Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ---o0o--MARY ZANAKIS-PICO and THOMAS M. PICO, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, vs. CUTTER DODGE, INC. dba CUTTER DODGE CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH JEEP EAGLE, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants. NO. 22987 APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 97-4245) JUNE 14, 2002 MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, RAMIL, AND ACOBA, JJ.; WITH ACOBA, J., ALSO CONCURRING SEPARATELY OPINION OF THE COURT BY LEVINSON, J. The plaintiffs-appellants/cross-appellees, Mary Zanakis-Pico and Thomas M. Pico (the Picos) appeal from the amended judgment of the first circuit court, the Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presiding, filed on November 4, 1999. that the circuit court erred in: The Picos argue

(1) partially granting the

motion of the defendant-appellee/cross-appellant Cutter Dodge, Inc., dba Cutter Dodge Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle (Cutter), for partial summary judgment as to damages, based on its conclusion

that the Picos were not entitled to "benefit-of-the-bargain" damages in connection with their claim pursuant to Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 480 (1993 & Supp. 2000);1 (2) partially granting Cutter's motion for dismissal, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, based on its conclusion that the Picos had failed to establish cognizable damages under HRS chapter 480;2 and (3) granting Cutter's motion in limine for dismissal or, in the alternative, for directed verdict, concluding that Cutter was entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding all of the Picos' remaining claims as set forth in their third amended complaint and subsequent more definite statement of claims -- specifically, their contract and, liberally construing their opening brief on appeal, their common law claims grounded in either negligence or negligent misrepresentation, false advertising, and fraud.3 Cutter cross-appeals, urging that the circuit court erred in: (1) partially denying its motion for partial summary

judgment as to damages by failing to dismiss the Picos' claim for punitive damages; (2) partially denying Cutter's motion to dismiss the Picos' third amended complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, by failing to dismiss the Picos' third amended complaint in its entirety; and (3) partially denying Cutter's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions, by failing to enter an award pursuant to HRS

Download Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc. Concurring Opinion, by J. Acoba.pdf

Hawaii Law