NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 21-OCT-2024 08:06 AM Dkt. 115 SO
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
Hawai#i WILDLIFE FUND, a non-profit corporation, and CONSERVATION COUNCIL FOR Hawai#i, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI; ROWENA M. DAGDAG-ANDAYA, in her official capacity as Director of the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI; MICHAEL P. VICTORINO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE COUNTY OF MAUI; COUNTY OF MAUI, Defendants-Appellants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CC191000053)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
Defendants-Appellants Department of Public Works,
County of Maui; Jordan Molina, in his official capacity as
Director of the Department of Public Works, County of Maui;
Richard Bissen, in his official capacity as Mayor of the County
of Maui;1 County of Maui (collectively, Maui County) appeal from
the October 20, 2021 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Award
1 Pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 43(c)(1), Jordan Molina is automatically substituted for former Director of the Department of Public Works Rowena Dagdag-Andaya and Mayor Richard Bissen is automatically substituted for former Mayor Michael P. Victorino. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Fees Order) entered in the Circuit
Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court).2
Maui County raises two points of error on appeal,
contending that the Circuit Court abused its discretion: (1) in
awarding fees and costs because the court failed to identify the
principal issues raised in the complaint and proof, and failed to
determine which party prevailed on which issue; and (2) by not
apportioning fees between declaratory relief claims on which
Plaintiffs-Appellees Hawai#i Wildlife Fund, a non-profit corporation, and Conservation Council for Hawai#i, a non-profit
corporation (collectively, the Fund), prevailed and the
continuing litigation seeking permanent injunctive relief on
which the Fund was unsuccessful.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we
resolve Maui County's points of error as follows:
(1) Maui County argues that the Circuit Court failed
to identify the principle issues in the case, and then determined
which party, on balance, prevailed, citing Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 126, 176 P.3d 91, 125
(2008); Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 130 Hawai#i 162, 165,
307 P.3d 142, 145 (2013).
The principle issues are clearly identified in the
Circuit Court's April 30, 2020 order granting in part and denying
in part (SJ Order) the Fund's September 5, 2019 Motion for
2 The Honorable Blaine J. Kobayashi entered the Fees Order.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (MSJ). The Complaint
alleged that Maui County violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
chapter 343, often referred to as the Hawai#i Environmental
Policy Act (HEPA), by declaring that a project to replace 4,800
high-pressure sodium streetlights with LED streetlights (the
Project) was exempt from the environmental review requirement of
HRS § 343 (Exemption Declaration). The Fund claimed that the
Exemption Declaration should be null and void, and at a minimum,
Maui County should prepare an environmental assessment for the
Project. The Fund prayed for a declaratory judgment that, inter
alia, (1) Maui County violated HRS chapter 343 by way of the
Exemption Declaration, (2) the Exemption Declaration was null and
void, (3) the installation of the Project was "invalid and
illegal," and (4) Maui County must complete a "legally adequate"
environmental review under HRS chapter 343; as well as
appropriate injunctive relief.
The SJ Order stated that the Fund sought, inter alia, a
ruling that Maui County violated HRS chapter 343 by committing
funds to the Project and issuing the Exemption Declaration, and
that the Exemption Declaration be declared null and void. The SJ
Order also stated that the Fund sought permanent injunctive
relief for the already-installed LED streetlights. The Circuit
Court granted the MSJ in part and held that (1) Maui County
violated HEPA; (2) the Exemption Declaration was null and void;
and (3) pursuant to the December 20, 2019 Stipulation and Order
Re: Plaintiffs' Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
(2019 Stipulation), further work on the Project was prohibited
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
pending completion of an environmental review. The Circuit Court
denied the MSJ in part and held that, while the Fund met the
first prong of the three-prong analysis for permanent injunctive
relief, i.e., the Fund prevailed on the merits of its claim that
Maui County violated HRS chapter 343, the remaining two prongs
would be decided at trial. Clearly, the principle issues
involved whether Maui County violated HEPA, notwithstanding that
there were related issues concerning the appropriate remedies.
Maui County argues that the Fund's claim for declaratory relief was a separate litigation pursuit arising out
of separate factual circumstances, and that it was raised on
separate proof from its claim for permanent injunctive relief.
