Title: Captain Andys Sailing, Inc. v. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW UBRaRY

++" NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
No, 27355

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘T

 

CAPTAIN ANDY'S SAILING, INC., a Hawai'i corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAT‘T;
LAURA H. THIELEN, Director of the Department of Land and Natural
Resources and Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural
Resources, State of Hawai'i; ED UNDERWOOD, Administrator,
Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, Department of Land and
Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i; and JOSEPH BORDEN, Kauai

Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation,

District Manager,
Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i,

Defendant s-Appellees,

 

and

TERRY DONNELLY AND BLUE DOLPHIN CHARTERS,
Intervenor Defendants-Appellees.

z
g
a
=
3

 

=

  

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

Plaintiff-Appellant Captain Andy’s Sailing, Inc.,

(“CASI”) appeals from the first circuit court's’ ("circuit

court”) May 18, 2005 final judgment in favor of defendant-

appellee Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of

Hawai'i ("DLNR”) and intervenors-appellees Blue Dolphin Charters,

("ppc") and Terry Donnelly (“Donnelly”) (collectively

Ltd.
referred to as “Intervenors”) and against CAST. Final judgment

‘the Honorable Victoria &. Marks presided

oss
*** NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
was entered pursuant to the circuit court’s April 6, 2005
“Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” which concluded that:
(1) CAST lacks standing to claim declaratory relief from BDC
operating at Kukuiula Small Boat Harbor without a commercial
permits (2) BOC is entitled to a conmercial permit at Kukuiula
Small Boat Harbor subject to applicable law and regulations: and
(3) “vessels that have both a commercial and a regular mooring
permit for use of a (DLNR] small boat harbor (must) pay a [two
percent} commercial fee," from all the revenue they earn. The
final judgment also granted DLNR's motion for costs against CASI
under HRCP Rule 54(d)? and Hawai'i Revised Statutes ("HRS") §

607-9.

+ RCE ule S¢(d) provides, “Except when express provision therefor
As made either ina statute or in these rules, costs ghall be allowed as of
course co the prevailing party unless the court othermise directa.” (Eephasis
adaed.) The Language of this role

      

  

creates 2 strong presumption that the prevailing party will
Fecover costs... +. The presumption that the prevailing party
is entitled to costs must be overcone by some showing that sn
award would be inequitable under the cifcunstances, The losing
party bears the burden of making this showing

Polaua v, GIE Wevaijan Tel, 112 Hawai'i 3, 19, 243 P34 1205, 1221 (2006)
quoting Bona v. Takeuchi, 86 Hawaii 46°52," 961 P24 611, 617 (1998))

HRS § 607-9 specifies that

a1L1 actual disbursenents, including bet not Limited to,
Intragtate travel expenses’ for witnesses and counsel, expenses for
deposition transcript originals and copies, and other incidental
expenses, including copying costs, intrastate long distance
telephone charges, and postage, sworn to by an attorney oF 8
party, and dered reasonable by the court,

 

Tndetemmining whether and what coats should
be taxed, the court nay consider the equities of the situaticn.
‘+14 NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
on appeal, CASI argues‘ the circuit court erred by
ruling in favor of Intervenors’ commercial permit, inasmuch as
(2) CASI, a competitor of BDC, has standing to challenge BDC’s
Kukuiula Small Boat Harbor commercial permit because “it can be
reasonably inferred that CASI’s business opportunities suffered a
corresponding reduction": (2) the circuit court lacked
jurisdiction to rule that Intervenors had a right to the Kukuiula
Small Boat Harbor conmercial permits and (3) Intervenors’
commercial permit for Kukuiula small Boat Harbor is not permitted
under Hawai'i Administrative Rules for small boat harbors ("HAR")
§ 13-231-88 (1994). CASI further argues that (1) interpreting
HAR § 13-234-25 (1994) as requiring @ permittee to pay two
percent of its gross receipts “exceeds [DLNR’s) authority under
(HRS §] 200-10, is inconsistent with the policies underlying that
provision and works @ result that is at once absurd and unjust,”
and (2) CASI’s claim to a refund of the use fees for Kukuiula
Small Boat Harbor is not exclusively governed by HRS § 40-35.
Finally, CASI asserts that, based on the equities of the case,

the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding DLNR, the

 

3 added.)

 

(Eapne:

*cxSt enumerates six Eindings of fact in its pointe of error
section that do not have 2 correspanding “argument” section. Therefore, each
Of these points is deemed waived. ge HRAP Rule 26(b)(7) ("Pointe not argued
may be deened waived.”

