In Cabral, the ICA issued an opinion here authored by Judge Fujise (and joined by J. Leonard), holding that a court approved stipulation to extend the appellate deadline filed within the original appeals deadline did not extend the time to file the notice of appeal because it was not supported by “good cause.”
Chief Judge Nakamura filed a dissenting opinion here because the Plaintiffs relied on the circuit court’s stipulated extension order. Even though the circuit court erred in approving the stipulation (for the reasons stated by the majority), Chief Judge Nakamura would have allowed the appeal to move forward because (1) the order was sought before the original notice of appeal deadline passed, (2) the notice of appeal was filed in compliance with the order, and (3) there was no prejudice to the appellee.
In the cert application, Cabral argues that the ICA gravely erred because the Cabral reasonably relied on the court order extending the appellate deadline. Cabral also argues that the Hawaii Supreme Court apply, as Judge Nakamura's dissent proposed, the doctrine of unique circumstances. Alternatively, Cabral argues the appeal should be considered timely based on a second motion to extend which had also been filed.
The state did not file a respose to the cert application (unsuprisingly given the stipulation made related to the appeal).
The cert application here was provided to us courtesy of our fellow appellate practitioner Peter Van Name Esser (who represents Cabral). This is Peter's fifth cert application in a row to be granted.
UPDATE: Oral arguments are scheduled for January 19, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in the Hawaii Supreme Court courtroom.