The Hawaii Supreme Court has rejected an application for writ of certiorari filed by Thomas T. Ueno in a partnership dispute involving McCully Associates. This decision affects the limited partners of McCully Associates and highlights ongoing tensions within the partnership. The ruling is significant as it upholds the previous decisions made by lower courts.
The case, docket number SCWC-23-0000434, involves James Yee Marn, Jr. and James K.M. Dunn as respondents, representing the interests of McCully Associates and its limited partners. The dispute centers around the management and operations of McCully Associates, a registered limited partnership in Hawaii. Ueno, the petitioner, sought to challenge the decisions made by the Intermediate Court of Appeals regarding this partnership.
McCully Associates is managed by Ala Wai Investment, Inc., which serves as the general partner. The case arose from disagreements among the partners, particularly concerning the actions of the general partner and its officers, including Alexander Y. Marn, Eric Y. Marn, and Ernestine L. Marn. These disputes led to legal actions that culminated in Ueno's application for certiorari.
The Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling, issued on July 29, 2026, rejected Ueno's application for writ of certiorari. The court stated, "Petitioner Thomas T. Ueno’s Application for Writ of Certiorari... is hereby rejected." This decision was made by a panel that included Acting Chief Justice Sabrina S. McKenna and Justices Todd W. Eddins, Kevin T. Morikone, Jordon J. Kimura, and Brian A. Costa, who was assigned due to a vacancy.
By rejecting the application, the Hawaii Supreme Court effectively upheld the rulings made by the Intermediate Court of Appeals. This means that the lower court's decisions regarding the management and operations of McCully Associates will remain in effect. The court's opinion did not provide further details on the specific issues raised in Ueno's application.
The impact of this ruling is significant for the limited partners of McCully Associates. It reinforces the authority of the general partner and may affect how disputes within the partnership are handled in the future. Limited partners may feel uncertain about their rights and the management of the partnership, especially if they disagree with the general partner's decisions.
Additionally, this ruling may set a precedent for similar partnership disputes in Hawaii. It underscores the importance of adhering to the decisions of lower courts and may deter future attempts to challenge those decisions at the Supreme Court level without substantial grounds.
Looking ahead, it is unclear if Ueno will pursue further legal action or if there are any related cases pending. The court filing did not provide information on the possibility of an appeal or additional claims associated with this case. As it stands, the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal matters surrounding McCully Associates.