Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Blake v. County of Kauai Planning Comm'n, No.SCWC-11-0000342 (Haw. Dec. 19, 2013)

Blake v. County of Kauai Planning Comm'n, No.SCWC-11-0000342 (Haw. Dec. 19, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,669|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Blake v. County of Kauai Planning Comm'n, No.SCWC-11-0000342 (Haw. Dec. 19, 2013)
Blake v. County of Kauai Planning Comm'n, No.SCWC-11-0000342 (Haw. Dec. 19, 2013)

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Dec 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI
I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI
I---o0o--- THEODORE K. BLAKE, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,vs.COUNTY OF KAUA
I PLANNING COMMISSION; COUNTY OF KAUA
I PLANNING DEPARTMENT; IAN COSTA, in his official capacity asPlanning Director; DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES;WILLIAM J. AILA, JR., in his official capacity as chair of theDepartment of Land and Natural Resources; and STACEY T.J. WONG, as Successor Trustee of the Eric A. Knudsen Trust,Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. SCWC-11-0000342CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS(CAAP-11-0000342; CIV. NO. 09-1-0069)DECEMBER 19, 2013RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, AND POLLACK JJ.; WITH ACOBA, J., CONCURRING AND DISSENTING SEPARATELYOPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, C.J.This case involves a challenge to the County of Kaua
iPlanning Commission’s approval of a subdivision application forthe Eric A. Knudsen Trust’s development of land in K
ô
loa, Kaua
i.
Electronically FiledSupreme CourtSCWC-11-000034219-DEC-201308:33 AM
 
 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI
I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
One of the challenged aspects of the proposed subdivision was theneed for the Knudsen Trust to breach a historic road (Hapa Road)and its adjacent rock wall to provide access into thesubdivision. During the Planning Commission’s consideration ofthe Knudsen Trust’s subdivision application, all the partiesassumed that Hapa Road belonged to the County of Kaua
i. ThePlanning Commission eventually approved the Knudsen Trust’ssubdivision application.Theodore K. Blake filed a civil complaint asserting sixclaims against the Defendants, including, inter alia, alleged
1
failure of the Defendants to follow the proper environmental andhistoric review processes, violations of Native Hawaiian rights,and breaches of the public trust. Blake subsequently amended hiscomplaint in part because he discovered that Hapa Road belongedto the State of Hawai
i and not the County. In his amendedcomplaint, Blake also asserted two additional claims ofnegligence and public nuisance against the Knudsen Trust forallegedly breaching Hapa Road and its adjacent rock wall.On a motion for summary judgment brought by the StateDefendants, the circuit court determined that, because the Statehad not given its approval to breach Hapa Road, the issues raised
State of Hawai
i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR)
1
chair William J. Aila, Jr., was automatically substituted as a respondent/defendant-appellee in place of former DLNR chair Laura Thielen, who was suedin her official capacity. Hawai
i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule43(c)(1) (2012). Thus, the respondents/defendants-appellees are the PlanningCommission, County of Kaua
i Planning Department, Ian Costa in his officialcapacity as planning director, DLNR, Aila in his official capacity as chair ofthe DLNR, and the Knudsen Trust (collectively, Defendants).
-2-
 
 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI
I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
in Blake’s complaint were not ripe, and therefore dismissed theclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The circuit
2
court also indicated that even though Blake may have had claimsthat were ripe and severable, in the interest of judicialeconomy, it had the discretion to dismiss those claims as well. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’sorder.In his application, Blake argues that all eight of hisclaims were ripe for adjudication. We agree. First, we holdthat the Planning Commission’s final approval of Knudsen’ssubdivision application constituted “final agency action” forpurposes of ripeness. Based on this conclusion, we hold that theallegations in Counts 1-5 were ripe because they will not beaffected by the BLNR’s decision regarding Hapa Road, and thatCount 6 is ripe because it requires no further factualdevelopment for purposes of ripeness. We also hold that theconduct alleged in Counts 7 and 8 has already occurred andtherefore those claims are ripe. Lastly, we conclude that thecircuit court erred in dismissing claims on the basis of judicialeconomy. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s finaljudgment and the ICA’s judgment on appeal, and remand the case tothe circuit court for further proceedings.
The Honorable Randal G.B. Valenciano presided.
2
-3-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->