Title: Holo Holo Charters, Inc. v. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PAC

 

No. 26200

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T

HOLO HOLO CHARTERS, INC., 2 Hawai'i corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

 

DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI'I;
PETER T. YOUNG,’ Director of the Department of Land and Natural
Resources and Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural
Resources, State of Hawai'i; MASON YOUNG, Acting Administrator,
Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation, Department of Land and
Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i; and VAUGHAN E. TYNDZIK,
Kauai District Manager, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation,
Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i,

Defendants-Appellees. .

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. No. 02-1-2618)

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

 

comer)

Plaintiff-Appellant Hole Hole Charters, Inc.
appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit? (“circuit court”) filed on October 13, 2003, following
the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees
Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai'i
(“DINR”), and DLNR officials Peter 7. Young, Mason Young and
Vaughan £. Tyndzik, all of whom were sued in their official
capacities for purposes of this appeal (all four defendants~
appellees will be collectively referred to as “the DLNR
Defendants”). On summary judgment, the circuit court ruled that

Furevent to Hawes's Roles of Appellate Procedure (*HRAP") Rule

43(c)_ (2000), Feter 7. Young hes been substituted as a party to the instant
peal in place of Gilbert Colene-Ageran.

   
    

the Honorable Eden Elizabeth Hife presided,
NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 

tort claims against the DLNR Defendants for

 

(2) 022 of HiT’
recovery of $115,022.24 in ocean recreation management area
Revised Statutes (*HRS*) §

 

(WORMA") fees-were barred by Hewa:
662-15(3) (Supp. 1999)? (exceptions to State of Hawai'i's general
waiver of sovereign immunity for tort claims) because HHCI had an
alternative remedy under HRS § 40-35 (2993); (2) however, the
statute of limitations had run on that HRS § 40-38 claims and (3)
the ocean recreation managenent permit ("ORMA permit”) was a
License, rather than a contract, such that (a) the court did not
ter jurisdiction over HHCI’s contract claims

 

possess subject

 

> HRS § 662-15 Liste seven enomerated exceptions te the State of

Hawoi's's express waiver of sovereign inmunity for the torts of ite employees.
Specifically, HRS '$ Ge2-15(3) staces that HRS chapter G62 does net apply te
Sfajny claim for which a renedy is provided elsewhere in the laws of the

statel.]”

 

       

+ Rs § 40-35 provides, in pertinent part

(a) pov disputed certicn of scnevs representing a clein in favor
pi the Sate pay be paid under protest tee subse accountant of
he cenartnent, boars, forces, comission or other scency of the

= bas ted ‘The protest shall
be in writing, signed by the person waking the payment, cr by the
Person's agent, and shall set forth the grounds of protest. If any
Peyment, or any portion of any payment, ie made under protest, the
Public accountant te whom the payment is made shall hold that
portion of the moneys paid uncer protest ina trust account in the
Etate treasury for 2 periog of thirty daye fron the Gate of

payment

(b) Action te recover noneve paid under pretest of proceedings to
sduudt the claim nav be conencad by the never Or Clsinant -aeainst,

 

 

 

Peete rhe pee i arcane eee ea sna te hireay
Sopropflate -sccsunt in the treasure of the sears be the eesemer ane,
ang the anoint deposited shall thereupon becone a aovernmens

~ Aby action te recover payment of taxes onder protest

Sheil be commenced in the tax appeal court

[Emphases added.)
 

"ATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

   

NOT FOR PUBI

 

under BRS § 661-1 (1992)! (state’s genera} waiver of sovereign
immunity for contract claims), and (b) “HRS § 40-35) was
[HCI’s) exclusive remedy to contest any ORMA fee payments made
by [HHCI] to the (DLNR Defendants].”

on contends that: (1) the circuit court

 

erroneously dismissed HHCI’s claims on the basis of lack of
subject matter Jurisdiction, because “(HHCI’s] claims sourded in
contract and are cognizable in the circuit court pursvant to HRS
§ 661-11]"s (2) the circuit court erroneously found HRS § 40-35
to be the sole basis of HHCI’s potential remedies, because “(tJhe

remedies afforded by [HRS § 40-35] do not supplant the conmon law

 

renedies available in a contract dispute over which the circuit

 

 

court has subject matter jurisdiction under HRS § 661-117)" (3)
the circuit court erroneously ruled that HHCI's tort claims were
barred by HRS § 662-15(3), because BRS § 40-35 is only a basis

for relief in the tax appeal court, and the ORMA permit fees at

issue are not within that tax appeal court’s jurisdiction; and

 

(4) HHCI's claims are not time-barred.
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 our

recent decision in Captain Andy’s Sailing, Inc. v. Dep't of Land
and Natural Res., State of Hawai'i, No. 25378 (hereinafter

 

+ RS § 661-1 provides in pertinent part:

‘the seversi circuit courte of the State snd, except as otherwise
provided by statute of rvle, the several state district coures
Ghall, subject to appeal as provided by Jaw, have original
Suriedsetion te near and determine the follewing matters. -

 

(2) ALL elaine ageinst the state founded upon... . any
contract, expressed cr implies, with the State .
+++ NOT_ FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **¢

“Captain Andy's"), is controlling.
In Captain Andy's, we held that: (1) HRS § 40-35, when
read together with its legislative history, clearly encompasses
the disputed ORMA permit fees in issue such that it was the
statute under which relief had to be sought; (2) on account of
this alternate remedy at la, the circuit court properly found

captain Andy's Sailing, Inc.'s tort claims barred under HRS §

662-15 (3); (3) HRS § 66
permit under which fees are due is a revocable license, rather

than a contract; and (4) the plaintiff-appellant in that case,

 

2 is inapplicable because the ORMA

 

also a passenger-carrying beating company, had not filed @ claim

 

pursuant to HRS § 40-35 within the 30-day statute of Limitations,
such that any claim made thereunder is time-barred.

Upon review of the record, we find that the instant
appeal involves (1) the same issues as in the Captain's Andy's
case; (2) the same ORMA where the United States District Court
for the District of Hawai'i found that permit fees for that ORMA
were being unconstituticnally assessed as an impermissible duty
of tonnage, see Captain Andy's Sailing, Inc, v. Johns, 195 F.

Supp. 2d 1157, 1174 (D. Haw. 2002); (3) substantively identical
and (4) an expired HRS § 40-35 statute of

 

ORMA permit:
Limitations, inasmuch as HHCI’s complaint was filed more than one

year after its last alleged ORMA permit fee payment. Because our
holdings in Captain Andy's are squarely on point, we hold that
the circuit court properly granted sunmary judgment in fevor of
the DNR Defendants.

As with the Captain Andy's case, we are not without

sympathy for HHCI’s plight, inasmuch as (1) HHCI alleged that a

 
++ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **¢
total of $115,022.24 in ORMA permit fees had been paid te DINR,
and (2) an extrenely short statute of limitations within an
admittedly obscure, near-100-year-old statute has effectively
barred 211 of HHCI’s clains for relief. However, we must hold
that HRS § 40-35 unmistakably governs the instant appeal, and
that the DINK Defendants (and by extension, the State of Hawai'i)
cannot be Legally compelled te refund any fees that HEC may have
paid as to that ORMA addressed in Captain Andy's Sailil
Johns, 195 F. Supp. 2¢ 1157 (D. Haw. 2001), notwithstanding the
federal district court's explicit and unchallenged finding that
such fees were unconstitutionally exacted ae applidd to that
ORMA. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit
court is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 26, 2006.
on the briefs:

Dennis Niles, William M. McKeon
and Tom Pierce (of Paul, Johnson,
Park @ Wiles) for Plaintiff- Z

Appellant Holo Holo Charters, Inc.

Mee RLTirane~
Michael Q. Y. Lau, and Sonia

Fassts Deputy Attorneys, General,
for Defendant-Appeliee State of Peutels reudaqor

Cone, Dutiyuth