This argument is without merit. We apply the "disputed main
issue" analysis here. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Kozma,
140 Hawai#i 494, 498, 403 P.3d 271, 275 (2017); see also Sierra
Club v. Dep't of Transp., 120 Hawai#i 181, 216-18, 202 P.3d 1226,
1261-63 (2009) (Superferry II) (applying the approach outlined in
Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Bus. Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 575
P.2d 869 (1978), where the prevailing party is determined by who
prevailed on the main issues in the case where final judgment did
not make clear which party had prevailed).
The Fund's claims centered around Maui County's
violation of HRS chapter 343, initially stemming from the
Exemption Declaration. The Fund succeeded on its main claim, and
was granted declaratory relief, but also sought an injunction
that (1) prohibited Maui County from installing additional LED
streetlights pursuant to the Project "unless and until [Maui
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
County] compl[ies] fully with HEPA, beginning with preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement;"
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 21-OCT-2024 08:06 AM Dkt. 115 SO
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
Hawai#i WILDLIFE FUND, a non-profit corporation, and CONSERVATION COUNCIL FOR Hawai#i, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI; ROWENA M. DAGDAG-ANDAYA, in her official capacity as Director of the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, COUNTY OF MAUI; MICHAEL P. VICTORINO, in his official capacity as MAYOR OF THE COUNTY OF MAUI; COUNTY OF MAUI, Defendants-Appellants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CC191000053)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
Defendants-Appellants Department of Public Works,
County of Maui; Jordan Molina, in his official capacity as
Director of the Department of Public Works, County of Maui;
Richard Bissen, in his official capacity as Mayor of the County
of Maui;1 County of Maui (collectively, Maui County) appeal from
the October 20, 2021 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Award
1 Pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 43(c)(1), Jordan Molina is automatically substituted for former Director of the Department of Public Works Rowena Dagdag-Andaya and Mayor Richard Bissen is automatically substituted for former Mayor Michael P. Victorino. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Fees Order) entered in the Circuit
Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court).2
Maui County raises two points of error on appeal,
contending that the Circuit Court abused its discretion: (1) in
awarding fees and costs because the court failed to identify the
principal issues raised in the complaint and proof, and failed to
determine which party prevailed on which issue; and (2) by not
apportioning fees between declaratory relief claims on which
Plaintiffs-Appellees Hawai#i Wildlife Fund, a non-profit corporation, and Conservation Council for Hawai#i, a non-profit
corporation (collectively, the Fund), prevailed and the
continuing litigation seeking permanent injunctive relief on
which the Fund was unsuccessful.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we
resolve Maui County's points of error as follows:
(1) Maui County argues that the Circuit Court failed
to identify the principle issues in the case, and then determined
which party, on balance, prevailed, citing Kamaka v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 126, 176 P.3d 91, 125
(2008); Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 130 Hawai#i 162, 165,
307 P.3d 142, 145 (2013).
The principle issues are clearly identified in the
Circuit Court's April 30, 2020 order granting in part and denying
in part (SJ Order) the Fund's September 5, 2019 Motion for
2 The Honorable Blaine J. Kobayashi entered the Fees Order.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction (MSJ). The Complaint
alleged that Maui County violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
chapter 343, often referred to as the Hawai#i Environmental
Policy Act (HEPA), by declaring that a project to replace 4,800
high-pressure sodium streetlights with LED streetlights (the
Project) was exempt from the environmental review requirement of
HRS § 343 (Exemption Declaration). The Fund claimed that the
Exemption Declaration should be null and void, and at a minimum,
Maui County should prepare an environmental assessment for the
Project. The Fund prayed for a declaratory judgment that, inter
alia, (1) Maui County violated HRS chapter 343 by way of the
Exemption Declaration, (2) the Exemption Declaration was null and
void, (3) the installation of the Project was "invalid and
illegal," and (4) Maui County must complete a "legally adequate"
environmental review under HRS chapter 343; as well as
appropriate injunctive relief.
