This is the second half of a post from the week before last, about the Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion in Goo v. Arakawa, No. SCWC-30142 (Feb. 19, 2014).
In that case, the court was presented with two issues. First, what should an appellate court do with a trial court’s judgment when a case becomes moot while on appeal. The court held that there was no one-size-fits-all solution, but that in most cases, the appeal should be remanded to the trial court to see whether the facts that resulted in appellate mootness cut in favor of wiping out the judgment, or leaving it in place.
Second, the court considered whether the plaintiffs were entitled to fee-shifting under the “private attorney general” doctrine, a doctine which the Hawaii Supreme Court first recognized formally in the “Superferry” case, The court applies a three-part test to determine whether :
- The strength or societal importance of the public policy vindicated by the litigation.
- The necessity for private enforcement and a magnitude of the burden on the plaintiff.
- The number of people standing to benefit from the decision.
The court also addressed the “private attorney general” doctrine of fee-shifting in certain cases. Here, the focus was on the third prong ot the three-part test, the “public benefit” issue.
Appearing that
Goo v. Arakawa, No. SCWC-30142r(Haw. Feb. 19, 2014)