Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

KEVIN R. WALSH and BLANE M. )

WILSON, as individuals and on )

behalf of all others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

CITY AND COUNTY OF

)

HONOLULU, a Hawaii municipal )

corporation; MARK J. BENNETT, )

Attorney General of the State of )

Hawaii, in his official capacity; and )

MARIE LADERTA, Interim

)

Director, State of Hawaii Department )

of Human Resources Development, )

in her official capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

CV NO 05-00378 DAE LEK [CLASS ACTION]

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION The Court heard Plaintiffs’ Motion on January 30, 2006. Lois Perrin, Esq., and Anne Williams, Esq., appeared at the hearing on behalf of Plaintiffs; Gordon Nelson and Donna Woo, Deputies Corporation Counsel, appeared at the hearing on behalf of Defendant City and County of Honolulu (“the City”); and Mark Bennett, Attorney General, Deirdre Marie-Iha, and Charleen Aina, Deputies

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 2 of 32
Attorney General, appeared at the hearing on behalf of Defendants Mark Bennett
and Marie Laderta (“State Defendants”). After reviewing the motion and the
supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the pre-employment
residency requirement for public employment set forth in Hawaii Revised Statute
Section 78-1(c). That section provides as follows:
All persons seeking employment with the government of the State or in the service of any county shall be citizens, nationals, or permanent resident aliens of the United States, or eligible under federal law for unrestricted employment in the United States, and residents of the State at the time of their application for employment and as a condition of eligibility for continued employment.
"Resident" means a person who is physically present in the State at the time the person claims to have established the person's domicile in the State and shows the person's intent is to make Hawaii the person's permanent residence. In determining this intent, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) Maintenance of a domicile or permanent place of residence in the State;
(2) Absence of residency in another state; and
2

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 3 of 32
(3) Former residency in the State. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 78-1(c).
The Hawaii Administrative Rules provide that “[a]pplicants shall be residents or former residents of the State and citizens, nationals, permanent resident aliens of the United States . . . at the time of application.” Haw. Admin. R. § 14-3.01-4. At the hearing, State Defendants represented that this rule has been repealed.
In addition, the City has implemented the residency requirement through its Civil Service Rules. Initially, Section 3-4 provided that at the time of application, applicants shall be residents or former residents of the State. However, prompted by the instant lawsuit, effective November 19, 2005, the City amended the rule to eliminate the reference to “former residents.”
On March 15, 2005, prior to the amendment to the Civil Service Rule and prior to any action taken to repeal the administrative regulation, Kevin Walsh (“Walsh”) applied for three positions with the City. On May 20, 2005, Blane Wilson (“Wilson”) applied for one position with the City. Question 4 of the City’s electronic application for employment that Plaintiffs filled out provided as follows: “RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT: The Hawaii public employment law requires that applicants be current or former legal residents of Hawaii at the time of
3

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 4 of 32
application.” (Walsh Decl. ¶6; Wilson Decl. ¶17, attached to Pls.’ Mot.) Both Plaintiffs responded that they were not a legal resident of Hawaii. Walsh received three rejection letters, one for each position, and Wilson received one rejection letter. Each rejection letter stated that “your application cannot be accepted because you are not a resident of the State of Hawaii, which is required for this position. Hawaii State law requires that applicants be current or former residents of Hawaii at the time of application.” (Walsh Decl. Exs. 1-3; Wilson Decl. Ex. 3.) Wilson also applied for a job with the State. He received a letter dated March 15, 2005, informing him that he was ineligible for the position because he did not meet the minimum experience required and he was not a legal resident of the State of Hawaii. (Wilson Decl. Ex. 2.)
Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from enforcing the pre-employment residency requirement of Hawaii Revised Statute Section 78-1(c).
STANDARD OF REVIEW In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate either “(1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [the plaintiff’s] favor.” Am. Tunaboat Ass’n v.
4

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 5 of 32
Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1411 (9th Cir. 1995) (brackets in original); Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2005). These two formulas are not different tests but represent two points on a sliding scale in which the degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success on the merits decreases. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). "Under any formulation of the test, [however,] the plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury." Id. It is within the court’s discretion to grant or deny a motion for preliminary injunction. Id.
DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that the pre-employment residency requirement is unconstitutional because it has the impermissible purpose of deterring migration into the State. Plaintiffs further argue that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it violates the fundamental right to travel by imposing a de facto durational requirement, and because it treats former residents different from nonresidents. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article VI since it discriminates against nonresidents seeking to practice their trade.
5

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 6 of 32
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing and that Plaintiffs’ challenge to the “former residency” factor is moot. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ Privileges and Immunities claim fails because public employment is not a fundamental right. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim fails because the residency requirement is non-durational and meets the rational basis test. I. Standing
Defendants initially argue that Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1. To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: 1) an injury in fact--an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized, as well as actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; 2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct--an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and 3) a likelihood, not mere speculation, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); San Diego County Gun Rights Comm’n v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996).
6