The SJ Order stated that the Fund sought, inter alia, a
ruling that Maui County violated HRS chapter 343 by committing
funds to the Project and issuing the Exemption Declaration, and
that the Exemption Declaration be declared null and void. The SJ
Order also stated that the Fund sought permanent injunctive
relief for the already-installed LED streetlights. The Circuit
Court granted the MSJ in part and held that (1) Maui County
violated HEPA; (2) the Exemption Declaration was null and void;
and (3) pursuant to the December 20, 2019 Stipulation and Order
Re: Plaintiffs' Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
(2019 Stipulation), further work on the Project was prohibited
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
pending completion of an environmental review. The Circuit Court
denied the MSJ in part and held that, while the Fund met the
first prong of the three-prong analysis for permanent injunctive
relief, i.e., the Fund prevailed on the merits of its claim that
Maui County violated HRS chapter 343, the remaining two prongs
would be decided at trial. Clearly, the principle issues
involved whether Maui County violated HEPA, notwithstanding that
there were related issues concerning the appropriate remedies.
Maui County argues that the Fund's claim for declaratory relief was a separate litigation pursuit arising out
of separate factual circumstances, and that it was raised on
separate proof from its claim for permanent injunctive relief.
This argument is without merit. We apply the "disputed main
issue" analysis here. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Kozma,
140 Hawai#i 494, 498, 403 P.3d 271, 275 (2017); see also Sierra
Club v. Dep't of Transp., 120 Hawai#i 181, 216-18, 202 P.3d 1226,
1261-63 (2009) (Superferry II) (applying the approach outlined in
Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Bus. Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 575
P.2d 869 (1978), where the prevailing party is determined by who
prevailed on the main issues in the case where final judgment did
not make clear which party had prevailed).
The Fund's claims centered around Maui County's
violation of HRS chapter 343, initially stemming from the
Exemption Declaration. The Fund succeeded on its main claim, and
was granted declaratory relief, but also sought an injunction
that (1) prohibited Maui County from installing additional LED
streetlights pursuant to the Project "unless and until [Maui
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
County] compl[ies] fully with HEPA, beginning with preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement;"
and (2) required Maui County to "modify the [1,021] illegally
installed LED streetlight fixtures to, at minimum . . . reduce
the blue-light content to the same or less than that of the [HPS]
fixtures they replaced" by either requiring Maui County to
reinstall the old HPS lights or "install filters to reduce the
LED fixtures' blue-light content." The Fund argued that, because
of the statutory violation, LED streetlights were installed illegally and thus an injunction was necessary to stop the
"irreparable harm" caused by the LED streetlights. Nevertheless,
the main disputed issue was whether Maui County violated HRS
chapter 343. Thus, the Fund is the prevailing party, and Maui
County is not entitled to relief based on its first point of
error.
(2) Maui County argues that the Circuit Court erred in
not apportioning the fees, and thereby awarding fees for
unsuccessful claims.
When contemplating an award of fees for unsuccessful
claims, courts must engage in analysis under Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), to determine whether fees are
reasonable for the "entire time . . . counsel spent on the case."
Right to Know Comm. v. City Council, 117 Hawai#i 1, 15-16, 175
P.3d 111, 125-26 (App. 2007) (citing Schefke v. Reliable
Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai#i 408, 445, 32 P.3d 52, 89
(2001)).
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Here, the Fund's requested remedies both arose out of
Maui County's statutory violation of issuing the Exemption
Declaration and Maui County's illegal installation of LED
streetlights without completing an environmental assessment. See
Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, 129 Hawai#i 454, 470, 304 P.3d 252, 268
(2013) (holding that all six claims were based on a common core
of facts, "i.e., the City and State's decision to proceed with
the rail project absent a completed AIS."). The Fund prevailed
on the common core issues. Thus, we conclude that the Fund's claims for more than one form of relief arose out of a "common
core of facts," even if all of the requested relief was not
granted. Moreover, the Fund prevailed on the first prong of the
request for injunctive relief, even though the balancing of harms
and public policy considerations remained outstanding. Under
these circumstances, we conclude that the Circuit Court did not
abuse its discretion in declining to apportion fees between
successful and unsuccessful claims.
For these reasons, the Circuit Court's October 20, 2021
Fees Order is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 21, 2024.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Moana M. Lutey, Corporation Counsel, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth County of Maui, Associate Judge for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone David L. Henkin, Associate Judge Kylie W. Wager Cruz, (EarthJustice), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.