In Aha Hui Malama O Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Comm’n, 111 Haw. 14, 139 P.3d 712 (July 24, 2006), the court set forth the standard for when an agency hearing is a “contested case” under the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act (HAPA). The definition is critical because unless a contested case has been conducted by an agency, a circuit court will have no subject matter jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the agency’s decision.
A group opposed to a landowner’s use of its property argued that conditions imposed by the Land Use Commission in its earlier approval of a boundary amendment had not been complied with by the landowner. The group filed a motion for an order to show cause why the boundary amendment should not be revoked. The LUC held a hearing and denied the motion. The group appealed to the circuit court under HAPA.
The circuit court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the hearing on the motion for an order to show cause was not a “contested case” as defined by the administrative procedures act. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A hearing to consider a motion for an order to show cause was not a “contested case” as defined in HAPA, so the circuit court lacked appellate jurisdiction under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14. The court reiterated the two-part test to determine whether a hearing qualifies as a contested case:
- The hearing is “required by law,” which means that a rule, statute, or constitutional due process require a hearing;
- The hearing determines the “rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties.”
The court held that the LUC was required by its rules to hold a hearing on motions when requested by a party, and that the first part of the above test was satisfied. However, the hearing did not determine the objecting group’s rights, only perhaps the rights of the landowner, so the second part of the test was not met. If the LUC had granted the motion and held a hearing on the order to show cause, then the result would have been different, as that hearing would be a “contested case.”
Finally, the court held that the correct result was jurisdictional dismissal, not a remand to hold a contested case. If a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14, it has no jurisdiction to remand. What about the seeming lack of judicial review of the LUC’s decision to deny the request to hold a hearing on the order to show cause? On that issue, the court did not seem bothered by the fact that LUC’s decision is essentially immune:
Lastly, the Huiargues that, “[i]f the [c]ircuit [c]ourt has no jurisdiction todetermine if an appellant were entitled to acontested case hearing after having requested one, any agency couldarbitrarily and capriciously deny anyone a hearing atany time, regardless of whether such hearing were required by law, andthe aggrieved party could never obtain judicialreview of such denial.” However, in this case, the Hui did not request a contested case hearing.Indeed, the Hui concedesthat “there is no procedural vehicle for ‘[a]ny party or interestedperson’ to obtain a contested case hearing on whether apetitioner has failed to perform according to the conditions imposed orhas failed to perform according to therepresentations or commitments she made[.]” Consequently, the Hui’sassertion is without merit.
To the court it is simple: no contested case, no judicial review (at least under HAPA).