Allure Waikiki Marketing, LLC v. State, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
This text of Allure Waikiki Marketing, LLC v. State, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Allure Waikiki Marketing, LLC v. State, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0004393 12-FEB-2014 01:02 PM
SCPW-13-0004393
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
ALLURE WAIKIKI MARKETING, LLC; and KALAKAUA RELIEF LINE, LLC, Petitioners,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAI#I DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS; and KEALI#I S. LOPEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOR THE STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioners Allure Waikiki
Marketing, LLC (“Allure Waikiki”) and Kalakaua Relief Line, LLC’s
(“KRL”) petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on October 23,
2013, respondents State of Hawai#i Department of Commerce and
Consumer Affairs (“DCCA”) and DCCA Director Keali#i S. Lopez’s
answer to the petition, filed on December 20, 2013, and
respondents’ subsequent response clarifying their position, filed
on December 26, 2013, petitioners’ stipulation and order, filed
on December 17, 2013, the respective supporting documents, and
the record, it appears that: (1) On or about March 4, 2013, Steven D. Fifield, the
manager of KRL’s former member and former manager, FRC Waikiki,
LLC, filed Articles of Termination for KRL with the DCCA pursuant
to Hawai#i’s Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, which is
promulgated under HRS ch. 428, without authority to file such
document;
(2) Once the Articles of Termination were filed, the
DCCA considered KRL to be terminated and no longer an existing
LLC;
(3) The DCCA lacks specific statutory authority to
reinstate a LLC that was terminated by the filing of a Articles
of Termination and will not reinstate such a LLC absent court
order;
(4) Respondents are agreeable to reinstating KRL as a
LLC retroactively to March 4, 2013, but reserve the right to
object to and submit legal arguments against similar petitions
filed in the future concerning the reinstatement of a terminated
LLC or any other challenges to their filing duty and procedure
under HRS ch. 428; and
(5) The parties agree that they will be responsible
for their own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Under the specific facts and circumstances presented in
this proceeding, and the DCCA and Lopez’s position with respect
to KRL’s reinstatement as a LLC, a writ of mandamus is warranted
at this time. Accordingly,
2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is granted to the extent that respondents are directed
to reinstate KRL as a LLC retroactively to March 4, 2013.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 12, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Allure Waikiki Marketing, LLC v. State, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allure-waikiki-marketing-llc-v-state-department-of-haw-2014.