Case Title: Whiteys Boat Cruises, Inc. v. Napali-Kauai Boat Charters, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-04-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 26334

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘T

SS

WHITEY’S BOAT CRUISES, INC.; et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants,

NAPALI-KAUAI BOAT CHARTERS, INC., dba HANALEI SEA TOURS;

et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Sa

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTH CIRCUIT courT
(CIV. NO. 97-0139)

ORDER OF CORRECTION
for the court?)

Levinson, J.,
8

I7 1S HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion of the court, filed

the above-captioned matter, on April 18, 2006, is corrected as

 

AY 2 way sag

   

follows:
11/23/00

Page 20, last sentence: Delete reference to “Tr.

at 8"; and
Page 21, footnote 18: Delete reference to “RA, vol. 27 at
The Clerk of the Court is directed to incorporate the
foregoing changes in the original opinion and take all necessary
steps to notify the publishing agencies of these changes.

Honolulu, Hawai'i, april 25, 2006.
FOR THE COUR:

Stee Helevse (Fy

Associate Justic:

asa."

DATED:

 

  

 

* considered by: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Accba, and Duffy, a7.

O37
claim." Specifically, they contended that ‘a claim for an
accounting and unjust enrichment is a claim for damages, not the
basis or justification for the claim.” Thus, Swain defendants
maintained that, inasmuch as Appellants’ claims of common law
unfair competition and interference with prospective busines:
advantage had been dismissed, “there can be no claims for a
remedy of either injunctive relief or ite further remedy of an
accounting and/or unjust enrichment." Moreover, Swain defendants
contended that, because they had ceased all operations and
promotions of tour boats in Hanalei by 1998, Appellante’ *prayer
for injunctive relief had actually and effectively [been
satisfied) in 1998.

A hearing was held on November 21, 2000 with respect to
the separate motions for partial summary judgment filed by Cliffs
defendants and Swain defendants. With respect to Appellants’
claim for injunctive relief, the circuit court stated:

(Winder the law as the (clourt sees it, (Appellants) must
show 4 clearly ascertainable Fight in Order to have a
jtanding to seek equitable -- the equitable relier of
Injunction. " [appellants] must

for injunctive relief does not
private

 

    
 
 
    

po natter what (Appellante] say{] is that [Appellant] got
ure because defendants violated [MRS clhapeer 205A and that
defendants(’} violations -- the violations of the wrongfal.
Conduct regardless of what (Appellante] say(), {Appellante)
Cannot use [MBS cJhapter 205k as the baeis for injunctive
Felief or equitable relief under the circumstances. They do
hot have a private right of action under (uno c)hapter 205A

Under the circunstances, with reference to the
injunction, the [elourt will grant the sotion for partial
summary judgment.

 

‘The circuit court took under advisement Appellants’ remaining
claim of unjust enrichnent/accounting. Tr. 11/21/00 at @

-20-
On December 7, 2000, the circuit court entered its
written order granting Cliffs defendants’ motion for partial
summary judgment with respect to Count VI (injunctive relief),

dismissing Appellants’ claim for injunctive relief as to all

 

defendants. On February 21, 2001, the circuit court entered an
order granting Swain defendants’ motion for partial summary

judgment with respect to Count V (unjuat enrichment /accounting) ,
dismissing Appellants’ claim for unjust enrichment accounting as

to all defendants. The circuit court further found “that the

 

remedy of unjust enrichnent is not practical and would not serve
the public good.”
6. Judgment and Appeal

on November 7, 2003, the parties filed a conditional
stipulation of dismissal as to all claims by Appellants and all
counterclaims by defendants." ‘The stipulation preserved
Appellants’ right to appeal from any final judgment entered by
the circuit court with respect to their claims against (1) Napali
Appellees, (2) Sheehan Appellees, and (3) Capt. Zodiac. As part
of the stipulation, Appellants could challenge only the circuit
court's orders granting summary judgnent with respect to the six

claims set forth in Appellants’ second amended complaint.

 

™ clipner, Napali Appellees, Sheehan, Sr., and Capt. zodiac had filed
counterclaims against Appellants. ‘As part of the stipulation, all
counterclaims vere dismissed. RA, Vol. 27 at 188.

 

-aae