Supreme Court Denies Petition in Na Aikane O Maui Case

Hawaii Supreme Court

Filed February 27th, 2026

Detected March 2nd, 2026

Summary

The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi denied a petition for a writ of mandamus or alternate relief in the case of Na Aikane O Maui et al. v. Intermediate Court of Appeals et al. The court found that petitioners have alternative remedies through normal appellate procedures.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi, in an order dated February 27, 2026, denied the petition for a writ of mandamus or alternate relief filed by Na Aikane O Maui, Lahaina Jodo Mission, Lahaina Yacht Club, and Kusina Asian Market LLC. The court cited that the case, involving appeals CAAP-26-0000040 and CAAP-26-0000045, was distinguishable from prior case law and that the petitioners have alternative remedies available through standard appellate procedures, including expedited resolution of their pending appeals.

This denial means the petitioners' request for extraordinary relief was unsuccessful. They must now pursue their case through the regular appellate process. The court did not specify any new deadlines or penalties, as the action taken is a denial of a petition, not an imposition of new obligations on the parties. The matter will proceed through the established court system.

Source document (simplified)

________________________________________________________________ Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-26-0000107 27-FEB-2026 11:07 AM Dkt. 9 ODDP SCPW-26-0000107 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I ________________________________________________________________ NA AIKANE O MAUI; LAHAINA JODO MISSION; LAHAINA YACHT CLUB; and KUSINA ASIAN MARKET LLC, Petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I, Respondent Court, and AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.; and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBER TRIB223061, et al., Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-26-0000040; CAAP-26-0000045; CASE NOS. 2CCV-24-0000950; 2CCV-24-0000951) ORDER DENYING PETITION (By: Mc Kenna, Acting C.J., Eddin s, and Ginoza, JJ., Circ uit Judg e Somerv ille, in place o f Devens, J., and Circ uit Judg e Tomasa, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the petition for writ of mandamus or alternate relief, filed February 12, 2026, and the record,

Rivera v. Cataldo, 153 Hawai ʻ i 320, 537 P.3d 1167 (2023), is distinguishable from this case. There, compensation to thousands of people for land trust breaches that occurred between August 21, 1959 and June 30, 1988, was delayed because a single person erroneously believed that compensation was also owed to that person. Id. at 323-26, 537 P.3d at 1170-73. Here, the petition was filed just two days after our February 10, 2026 opinion in Burnes v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc., ___ P.3d ___, No. SCAP-25-0000531, 2026 WL 370176 (Haw. Feb. 10, 2026), or during the reconsideration period. See Hawai ʻ i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(a) (2000). The notices of appeal in CAAP-26-0000040 and CAAP-26-0000045 were filed on January 20 and 21, 2026, respectively, or before this court’s February 10, 2026 opinion in Burnes. Also, the records on appeal in CAAP-26-0000040 and CAAP-26- 0000045 had not been filed when the petition was filed in this case. And the records still haven’t been filed. Petitioners have alternatives to obtain the relief sought in this petition through normal appellate procedures, which include expedited resolution of the pending appeals. An extraordinary writ is unwarranted. See Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawai ʻ i 307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023). 2

It is ordered that the petition is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, February 27, 2026. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza /s/ Rowena A. Somerville /s/ Taryn R. Tomasa 3