Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.
This text of Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.) 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 SCCQ-11-0000747 08-NOV-2011 02:33 PM
NO. SCCQ-11-0000747
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
BERT VILLON and MARK APANA, Plaintiffs,
vs.
MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., dba WAILEA MARRIOTT RESORT,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------- RENELDO RODRIGUEZ and JOHNSON BASLER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC.,
dba WESTIN MAUI RESORT & SPA, Defendant.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER ON CERTIFIED QUESTION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the October 11, 2011 order of the
United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i
requesting the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i to answer
certified questions identified as questions #1, #2 and #3, it
appears that question #1 -- and only that question -- is amenable
to answer by this court pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 13 inasmuch as the October 11, 2011 order certifies, as to question #1, but not as to questions #2 and #3,
that the question concerns the law of Hawai'i that is
determinative of the plaintiffs’ cause and that there is no clear
controlling precedent in the Hawai'i judicial decisions. See
HRAP Rule 13. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, without conclusively determining
whether this court will answer question #1, that:
1. Pursuant to HRAP Rule 28(e), plaintiffs Bert Villon
and Mark Apana and plaintiffs Reneldo Rodriguez and Johnson
Basler are designated appellants for purposes of this proceeding
and shall collectively pay the required filing fee for an
original proceeding in this court.
2. Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. and
defendant Starwood Hotels & Resorts, Inc. are designated
appellees for this proceeding.
3. Pursuant to HRAP Rule 13(c), the plaintiffs-
appellants shall make all necessary arrangements with the clerk
of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i
to transmit the original or certified copies of the pending
federal court cases to this court. It shall be the
responsibility of the plaintiffs-appellants to ensure that the
record is received in this court within thirty days from the date
of this order.
4. After the record is filed in the supreme court,
plaintiffs-appellants Villon and Apana and plaintiffs-appellants
Rodriguez and Basler shall each file an opening brief within the
time provided by HRAP Rule 28(b). The opening briefs shall
conform to the format and content requirements of HRAP Rule 28,
insofar as applicable. A statement of jurisdiction pursuant to
HRAP Rule 12.1 is not necessary.
5. Thereafter, defendant-appellee Marriott shall file
an answering brief to plaintiffs-appellants Villon and Apana’s
opening brief. Defendant-appellee Starwood shall file an
answering brief to plaintiffs-appellants Rodriguez and Basler’s
opening brief. The answering briefs shall be filed within the
time provided by HRAP Rule 28(c) and shall conform to the format
and content requirements of HRAP Rule 28, insofar as applicable.
6. The plaintiffs-appellants may file reply briefs in
accordance with HRAP Rule 28(d).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai' November 8, 2011. i,
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villon-v-marriott-hotel-services-inc-haw-2011.