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 7 of 32
Defendants argue that Plaintiff Wilson lacks standing because he fails to meet the first and third requirements of the Lujan standing test. First, Defendants argue that Wilson was not qualified for the State position that he applied for, and therefore, would have been rejected for that position regardless of his residency status. Consequently, he suffered no injury in fact from his rejection and his injury cannot be redressed by a favorable decision. Second, Defendants argue that Wilson cannot challenge the former residency requirement because it has not caused him any injury in fact. Finally, Defendants argue that Wilson does not have standing to raise a right to travel claim, because he has subsequently moved to Hawaii, and therefore has received no injury in fact to his right to travel.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff Walsh lacks standing with respect to the State because, he did not actually apply for a position with the State and thus suffered no injury in fact. Additionally, Defendants assert that any claim by Walsh that he was deterred from applying to positions with the State is too generalized and conjectural to meet the requirement of injury in fact. Finally, Defendants argue that the standing arguments that apply to Plaintiff Wilson also apply to Walsh.
Plaintiffs Walsh and Wilson argue that they both have standing to challenge the statute pursuant to the “deterred applicant” doctrine espoused by the
7

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 8 of 32
Supreme Court in Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977). They argue that the prohibition on non-residents applying for public employment in Hawaii has convinced them that submitting an application for State or City positions is futile. Plaintiffs argue that they were both rejected by the City based purely on their non-residency status, and that Wilson was rejected by the State, at least in part, for lack of Hawaii residency. Therefore, Walsh and Wilson both allege they have an injury in fact that can be redressed stemming from their outright rejection by the City. Both Plaintiffs also argue that they have an injury in fact that can be redressed in relation to the State. This injury stems from the effect that the City rejections, coupled with the widespread posting of the statutory requirement of residency (and in Wilson’s case his actual rejection by the State), have had in deterring them from seeking other available public positions in Hawaii.
In Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, the Supreme Court held that a large class of people who did not apply for the specific job at issue had nonetheless suffered an injury in fact that could be redressed. 431 U.S. at 324. This injury existed since the class of people were deterred from even applying for the job because the practices of the Union convinced them that it would be futile to do so.
If an employer should announce his policy of discrimination by a sign . . . on the hiring-office door, his victims would not be limited to the few who ignored the
8

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 9 of 32
sign and subjected themselves to personal rebuffs . . . [w]hen a person’s desire for a job is not translated into a formal application solely because of his unwillingness to engage in a futile gesture he is as much a victim of discrimination as is he who goes though the motions of submitting an application. Id. at 365-66. Here, the City’s application for employment specifically informed Plaintiffs that they need not apply for the job since Hawaii law requires that applicants be current or former residents of the State. This application is analogous to a sign on the hiring office door explicitly stating an employer’s policy of discrimination. In both cases, the applicant is informed explicitly and unequivocally that because he falls into a disfavored group it is impossible for him to obtain employment. In addition, the rejection letters from the City state that Plaintiffs’ applications were not even accepted or reviewed because of their lack of Hawaii residency. This in turn deterred Plaintiffs from applying for other public positions because doing so would be futile. Indeed, Wilson stated that “[b]ased on my rejections to date due to my non-resident status, I have been discouraged from applying for any other government jobs with the City and County and the State of Hawaii.” (Wilson Decl. ¶26.) Walsh stated that “because of the conspicuously
9

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 10 of 32
displayed residency requirement and because I am not nor have I ever been a Hawaii resident, I was and remain deterred from applying for any position with the State of Hawaii or any further jobs with the City and County of Honolulu.” (Walsh Decl. ¶11.) Thus, Wilson and Walsh both have injuries in fact that can be redressed as they are both deterred applicants who still wish to apply for available City and State open positions in the future.
Further, Defendants’ standing argument that Wilson was not qualified for the specific State position to which he applied is misplaced. The statute and its effects have clearly deterred Wilson from applying for other public positions, for which he may have been qualified. Thus, even if Wilson was not qualified for the specific job at issue here, the injury is the deterrence itself. This is a recognizable injury in fact under the rationale of Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters. 431 U.S. at 365-66.
Moreover, Defendants’ argument that neither Wilson nor Walsh can challenge the provision of the statute that differentiates between non-residents and former Hawaii residents because they have suffered no injury in fact from this provision also fails. Plaintiffs argue that this provision distinguishes between two types of non-residents and then impermissibly favors one over the other. Because both Plaintiffs fall into the disfavored category of non-residents they both have standing to challenge such a provision.
10

