Rodriguez v. Mauna Kea Resort LLC

560 P.3d 478, 155 Haw. 223

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-21-0000687
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 12-DEC-2024 07:51 AM Dkt. 49 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

RENELDO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAUNA KEA RESORT LLC; HAWAII PRINCE HOTEL WAIKIKI LLC; PRINCE RESORTS HAWAII, INC., Defendants-Appellants, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CC161002191)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendants-Appellants Mauna Kea Resort LLC, Hawaii

Prince Hotel Waikiki LLC, and Prince Resorts Hawaii, Inc. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(collectively Mauna Kea), appeal from the "Stipulation for Entry

of Judgment Under [Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule]

54(B) and Order" (Judgment), filed on November 12, 2021 by the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).1

I. BACKGROUND

This is a class action brought by Plaintiff-Appellee

Reneldo Rodriguez (Rodriguez), individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated, against Mauna Kea.2 From June 17 to

August 16, 2016, Rodriguez worked at a hotel operated by Mauna

Kea as a banquet department food server/waiter. It is

undisputed that, during the period of time relevant to this

matter,3 Mauna Kea charged its hotel customers a "service charge"

or "gratuity" on food and beverage sales, which it calculated as

a percentage of the total cost of food and beverage purchased.

For banquets, events, meetings, room service, and other

instances, Mauna Kea added a predetermined "service charge" for

food and beverage provided by its hotels, which was generally

calculated as 15% to 21% of the total food and beverage cost.

It is further undisputed that Mauna Kea did not distribute the

entire amount of the service charge collected to its employees

1 The Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presided.

2 Rodriguez moved for class certification in April 2017, and the circuit court certified the class in August 2017.

3 At issue are Mauna Kea's disclosures, in their catering contracts, between 2010 and 2017.

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

as tip income, and that Mauna Kea provided written disclosures

to customers that the service charges would not be distributed

in full to employees. Most of these disclosures did not specify

the actual percentage or amount of the service charge that would

be distributed to employees.

Rodriguez alleged in his complaint that Mauna Kea

violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 481B-14 (Supp. 2023),

which provides in relevant part that,

(a) Any: (1) Hotel or restaurant that applies a service charge for the sale of food or beverage services; or (2) Hotel that applies a service charge for porterage services; shall distribute the service charge directly to its employees as tip income or clearly disclose to the purchaser of the services that the service charge is being used to pay for costs or expenses other than wages and tips of employees.

HRS § 481B-14 (emphasis added). Rodriguez alleged that, due to

its failure to "clearly disclose" its retention of a certain

portion of the service charge, Mauna Kea engaged in unfair

methods of competition, in violation of HRS § 480-2 (2008), and

the unauthorized withholding of wages, in violation of HRS

§ 388-6 (2015).

Rodriguez and Mauna Kea both filed motions for summary

judgment (MSJ) in July 2018. Mauna Kea contended that Rodriguez

could not prove, as required pursuant to HRS §§ 480-2 and 388-6,

that Mauna Kea failed to satisfy the disclosure requirements set

forth in HRS § 481B-14. Rodriguez contended that, because Mauna

3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Kea did not "clearly disclose" that its service charge would be

used for costs other than tips, he was entitled to judgment on

liability and damages as a matter of law.

The circuit court, limiting its ruling to the question

of liability – i.e., whether Mauna Kea's disclosures were

adequate pursuant to HRS § 481B-14 – granted summary judgment in

favor of Rodriguez and against Mauna Kea. In its "Amended Order

Granting in Part and Denying in Part [Rodriguez's] Motion for

Summary Judgment[,]" the circuit court ruled,

1. The Court GRANTS in part [Rodriguez's MSJ] as to the issue of [Mauna Kea's] liability to [Rodriguez] on the claim based upon [Mauna Kea's] violation of HRS §481B-14 due to [Mauna Kea's] failure to specify the portion of the service charge that was distributed to employees.

2. The Court DENIES in part [Rodriguez's MSJ] as to the issues set forth in [Rodriguez's] Supplemental Memorandum. Withdrawing their prior request for a ruling on damages, that portion of [Rodriguez's] Motion is denied without prejudice.

The circuit court denied Mauna Kea's MSJ.

The circuit court entered an HRCP Rule 54(b) Judgment

as to its summary judgment ruling on liability, and this appeal

followed.

II. POINTS OF ERROR

Mauna Kea raises two points of error on appeal,

contending that: (1) the circuit court erred when it granted

Rodriguez's MSJ and denied Mauna Kea's MSJ; and (2) the circuit

court's conclusion with respect to the disclosure requirements

under HRS § 481B-14 was wrong as a matter of law.