 

 
*** NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
prevailing party, $4,037.83 in costs.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that:

(2) the circuit court properly concluded that CAST
lacked standing* to participate in Intervenors’ declaratory
action seeking a judgment that they are entitled to a Kukuivla
Harbor commercial permit. CASIs claim of standing to challenge

Intervenors’ permit is “abstract, conjectural, or merely

+ to establish standing, 2 plaintit# must satisfy the following
elenents of the traditional injury-in-fact test: "(1) has the plaintife
Suffered an actual or threatened injury? (2) 1a the injury fairly traceable to
the defendant's actions; and (3) would & favorable decision likely provide
Felsef for plaintit#’s injury.” a ets. Hawes.
255, 325, 167 F.3d 292, 312 (2007) festnote and ellipses in original

omitted), In addition, there are “less stringent requirements for access and
participation in the court procese” when establishing standing in an action
for deciaratory relief. Mottl v. Wivahicg, 95 Hawai'i 381, 389, 23 P.3a 716,
724 (2001), “Although HRS $€32°7, {which grants a circuit court Jurisdiction
for declaratory relzef}] provides for standing £0 sus "(i]n cases of actual
Controversy,”

 

 

 

 

   

[the] porpose [of MRS chapter 632] is to afford relief...

without requiring one of the parties interested so to invade the

Fights asserted by the other ae to entitle the party to maintain

anordinary action therefor. “It is ta be Libersily interpreted

ang acnsnistares, with s view to making the courts more
reiceable to the people

 

‘SUbinens tox Protection of M. Kohala Coastline © county of Hauai's
Citizens"), $1 Reward 94, 100, 979 F-24120, Tie C998) quoting Richard
Up tistcald, 62 Rawai'i 249,254 5.12, 921 P.24 169, 174 n12 (2996))9 Geanee
piesa ex Baptiste, 115 dawas't 25,32 n.18, 165 232 BY,
S23 a:18 (200717 But ses HottL, #5 Baves'i at 395, 23 p34 at 730 (cautsoning
that (Gitizenai does not abrogate the ‘injury in fact” standing requirement
in actions for declaratory relief affecting 2 public interest, but merely
fendates ess demanding standards in assessing the plaintitis! proof of an
Mingury in face™=)

 

 
 

++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WES’

 

HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

hypothetical,” and CASI has not shown an injury-in-fact.* See
Mott] v. Mivahira, 95 Hawai'i 381, 392, 23 P.3d 716, 724, 727
(2001) (concluding that allegations that an act “must” negatively
affect the plaintiffs are mere speculation and not a “distinct
and palpable injury” as an injury-in-fact requires);

(2) the circuit court properly concluded that CAST
lacked standing to seek an injunction as to Intervenors’
operation at Kukuiula Harbor without a commercial permit and
without paying the two percent use fee, inasmuch as CASI did not
establish that it was injured by DLNR’s application of Hawai'i
Administrative Rules towards Intervenors or by Intervenors’
mooring at Kukuiula Harbor without a commercial permit. See
Motel, 9§ Hawai'i at 392, 395, 23 P.3d at 727, 730;

(3) HAR § 13-234-25 unambiguously requires the
operator of a vessel to pay a fee based on gross revenues from

the operation of the vessel and not based on only the revenue

 

* _te Se well established that injury-in-fact includes naz to
econonic interests. Se Aksu v, Glohana Corps, 65 Ha. 363, 369, 652 F.2d
1530, 1198 (1962) (anjury in fact has always included harm’ to economic
Interests.” {citations omitted). A competitor, however, does not have
Standing where the state has not directly injured the competitor. See Keahole
Defense Coalition, Inc. vs Bd. of Land aba Natuzal Bes, (*Keahole”), 110
Bavaii 41s, 434-35, 151 Pod 585, 600-01 (2008) (Rolding that 2 plaintiff
Goes not have standing to challenge the Board of Land and Natural Resourcest
Secision to grant a competitor energy producer's a tine extension to develop
its energy station at Keahole, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not indicate that
ie would turt its developnent); But cf. Bush v. Hawaiian Hones Cons’n, BL
Hawai'i 474, 479, 918 P.2a 1130, 1135 (1996) (geclaring that “stanaing
Barriers should be lowered in cases of public interest under our Jurisdiction”
and determining that the appellants, Native Hawaiian beneficiaries of trust,
have standing to challenge the defendant's agreements thet may enable farming
cempetition against appellants) -

 

 

 

 

 

  
*o**. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

from comercial activities at a DOBOR harbor.’

Requiring a
vessel oxner to pay both DLNR and non-DOBOR fees for operating
from the non-DOBOR pier, such as Port Allen is also not absurd or
unjust," inasmuch as it is reasonable that an operator of a
vessel with 3 Kukuiula Harbor commercial permit, pay? for the

right to “load or discharge passengers or cargo or engage in any

other commercial activity” at Kukuiula Harbor proportional to

 

 

7 Because HAR § 13-23-25 is plain and unambiguous, i is not
sssary or appropriate to consider the intent of thie rule:
Haugen, 106 Hawai'i 72, 75, 85 P.34 178, 182 (2004) ("(z]t is a cardinal rule

