Category: New Opinions

Tick tock, tick tock: Time is running out!  In May, the United States Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued a Final Rule, modernizing the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), doubling the threshold at which employees are “exempt” from overtime pay, making nearly five million currently “exempt” employees “non-exempt” and eligible… Continue Reading
Updated on January 29, 2016 On January 20, 2016, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) released an “Administrator’s Interpretation” of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) with respect to joint employment.  A week later, on January 27th, the DOL followed up with a “Fact Sheet” on the… Continue Reading
A trick I learned in law school is that if you want to understand a statute, look to the introduction of a Supreme Court case interpreting it.  The SCOTUS decision today for King v. Burwell is a perfect example. The Court ruled that the ACA may provide nationwide tax… Continue Reading
Yesterday, the Supreme Court released its much-anticipated decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., a case raising issues about the extent of an employer’s duty to accommodate religious beliefs and practices. The Court’s decision, (8-1), was penned by Justice Scalia, with Justice Alito concurring, and Justice Thomas… Continue Reading
A post-judgment motion for costs under HRCP Rule 54(d)(1) does not qualify as a timely motion for purposes of the tolling and deemed denial provisions of HRAP Rule 4(a)(3). Woodruff v Hawai’i Pacific Health, No. 29447, 2014 WL 128607 (Haw. App. Slip Op. Jan. 14, 2014) By Anderson Meyer In January of this year, the State of Hawai`i Intermediate Court of Appeals clarified that, after the 2006 amendments to HRAP Rule 4, an HRCP Rule 54(d) post-judgment motion for costs does not trigger the tolling provisions of HRAP Rule 4. Procedural Background: October 6, 2008: Circuit Court enters its Final Judgment. October 13, 2008: Defendants file their “Notice of Taxation of Costs.” October 21, 2008: Plaintiffs file objections to the Defendants’ Notice of Taxation of Costs. October 30, 2008: Prior to the Circuit Court Clerk’s disposition of the Taxation of Costs, Plaintiffs file their notice of appeal from the Final Judgment. November 6, 2008: The Clerk of the Circuit Court denies the Defendants’ request for costs. November 14, 2008: Pursuant to HRCP Rule 54(d)(1), the Defendants file their motion for costs which requests that the Circuit Court review the Clerk’s denial of their request for costs; the Circuit Court does not rule on the Defendants’ Rule 54(d)(1) Motion for Costs within 90 days. April 13, 2009: Defendants file their notice of appeal from the Circuit Court’s “deemed denial” of their motion for costs. In their notice of appeal, the Defendants assert that the Circuit Court had not disposed of their motion for costs and therefore, the motion was "deemed denied" 90 days after it was filed, pursuant to HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) (2006). Continue Reading
At the August meeting of the HSBA Appellate Section, Paul Alston discussed some of the interesting cases – remember, we're talking appellate lawyers here – that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up in its October 2012 term.  One is Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States – a takings case that promises to explore governmental decision-making at the muddy intersection of land and water.  In that respect at least, Appellate Section members learned that Hawai`i and Arkansas may have more in common than they thought. Continue Reading