Notable Cases
Examples of Notable Settlements
Most settlements are confidential and cannot be published. These two cases are exceptions because they were made public through various public filings or public comments by the parties.
Laniakea Beach parking lot. Abellira v State of Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu, et al., Civ. No. 14-1-000005. The unpaved parking lot across from Laniakea Beach on the North Shore had been a long-running problem. Cars bouncing over potholes and squeezing through the parking lot, buses stopping on the crowded shoulder, cars leaving the parking lot against oncoming traffic, a crosswalk to the beach at a narrow choke point, and more. This case shows how well mediation can work. Attorneys for a state agency, a county agency, and an environmental group met in person and walked through the site, pointing out their issues and concerns and suggesting changes. They ultimately agreed on substantial improvements, the agreed work was done shortly after, and the lawsuit was dismissed by agreement. It’s not a perfect solution -- that’s a longer project involving a whole new road further inland -- but in the meantime it’s better and safer for the community. As the settlement judge, I am gratified that after years of nuisance, inconvenience, and conflict we reached a solid result by working together.
Contaminated construction base yard clean-up. HART v. Lee, et al., Civ. No. 13-1-001208. A large construction base yard was contaminated by both liquid and solid waste over the years. Multiple areas of the base yard had to be remediated, including excavating and removing debris from the property or by placing contaminated material into consolidation cells. The court held monthly meetings over several years with the parties, managing agents, and experts -- to identify the various areas in the site that needed remediation, plan the remediation process for each area and type of material, getting the work done, and verifying by sampling to confirm the contaminated soil was removed. This is another good example of how long-time complex problems can be settled faster, less expensively and with finality compared with litigation.
Examples of Notable Written Rulings by Judge Crabtree (ret.)
The following are just a few of the major decisions and written opinions I issued in my cases.
Kaka’ako on-street parking. Burke v. Kaka’ako Land Co., Inc., Civ. No. 1CC141001912. Starting around 2010, Kaka’ako Land Co. (“KLC”) started to charge drivers and businesses for parking alongside several streets in Kaka’ako. Cars were towed for non-payment. After a trial, the court ruled that KLC did not own the parking areas. The court also issued an injunction prohibiting KLC from collecting parking fees and ordered KLC to take down its signage within 30 days. The trial court’s decision was affirmed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals in 2025, and the Hawaii Supreme Court denied cert on 5/27/25.
The City & County of Honolulu’s lawsuit against oil companies for not disclosing the effect of fossil fuels on climate change. City & County of Honolulu and Board of Water Supply v. Sunoco LP; Aloha Petroleum, Ltd.; Aloha Petroleum LLC; Exxon Mobil Corp.; Exxonmobil Oil Corporation; Royal Dutch Shell PLC; Shell Oil Company; Shell Oil Products Company LLC; Chevron Corp; Chevron USA Inc.; BHP Group Limited; BHP Group PLC; BHP Hawaii Inc.; BP PLC; BP America Inc.; Marathon Petroleum Corp.; ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips 66; Phillips 66 Company; Civ. No. 1CCV-20-000380. This case was among the earliest climate change cases filed in the United States. Following extensive briefing and oral argument, in 2022 the trial court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss (see attached), and granted Defendants’ motion for an interlocutory appeal (attached). The Hawaii Supreme Court decided to accept the case for direct review and in a published opinion dated 10/31/23, affirmed the trial court. See 153 Hawaii 326 (2023). The United States Supreme Court denied Defendants’ cert petition on 1/13/25.
Ala Wai Flood Control project. Protect our Ala Wai Watersheds v. DLNR, City & County of Honolulu, et al., Civ. No. 1CC-19-1-001480. The Ala Wai Flood Risk Management Project (“project”) planned to construct large detention basins within and across six streams in Pālolo, Mānoa and Makiki. The goal was to protect Waikiki in the event of a 100-year-flood. The trial court granted injunctive relief against the project because the project did not have an accepted Environmental Impact Statement.
Confidentiality of OHA attorney-client records. In OHA v. Kondo, Civ. No. 1CCV-20-000259, the issue was whether the State Office of the Auditor can obtain all records of an entity being audited -- including attorney-client communications. The trial court ruled that the attorney-client privilege protected the documents from disclosure. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed in a published opinion dated 4/5/23.
Foreclosure law. Wong v. AOAO Harbor Square, Civ. No. 1CCV-19-002324. In Wong, the issue was whether a condo owner who is “underwater” (owes more on the mortgage than the condo unit is worth) must prove damages if the AOAO had no authority to foreclose. The trial court ruled Yes (see attached ruling). Since no damages were proved, the court granted summary judgment for the AOAO. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in a published opinion dated 2/29/24 (attached).
Youth climate lawsuit against DOT regarding climate change remediation measures. In Navahine v. Dept. of Transportation, State of Hawaii; Civ. No. 1CCV-22-000631, the young Plaintiffs' lawsuit alleged that Hawai‘i’s state transportation system violated the public trust doctrine and right to a clean and healthful environment. The court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss (see attached). The case was later settled (I was not involved with the settlement).
Petition to impeach Honolulu Prosecutor. Yoshimura v. Kaneshiro, 1SP181000465. Plaintiff filed a Petition to impeach Prosecuting Attorney Keith M. Kaneshiro pursuant to Section 12-203 of the Honolulu City Charter. The trial court found the impeachment Petition was defective (see attached). On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in a published opinion dated 2/1/21 (attached).
Medical negligence. In Rodriguez v. Warrington, Civ. No. 14-1-001770, Plaintiff died from a fall after being released from the hospital. His estate sued, claiming the hospital was responsible for discharging him too soon. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim during trial because expert witness testimony was required on the medical cause of Plaintiff’s death, and no expert witness was offered. On appeal, the court’s ruling was upheld by the ICA in an unpublished opinion dated 2/29/24.
