a genuine issue of
material fact regarding if, and how, any ownership interest in
the Piena Parcels was conveyed or passed from Piena to Kapeka
during the nearly half-century gap between the government’s LCA
and RPG in the 1850s and the 1901 deed to Mary Waiwaiole. Thus,
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to ATC Makena’s
deraignment of title from Piena, the original awardee and grant
recipient.
On this record, we hold that summary judgment was
inappropriately granted on ATC Makena’s claims as it relates to
the Piena Parcels.
B. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding
a discovery sanction against Kaiama.
Liberally construing Kaiama’s appeal to this court, she
appears to challenge the ICA’s affirmance of the circuit court’s
discovery sanction against her.
17
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Again, HRCP Rule 37 provides:
If the motion [to compel discovery] is granted or if the
disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the
motion was filed, the court shall, after affording an
opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent
whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or
attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to
the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making
the motion, including attorney’s fees, unless the court
finds that the motion was filed without the movant’s first
making a good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or
discovery without court action, or that the opposing
party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was
substantially justified, or that other circumstances make
an award of expenses unjust.
HRCP Rule 37(a)(4)(A).
ATC Makena’s motion to compel discovery included a request
for attorney fees and costs. The exhibits and declarations
submitted in support of this motion documented their counsel’s
attempts to meet and confer with Kaiama to address her deficient
discovery responses. Kaiama’s opposition to ATC Makena’s motion
called ATC Makena’s request for attorney fees “rude” and accused
their attorneys of corruption. As to the discovery requested by
ATC Makena, Kaiama’s filing also stated, “I did not and still
don’t need to show them who I am[,] only to a Supreme Court
Judge because why? I AM A REAL ROYAL[.]”
The circuit court orally granted ATC Makena’s motion to
compel discovery and the request for attorney’s fees and costs
at the conclusion of the September 11, 2020 hearing on the
motion.
18
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Kaiama was afforded an opportunity to be heard but did not
directly challenge the reasonableness of the $5,067.67 discovery
sanction levied against her. 17 Based on this record, the circuit
court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm the discovery
sanction against Kaiama.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we vacate the ICA’s Judgment on
Appeal in relevant part, as well as the circuit court’s Final
Judgment and summary judgment order in relevant part, and remand
to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Azizi Kaiama,
self-represented petitioner /s/ Vladimir P. Devens
Craig G. Nakamura, /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna Catherine M. Hall,
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
Peter A. Horovitz,
Loren K. Tilley, and /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Kristine N.Y.K. Tsukiyama
for respondents /s/ Henry T. Nakamoto
17 The circuit court denied Kaiama’s motion for reconsideration of the awarded sanction.
19