Before we get to today's post (kindly provided by our colleague and friend Paul Schwind), and the Ninth Circuit briefs, here's some background on the cases he writes about.
On June 10, 2014, the Ninth Circuit will ride circuit to Honolulu and hear oral arguments in a case which we've posted about before. The litigation is a series of two lawsuits that originated in state court in the Third Circuit (Big Island), one an original jurisdiction civil rights lawsuit, the other an administrative appeal (that's a writ of administrative mandate for you Californians). The essence of the plaintiff's allegations is that the State Land Use Commission wrongfully amended the land use boundaries from urban to agriculture. Under Hawaii's statewide land use planning scheme, the LUC, a state agency, has jurisdiction over these "boundary amendments," which look and act a whole lot like a change in municipal zoning for those of you who practice land use law elsewhere. We're not sure why we call it a "boundary amendment" rather than a "zoning change," except that we've always done it that way around here. The plaintiff sued the State, the LUC, and the individual commissioners who voted to reclassify the land. Here's Paul's earlier detailed write up about the facts underlying both cases.
The State removed the civil rights lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Honolulu and promptly moved to dismiss, and this portion of the case nearly caused us to flash back to our Federal Courts class in law school, since it raised a host of procedural questions such as the effect of removal, whether certain defendants are "persons" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, whether the federal court must abstain from addressing the federal takings claim, whether there is a state damage remedy for deprivation of constitutional rights, and zoning estoppel under Hawaii law, among others.
In 2012, in the administrative appeal in state court, the trial court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Order Reversing and Vacating the State of Hawaii Land Use Commission's Final Order, DW Aina Lea Dev. LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm'n, No. 11--1-0112K (Haw. Third Cir. Mar. 6, 2012). It's a long ruling, and we won't go into great detail, but suffice it to say the court concluded the LUC exceeded its statutory authority, and violated the developers' due process and equal protection rights. The LUC appealed to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, and eventually, the Hawaii Supreme Court transferred the case to itself (thus avoiding the need to have the ICA weigh in on an issue that obviously was going to end up on the Supreme Court's docket eventually). As a consequence, in this order (Mar. 30, 2012), the district federal court stayed further action in the federal case. But it did not determine that the LUC commissioners were entitled to immunity, as the State urged.
Neither party was happy with the District Court's disposition. The State appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the District Court should have found the commissioners immune from suit, while the plaintiff cross-appealed, asserting the court, after abstaining, should have remanded the case to the state court where it was originally filed.
Here's Paul.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Update On The Federal Court Case About The State Of Hawaii Land Use Commission's Power to Reclassify Land Upon An Order To Show Cause
by Paul J. Schwind*
When we last reported on these closely linked federal and state cases in December 2011 (Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Commission et al., 1:11-CV-00414-SOM-BMK (D. Haw., June 27, 2011); DW Aina Lea Dev. LLC v. Bridge Aina Lea LLC et al., 3CC11-1-00112K (Haw. 3d Cir., Apr. 7, 2011)), a federal court hearing had concluded with a request to the parties to submit supplemental briefing stating their positions on the question of how the state court's ruling (when available) may affect the issues before the federal court, including the jurisdictional question.
In the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, on March 9, 2012, petitioner/plaintiff Bridge Aina Lea essentially concluded in its supplemental memorandum filed with Judge Mollway that the case should be remanded from federal to state court based on the discretionary Pullman abstention doctrine, but not the four-condition Younger abstention doctrine, in part because the State waived Younger by removing the action to federal court. See Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (federal courts, when asked for the extraordinary remedy of injunction, will exercise sound discretion in the public interest to avoid needless friction with state policies); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (possible facial unconstitutionality of a [state] statute does not in itself justify an injunction against good-faith attempts to enforce it, absent any showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief).
Bridge Aina Lea argued that the state court ruling issued on March 6 validates its (Bridge’s) constitutional claims, including just compensation for a temporary taking, and that the legitimacy of Bridge’s § 1983 claims entitle it to declaratory/injunctive relief not available under the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 91. Bridge further argued that the respondent/defendant LUC commissioners are not entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity in their individual capacities.
As of March 9, 2012, after the parties timely filed supplemental memoranda re the effect of the state court ruling, a continued hearing on the matter was held on March 19. On March 30, 2012, Judge Mollway stayed further action in federal court regarding the monetary and injunctive relief sought for alleged due process, equal protection, and takings claims from the LUC reclassification (“downzoning”) action, pending final resolution of the state court case.
The LUC filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 25, 2012, followed by Bridge Aina Lea’s Notice of Cross Appeal on May 4, 2012. The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the district court erred by refusing to rule on individual LUC commissioners’ right to absolute (quasi-judicial) immunity and qualified immunity, thereby consigning the individual commissioners to years with the shadow of this lawsuit hanging over their heads; (2) whether individual commissioners are entitled to absolute (quasi-judicial) immunity with respect to a decision made by way of a contested case hearing where under Hawai‘i law “performing an adjudicatory function is inherent in a contested case hearing”; and (3) whether individual commissioners are entitled to qualified immunity.
After the parties submitted their briefs, which are posted below, the Ninth Circuit asked for letter briefing on an issue it raised sua sponte:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SM): The parties are directed to provide simultaneous letter briefs, addressing the effect on this case of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1984). The letter briefs are to be no longer than ten pages, double spaced, and should be filed no later than Thursday, June 5, 2014.Barista's note: You'd think that since this was a case in which the State removed the case to federal court, that it should not be able to say that the "state litigation" prong of Williamson County governs (and indeed, the State has not raised the argument). Perhaps the Ninth only is asking whether the plaintiff has received a final decision from the LUC. or wants to deal directly with an issue that other circuits have recently? We'll find out on or about June 5, we suppose.
The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument at its Honolulu hearing room on June 10, 2014. We'll have more after the hearing.
Here are the briefs that have been filed:
- Defendants-Appellants-Cross Appellees' Principal Brief
- Appellee-Cross Appellant Bridge Aina Lea, LLC's Second Brief on Cross-Appeal
- Defendants-Appellants-Cross Appellees' Third Brief
- Appellee-Cross Appellant Bridge Aina Lea, LLC's Fourth Brief on Cross-Appeal
Stay tuned, we will have more, since the Hawaii Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the state appeal for June 25, 2014.
----------------------------
*Voluntary inactive member of the Hawaii Bar.