“A motion for reconsideration is properly granted where the court has overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact.” (See Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40; State v. Sanders (2003) 102 Haw. 326, 329.)
“It is well established that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow the parties to present new evidence or arguments that could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated motion.” (See Owners v. County (2008) 118 Haw. 119, 121.)
“Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40(b) require motions for reconsideration to state with particularity the points of law or fact that the moving party contends the court has overlooked or misapprehended." (See Nakaoka v. Shizuru, No. SCWC-20-0000320, at *2 (Haw. July 17, 2023).)
"[A] motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for arguments that could have been presented earlier." (See id; Protect & Pres. Kahoma Ahupua'a Ass'n v. Maui Plan. Comm'n, No. SCWC-15-0000478, 2021 WL 2828030, at *1 (Haw. July 7, 2021).)
"We again remind litigants that a motion for reconsideration is not the time to relitigate old matters." (See Nakaoka v. Shizuru, No. SCWC-20-0000320, at *2 (Haw. July 17, 2023); Briggs v. Hotel Corp. of Pac., Inc. (1992) 73 Haw. 276, 287 n.7, 831 P.2d 1335, 1342 n.7.)
“This standard is not intended, however, to inflexibly bind the hands of a judge who determines that he or she has made an error.” (See Owners v. County (2008) 118 Haw. 119, 121.)
Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure ("HRAP") Rule 40 provides in relevant part the following rules.
“A motion for reconsideration may be filed by a party only within 10 days after the filing of the opinion, dispositional order, or ruling unless by special leave additional time is granted during such period by a judge or justice of the appellate court involved.” (See Haw. R. App. P. 40(a); Credit Assocs. of Maui, Ltd. v. Freitas, No. CAAP-13-0001182, at *1 (Haw. Ct. App. June 15, 2017).)
“The motion shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that the moving party contends the court has overlooked or misapprehended, together with a brief argument on the points raised. The motion shall be supported by a declaration of counsel to the effect that it is presented in good faith and not for purposes of delay.” (See Haw. R. App. P. 40(b); Warner v. State, No. SCWC-19-0000034, at *1 (Haw. Oct. 24, 2022).)
“No response to a motion for reconsideration or reply to a response will be received unless requested by the appellate court. There shall be no oral argument on a motion for reconsideration unless ordered by the appellate court.” (See Haw. R. App. P. 40(c); Yasumura v. Child Support Enforcement (2005) 107 Haw. 349, 359.)
“The appellate court within 10 days of the filing of a motion for reconsideration, shall either grant or deny such motion. The failure of the appellate court to act within the 10 days shall constitute a rejection. If a motion for reconsideration is granted, the appellate court may, with or without new argument, modify the decision or take such action as may be appropriate.” (See Haw. R. App. P. 40(d); Yasumura v. Child Support Enforcement (2005) 107 Haw. 349, 359.)
“Only one motion permitted. Only one motion for reconsideration may be filed by any party, unless the court modifies the substance of its opinion, dispositional order, or ruling.” (See Haw. R. App. P. 40(e); Yasumura v. Child Support Enforcement (2005) 107 Haw. 349, 359.)
“A trial court has inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders." (See Tortorello v. Tortorello, No. CAAP-13-0004373, at *8 (Haw. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2015); Cho v. State, 115 Hawai'i 373, 383, 168 P.3d 17, 27 (2007).)
“And [i]f a court determines that it made a mistake in [its own earlier] oral ruling, upon review of persuasive legal authorities, it is not an abuse of discretion for [that] court to reconsider its decision." (See id; Ass'n of Home Owners of Kai Nui Court v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu (2008) 118 Hawai'i 119, 123, 185 P.3d 867, 871.)
As such, "an order granting or denying a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs where the circuit court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or has disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." (See Nakamura v. Univ. of Hawai'I (2019) 451 P.3d 875; Tax Appeal of Subway Real Estate Corp. v. Dir. of Taxation, State of Hawai‘I (2006) 110 Hawai‘i 25, 30, 129 P.3d 528, 533.)
It is well settled that “it is axiomatic that the trial courts retain inherent authority to revise interim or interlocutory orders any time before entry of judgment. Interlocutory orders and rulings made pre-trial may be considered and reversed for any reason the trial judge deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of controlling law at any time prior to final judgment when the initial order was clearly erroneous or would work manifest injustice.” (See Cho v. State (2007) 115 Haw. 373, 383; Abada v. Charles Schwab Co. (2000) 127 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1102.)
It is also well settled that if a motion for reconsideration “presents no point of law or fact that the court overlooked or misapprehended,” it may be denied. (See DL v. CL, No. CAAP-18-0000704, at *1 (Haw. Ct. App. May 27, 2021); Wells Fargo Bank v. Cordero, No. CAAP-20-0000704, at *2 (Haw. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2023).)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
