The Hawaii Supreme Court has accepted a petition for writ of certiorari in *Sumera v. Goo*, bringing a workplace dispute involving Royal Hawaiian Movers before the state's highest court for review. The court issued its order accepting the petition on Feb. 5, 2026, with oral arguments to be scheduled.
The case centers on a dispute between Lester Sumera, an employee, and Steven Goo, who held multiple supervisory positions at Royal Hawaiian Movers including operations manager, supervisor, and safety manager. Goo is named as a defendant both individually and in his official capacity with the moving company.
According to court documents, Steven Goo filed the petition for certiorari on Dec. 22, 2025, seeking review of a decision from the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. The underlying case, originally filed in 2017 under case number 1CC171000835, has been working its way through Hawaii's court system for nearly a decade.
The Supreme Court order was signed by Acting Chief Justice Sabrina McKenna and Justices Todd Eddins, Lisa Ginoza, and Vladimir Devens. Circuit Judge Catherine Remigio was assigned to the case due to a vacancy on the court.
Royal Hawaiian Movers, a defendant in the case alongside Goo, remains involved in the litigation. A third defendant, Glen Salvador, is also named in the case documents, though his specific role is not detailed in the available court filings.
The case represents a significant workplace law matter that has captured the attention of Hawaii's highest court. While the specific legal issues under review are not detailed in the order accepting certiorari, the involvement of multiple defendants and the progression through multiple court levels suggests complex questions of employment law, workplace safety, or management liability.
The acceptance of certiorari indicates the Hawaii Supreme Court believes the case raises important legal questions warranting review. State supreme courts typically accept only a small percentage of certiorari petitions, focusing on cases that present significant legal issues, conflicts in lower court decisions, or matters of substantial public importance.
The case's journey through Hawaii's court system began in 2017 when the original lawsuit was filed. After proceeding through the trial court level, the matter was appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, where a decision was rendered that prompted Goo's petition to the Supreme Court.
Workplace safety and employment disputes have become increasingly prominent in legal proceedings across the United States, with courts grappling with questions of supervisor liability, individual versus corporate responsibility, and the scope of workplace protections. The Hawaii Supreme Court's decision to hear this case suggests it may address important precedential questions in this area of law.
The timing of the case is notable, with the certiorari petition filed near the end of 2025 and acceptance coming in early 2026. This relatively quick turnaround for Supreme Court consideration indicates the court viewed the legal questions presented as requiring prompt attention.
Oral arguments will provide both parties an opportunity to present their positions before the full court. The appellate clerk will notify the parties regarding scheduling, though no specific date has been announced. Given typical court scheduling practices, oral arguments could be expected within the coming months.
For Royal Hawaiian Movers, the case represents ongoing litigation that has spanned nearly a decade and now reaches the state's highest judicial authority. The company's involvement alongside individual defendants reflects the complex nature of workplace liability cases where both corporate entities and individual managers may face legal responsibility.
The case also highlights the role of individual supervisors in workplace settings, with Goo's multiple titles suggesting he held significant authority over operations and safety matters. The dual capacity in which he is named - both individually and in his official role - raises questions about the distinction between personal and professional liability in employment contexts.
As the case moves toward oral argument, it will be closely watched by employment law practitioners, workplace safety experts, and business owners throughout Hawaii. The Supreme Court's ultimate decision could establish important precedent for similar workplace disputes and clarify the standards for supervisor and corporate liability in employment-related litigation.
The Hawaii Supreme Court's review will provide the final judicial word on whatever legal questions the case presents, with the court's decision becoming binding precedent for all Hawaii courts in future similar cases.