AOAO Queen Emma Gardens v. Ma

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 12, 2013
DocketSCWC-30694
StatusPublished

This text of AOAO Queen Emma Gardens v. Ma (AOAO Queen Emma Gardens v. Ma) 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.

Bluebook
AOAO Queen Emma Gardens v. Ma, (haw 2013).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30694 12-JUL-2013 01:54 PM

SCWC-30694

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

AOAO QUEEN EMMA GARDENS and TOUCHSTONE PROPERTIES, LTD., Respondents/Appellants-Respondents/Appellees,

vs.

TOMMY WAI HUNG MA and SINDY YEE MA, Petitioners/Appellees-Petitioners/Appellants,

and

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, CONDOMINIUM DISPUTE RESOLUTION PILOT PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents/Appellees/Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30694; CIVIL NO. 09-1-1257)

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) prior

to the issuance of the judgment on appeal, Plaintiffs/Appellees/

Petitioners-Appellants Tommy Wai Hung Ma and Sindy Yee Ma

(Petitioners) filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari to the

Hawai#i Supreme Court or Alternatively for Transfer (Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40.1, 40.2) challenging the

denial of attorneys’ fees; (2) after the issuance of the judgment

on appeal, Petitioners requested, and the appellate clerk

entered, a thirty-day extension of time to file an application

for a writ of certiorari; (3) Petitioners should raise all issues

related to this case, including the denial of attorneys’ fees, in

a single application for writ of certiorari; and (4) the

application for transfer is untimely. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application for Writ of

Certiorari to the Hawai#i Supreme Court or Alternatively for

Transfer (HRAP Rule 40.1, 40.2) is dismissed. This dismissal is

without prejudice to Petitioners filing, within the time provided

by the June 17, 2013 clerk’s extension, an application for a writ

of certiorari, which may include the points presented in the

dismissed application.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 12, 2013.

Stephen M. Shaw, /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald for petitioners /s/ Paula A. Nakayama Keith K. Hiraoka, Shannon L. Wack, /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. Jodie D. Roeca, for respondents /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna AOAO Queen Emma Gardens and Touchstone /s/ Richard W. Pollack Properties, Ltd.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
AOAO Queen Emma Gardens v. Ma, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aoao-queen-emma-gardens-v-ma-haw-2013.