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal

authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments

advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Mauna

Kea's contentions as follows:4

(1) Mauna Kea contends that the circuit court's

conclusion as to the meaning of HRS § 481B-14 was wrong because

"HRS § 481B-14 does not require specificity of the precise

amounts being distributed and retained." The appellate court

reviews the trial court's conclusions of law de novo under the

right/wrong standard. State v. Eager, 140 Hawaiʻi 167, 173, 398

P.3d 756, 762 (2017) (citation omitted).

We conclude that the circuit court wrongly

interpreted HRS § 481B-14 to require service charge disclosures

to specify the actual amount distributed to employees. We start

by considering the plain language of HRS § 481B-14, which

requires hotels and restaurants to either distribute the entire

amount of the service charge to employees, or to "clearly

disclose to the purchaser of the services that the service

charge is being used to pay for costs or expenses other than

wages and tips of employees." As the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court has

explained,

[T]he plain language of HRS § 481B-14 require[s] [d]efendants to either distribute one-hundred percent of the service charge to employees as "tip income" or disclose

4 We take Mauna Kea's points of error out of order, so as to first address the underlying question of HRS § 481B-14's interpretation.

5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

their retention of a portion of the service charge to customers.

Gurrobat v. HTH Corp., 133 Hawaiʻi 1, 18, 323 P.3d 792, 809

(2014).

Prior cases have exhaustively considered the

legislative intent of HRS § 481B-14 as follows,

HRS § 481B-14's requirements set the expectancy or performance interest for the purchasers of food or beverage services to which a hotel or restaurant applies a service charge. Under the statute, those purchasers are entitled to expect that the service charge will be distributed directly and entirely to service employees as tip income. That expectancy interest can be overcome or negated only if the hotel or restaurant clearly discloses to those purchasers that the hotel or restaurant follows a pattern of distributing the proceeds of a service charge in a way that diverges from the distribution pattern specified by the statute.

. . . .

In essence, HRS § 481B-14 gives legal force and form to the ordinary consumer expectation that service charges are to be distributed in their entirety to service personnel and not diverted to other uses by the hotel or restaurant. HRS § 481B-14 authorizes a departure from the distribution pattern based on the ordinary consumer expectation only where the hotel or restaurant "clearly discloses" that its pattern of distributing service charges diverges from the pattern specified by the statute. As noted, those two "either/or" alternatives, incorporated into contracts governed by HRS § 481B-14 as implied terms, set the expectancy interest of purchasers of the relevant services.

By enacting HRS § 481B-14, the legislature intended to require hotels and restaurants to 'meet the consumer expectations' that the service charge will be distributed to service personnel in lieu of a voluntary gratuity, not dedicated to some other purpose or diverted to some other party. Thus, the statute aims to structure the relevant transactions such that a hotel or restaurant's pattern of distributing proceeds from service charges to its service employees will accord with normal consumer expectations. The statute accomplishes that aim by setting up a baseline distribution pattern for service charges, together with a means by which a hotel or restaurant can escape being bound by that baseline by clearly disclosing to the purchaser that it does not follow the baseline distribution pattern.

6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Kawakami v. Kahala Hotel Invs., LLC, 142 Hawaiʻi 507, 514—15, 421

P.3d 1277, 1284—85 (2018) (emphasis added) (cleaned up).

Neither the plain language, legislative history, nor

the case law interpreting the legislative history of HRS § 481B-

14, instructs that a hotel or restaurant must specify with

particularity the fraction or percentage of the service charge

that is distributed to employees. Rather, the statutory

language, as interpreted by the Hawaiʻi appellate courts,

contemplates that a hotel or restaurant "clearly disclose" to

customers if it is not following the baseline statutory pattern

of distributing service charges directly and entirely to its

employees.

We thus conclude that the circuit court wrongly

interpreted HRS § 481B-14 as requiring Mauna Kea to disclose the

specific percentage or amount of the service charge distributed

to employees, thus imposing requirements beyond the scope of the

statutory language.

(2) We review the circuit court's summary judgment

rulings de novo, applying the following standard,

Summary judgment is appropriate 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 judgment as a matter of law. 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. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In other words, we must

7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

view all of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawaiʻi 46, 55—56, 292 P.3d 1276, 1285—86

(2013) (citation omitted).

"[A] summary judgment movant may satisfy his or her

initial burden of production by either (1) presenting evidence

negating an element of the non-movant's claim, or (2)

demonstrating that the nonmovant will be unable to carry his or

her burden of proof at trial." Id. at 60, 292 P.3d at 1290

(citations omitted).

For the reasons discussed in section (1) supra, we

find that Rodriguez failed to meet his burden of establishing a

genuine dispute as to the alleged insufficiency of Mauna Kea's

service charge disclosures. We further find that Mauna Kea met

its burden of establishing that its service charge disclosures

were sufficient pursuant to HRS § 481B-14. On this basis, the

circuit court erred in granting Rodriguez's MSJ, and in denying

Mauna Kea's MSJ.

8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the circuit

court's Judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent

with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, December 12, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Richard M. Rand, for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge Brandee J.K. Faria, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge