Nakajima v. Nakajima

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29553 27-AUG-2014 11:39 AM SCWC-29553 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I HIROKAZU NAKAJIMA, Petitioner/Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant/Appellant, vs. AKI NAKAJIMA, Respondent/Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Appellee. CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 29553; FC-DIVORCE NO. 05-1-0587) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) On August 18, 2014, Petitioner/Plaintiff/Cross- Defendant/Appellant Hirokazu Nakajima (Hirokazu) filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this court s August 7, 2014 order accepting his application for a writ of certiorari and remanding the case to the Intermediate Court of Appeals for further proceedings.1 1 In his motion, Hirokazu argues that this court Because this court s August 7, 2014 order was a dispositional order and not merely an order accepting an application for a writ of certiorari, Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40.1(h) does not apply. In such circumstances, this court s appellate jurisdiction covers the ten-day time period in which a party may file a motion for reconsideration. See HRAP Rule 40(a). misconstrued the scope of the sanctions that the Family Court of the Second Circuit imposed for abuse of the discovery process. He asserts that those sanctions did not extend to the denial of an evidentiary hearing regarding the valuation of Avalon Cove, Inc. Hirokazu s argument is meritless. The family court specifically concluded that there was no due process violation in determining the appraised value of the Avalon Cove properties without an evidentiary hearing because its ruling . . . reflects sanctions against Hirokazu for concealing assets. Appeal at 1253 (some capitalization omitted). See Record on The record confirms that the family court s sanctions included denying Hirokazu an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 27, 2014. Blake T. Okimoto for respondent on the motion /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald Junsuke Otsuka for petitioner on the response /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.