Red Hill. Sierra Club v. Dept. of Health, et al., Civ. 17-1-001350. In one of the earliest cases involving Red Hill, the issue was whether the Dept. of Health could exempt the Red Hill underground fuel storage tanks from rules governing spills, secondary containment, repairs, and operator training. In a decision filed 3/23/18 (attached), the trial court ruled that the tanks could not be exempted from statutory requirements that the underground storage tanks be replaced or upgraded to prevent fuel releases for their operating life. The court entered a Final Judgment on 7/25/18, and a Notice of Appeal was not filed.
Sufficiency of Environmental Impact Statement. Kaupiko v. BLNR, et al., Civ. No. 1CCV-21-000892, involved long-running legal battles over the commercial collection of reef fish. The trial court had to decide whether the 1000-plus page RFEIS submitted to BLNR regarding collection of reef fish had adequate information in it to allow BLNR to make an informed decision. The trial court ruled Yes. On appeal, the court’s decision was affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court in a published decision dated 8/28/24.
Agency Appeal Regarding BLNR’s Decision on Wind Turbines. Keep the North Shore Country v. BLNR, et al., Civ. No. 1CC-18-1-000960. This was an agency appeal to the Circuit Court. The issue was whether wind turbines could be built in Kahuku in view of the danger the turbines created for Hawaiian hoary bats ('ope'ape'a), an endangered species. The trial court’s decision was Yes, in large part due to what the court found was a remarkable “Bat Guidance” report about the Hawaiian hoary bat produced by the Endangered Species Recovery Committee, combined with an adaptive management plan that would increase protections if too many bats were being harmed or killed. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in a published decision dated 2/22/22.
Disclosure of police disciplinary records. SHOPO v. City & County of Honolulu, and Honolulu Civil Beat Inc., Civ. No. 18-1-000823. The issue in this case was whether records regarding a disciplinary action against a police officer should be disclosed along with the arbitration award reinstating the officer. The trial court found Yes. On appeal, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ultimate conclusion and Final Judgment in a published decision dated 9/17/21, and remanded for the limited purpose of reviewing the award for attorneys’ fees.
Commercial collection of tropical reef fish. Kaupiko v. DLNR; Civ. 1CCV-20-000125. The trial court found the DLNR violated HEPA by allowing Commercial Marine Licenses to authorize collecting reef fish for sale. The State filed a Notice of Appeal which was dismissed by agreement on 3/28/22 (see the ICA docket for CAAP-21-0374).
Employment discrimination claim. Harris v Queen’s Medical Center; Civ. No. 13-1-001737. This was a 19-day jury trial of an employment discrimination claim, alleging racial harassment at work. The jury’s verdict was for Plaintiff for $3,830,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The case was dismissed by agreement of the parties before most post-trial motions were heard.
Labor union rights. Centerline v. ILWU, et al; Civ. No. 1CCV-22-000156. Fuel transportation company sued dock worker unions for alleged threats. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the shipping company’s request for a preliminary injunction. Later, a Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice was filed.
Commercial lease. Oahu Plumbing v. ChemSystems; Civ. No. 19-1-000569. This was a dispute between an HVAC mechanical contractor and a chemical water treatment contractor -- regarding corrosion on chilling equipment. After an 11-day bench trial, the trial court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Later, a Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice was filed.
Fiduciary duties/real estate transactions. Rainbow Ring v. Linda Suzukawa-Tseng, Estates Royal; Civ. 1CC-18-1-001369. The jury found a breach of fiduciary duty and the circuit court granted a motion for prejudgment interest. Later, a Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice was filed.
Civil contempt. In The Matter of the Arbitration between UPW and the City & County of Honolulu, et al., S.P. No. 17-1-0123. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s request that the City & County be held in civil contempt for failure to pay on time. In a Summary Disposition Order filed 8/7/20 in CAAP-18-0000347, the ICA affirmed the trial court’s refusal to find the City in civil contempt.
Motion to Compel Arbitration. Inoue v. Harbor Legal Group, et al, Civ. No. 19-1-0495, was a class action case regarding the legality of for-profit debt adjusting. Defendant brought a motion to compel arbitration which the circuit court granted. The ICA affirmed in a Memorandum Opinion filed 4/29/21 (see CAAP-19-0000589, Dkt. 53, entered 4/29/21).
Foreclosure. City Mortgage v Brum, Sr., et al., Civ. No. 15-1-000301. The circuit court ruled in favor of Plaintiff lender. In an SDO filed 8/23/24, the ICA affirmed all the trial court’s orders and Final Judgment except a remand for further proceedings on the issue of attorneys’ fees. See CAAP-19-0000062.
Auto accident. Oishi v. Ganel; Civ. No. 14-1-001675. Five-day jury trial, July, 2017. Defendant admitted fault and disputed causation and damages. Jury verdict for the defense. On appeal, the circuit court’s final judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial – on the issue of alleged juror misconduct. See Oishi v Ganel, CAAP-18-0000036. After remand, the case was dismissed by agreement. Any reversal is a bit of a surprise, because judges believe they made the right decision (and often still believe they made the right decision even after the appellate court disagrees). But a reversal is also an opportunity to learn from a mistake. Here, I learned I needed to guard against a pro-jury bias.
Government contracting. SpeediShuttle, LLC v. Robert’s Hawaii; Dept. of Transportation, Civ. 17-1-001621. Dispute regarding competing bids on a contract to supply shuttle service at the Honolulu airport. The circuit court denied SpeediShuttle’s motion for a TRO. The case was later dismissed by agreement.
Further examples are available upon request unless the case is still active on a substantive issue.