Sf statutory interpretation that, where the tersa of a statute are plain,
Unambiguous and explicit, we are not at liberty to look beyond thet lanciage
for a different meaning.” Instead, our sole duty t2 to give effect to the
statute's plain and obvious meaning.” (Citations and quotation signals
omitted.)); ae also State 1, Kupihea, 98 Hawai'i 196, 206, ¢6 F.3d 498, S08
(2002) (**{wje do not resort to legisiative history to cloud a statutory text
that is clear.’" (Quoting State vs Kalama, $4 #awai'i 60, 64, 8 P.3d 1224,
1226 (2000)-))

+ despite the unambiguous language of the statute, we are “willing
to look beyond the plain, cbvicus, and unambiguous language of 2 statute, the
Facial constitutionality of which is not at issue, for the purpose of
ascertaining its underlying legislative intent, but only if a Literal
Construction ‘would produce an absurd and unjust result.'” Haugen, 104
Hawai’ at 77, 85 P.3d at 18¢ (quoting hate v. Dudoit, 90 wawait 262, 270,
S75 P.23 700, 708 1999)

 

calculated to produce an amount at least sufficient to
xpenses of operating, maintaining, and managing the

‘and services and cost including interest, of amortizing
capital improvesents for boating facilities appropriated after
Suly 1, 1995, including, but not limited to, berths, slips, and
Folated accommodations, exclusive of the costs of constractingy
Operating, and maintaining general navigation channels, protective
Structures, and aids to navigation.

(2). Fixed with due regard to the primary purposes of

providing public recreational facilities and promsting the fishing
Ensvstry.

  

BAR § 13-234-1 (1994). Cf. Captain Andy’ Sailing, Inc v, Jonas, 195
F.Supp.24 1157, 1161-63 (D+ Haw. 2001] (recognizing chat the use foe "bear[s)
a ‘rational relationship to the regulation of DLNA facilities”)

 

6
++ NOT _FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
gross revenues that are collected from all of its operations,
including non-DLNR operations. HAR § 13-234-25 was also
consistent with the DLNR’s statutory power under HRS § 200-10
(1993), because it plainly provides that an operator of a
vessel used for conmercial purposes from its permitted mooring
shall pay “a fee based on a percentage of the gross revenues
derived from the use of the vessel... ."7

(4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by

sen

 

awarding DLNR costs under HRCP Rule 54(d) and HRS 5 607-9.”

Pulava v. GTE Hawaiian Tel, 112 Hawai'i 3, 23, 143 P.3d 1205,
1225 (2006) (“The presumption [that the prevailing party is

entitled to costs) itself provides all the reason a court needs

 

HRS § 200-10(e) (4) provided in pertinent part:

‘The permittee shall pay moorage fees to the department for the use
Permit which shall be Based on, but not limited to, the use of the
Sessel, its effect on the harbor, use of facilities, and the cost
Of administering this scoring program; and, furthermore

 

: If a vessel is used for commercial purposes from
its permitted mooring, the permittee shall pay, in lieu of the
rmoorage and Liveaboard fee, a fee based on s percentage of the
Grose revenues derived from the use of the vessel which shall be
fot Less than two times the moorage fee assessed for a
fecrestionsl vessel of the same #120.

 

 

See Pacheco vs insta, 448 P.34 763, 795 (Sth Cir. 2006) (holding
that a1 fedorai iitigants have a duty to bring’a case in good faith, and
therefore, "neble intentions alone do not relieve en unsuccessful litigant of
the obligation under Rule 54(@) to compensate his opponent for reasonable
Costs. ‘If the svaraing of costs could be thwarted every time the unsuccessful
porty is 9 normal, average party, and not a knave, [FRCP Rule] $4(¢) (1) would
Rave’ little substance cenaining,’*) (quoting Nat'l Inte, Serva, Inc, v, Ti
Lng, 51 £36 1470, 1672-73 (Sth Cir. 1998), grervaled on-other grounds BY

Aesth of Moxican-Anerican Gducators vs State, 211 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Ca¥,
2000)7-

 

 
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WES’

 

HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

avarding costs, and when a district court states no reason

   

for awarding costs, we will assume it acted based on that
Presumption.” (quoting Save Qur Valley v, Sound Transit, 335 F.3d
932, 945 (9th Cir, 2003)). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the first circuit court's
May 18, 2005 judgment in favor of DLNR, BDC, and Donnelly, and
against CASI is affirmed in all respects.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 25, 2001

On the briefs: Gyr
Williem M. McKeon of -

Paul Johnson Park & Niles, be Bbccce~
for plaintiff-appeliant

Captain Andy’s Sailing, Inc. Secuaes Ot sre
itaian 3, aynhote,

Deputy Attorney General,

Departnent of the Atcorney a —
General, State of Hawai'i,

for defendant-appellee Rene Duster
Bepartnent of Lend end

Neturgl Resources State of

Hawai'i

 

 

Robert F, Miller, for
intervenors-appellees

Blue Dolphin Charters, Ltd.
and Terry Donnelly