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 11 of 32
Finally, Defendants’ argument that Wilson does not have standing to assert a right to travel claim because Wilson did in fact travel to Hawaii fails as well. The right to travel finds its roots in multiple sections of the Constitution, including Article IV Section 2, Article I Section 8, the Fourteenth Amendment, and inherently from our federal structure of government. Attorney Gen. of N.Y. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 901-02 (1986). This concept encompasses more than simply the right to enter and leave the borders of a state. Wilson has standing to challenge this statute for infringing on his right to travel because the injury he is claiming to have suffered is encompassed by an expansive understanding of the right to travel. Wilson is alleging that although he now lives in Hawaii, he is not being given all of the benefits of State citizenship to which he is due under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the various other sections of the Constitution from which the right to travel flows. In addition, as he is not a Hawaii resident, there is no reason to treat him differently from Walsh with respect to standing based solely on his physical presence in the State.
Accordingly, this Court finds that both Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1.
11

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 12 of 32
II. Likelihood of Success on the Merits The right to travel from one state to another has long been held to be a
fundamental right, even though it is not enumerated as such in the text of the United States Constitution. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-58 (1966). This right has been considered to spring from various clauses of the Constitution, including the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, and the Equal Protection Clause, the two clauses pursuant to which Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 902.
The right to travel includes the right of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state, to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in the second state, and “for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like citizens of” the second state. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500 (1999). “State law implicates the right to travel when it actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right.” Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 903 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Courts have held that all residency requirements implicate the right to interstate travel and thus must be justified by the state imposing the requirement. Perez v. Personnel Bd. of the City of Chic., 690 F. Supp. 670, 674 (N.D. Ill. 1988);
12

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 13 of 32
Andre v. Bd. of Trs. of Village of Maywood, 561 F.2d 48, 52 (7th Cir. 1977). In order to determine what level of scrutiny to employ to determine whether a residency requirement is constitutionally justified, the court must determine the extent to which the requirement impinges upon the right to travel. Nehring v. Ariyoshi, 443 F. Supp. 228, 236 (D. Haw. 1977) (“in order to determine whether the compelling state interest test should be invoked, a court must analyze the extent of a law’s impact on interstate travel . . .”) (citing Mem’l Hosp. v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 256-62 (1974)).
Where a state law sufficiently burdens the right to travel, the court applies a strict scrutiny analysis, requiring the law to be necessary to further a compelling state interest. Id.; Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 904-06 (a heightened scrutiny is triggered where a state law operates to penalize those persons who exercise their right to migration). Although not all durational residency requirements require application of the strict scrutiny test, the Supreme Court and this Court have applied the strict scrutiny test to laws that impose a durational residency requirement and infringe on the right to travel. See Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 904-06; Nehring, 443 F. Supp. at 236; Grace v. City of Detroit, 760 F. Supp. 646 (E.D.
13

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 14 of 32
Mich. 1991).1 This is because the durational requirement classifies residents of the same state based solely upon their time of migration and results in a penalty of “unequal distribution of rights and benefits among otherwise qualified bona fide residents.” Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 903; Perez, 690 F. Supp. at 674; Nehring, 443 F. Supp. at 237 (applying strict scrutiny analysis since the durational residency requirement for public employment operated as penalty for newly arrived residents).
Where the law at issue is merely a bona fide residence requirement, the court need only apply the rational relation test to determine whether the law is justified. Perez, 690 F. Supp. at 674. This is because the fact of residency itself is distinct from a durational residency requirement. McCarthy v. Phila. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 424 U.S. 645, 647 (1976) (upholding a continuing residency requirement in order to remain a municipal employee since a residence requirement and a waiting period requirement are distinct prerequisites); Andre, 561 F.2d at 52-53 (citing cases noting that there is a difference between bona fide residence
1See also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 678, 634 (1969) (requiring the state to show a compelling interest to support a one-year durational residency requirement for the receipt of welfare benefits and striking down the requirement as unconstitutional); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339-42 (1972) (applying strict scrutiny analysis and invalidating one-year residency requirement for voting).
14

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 15 of 32
requirements and durational requirements and upholding a requirement that municipal employees establish residency within a certain period of time after becoming employed).
This Court previously addressed the issue of the level of scrutiny to apply in order to determine whether a prior version of Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1 was unconstitutional. Nehring, 443 F. Supp. at 237. At that time, Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1 had a durational provision in its text, providing that all employees in public employment had to be residents of the State for at least one year immediately preceding their application for employment. Id. at 229. This Court found that the denial of the opportunity to new residents to apply for public employment for a one-year period had a sufficient enough impact upon the right to travel to require that strict scrutiny analysis be applied. Id. at 237. This is because, at the time, approximately 12% of the jobs available in Hawaii were public employment jobs and the forced inability of a new resident to apply for those jobs acted as a penalty, particularly for those people who were trained for work primarily performed by the government. Id. Applying the strict scrutiny analysis, the Court found that the State failed to establish a compelling interest for the statute and therefore the durational residency aspect of Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1 violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 239. The Court also noted that
15

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 16 of 32
the original version of the statute, which had included a three-year residency requirement to be eligible for public employment, had previously been struck down by the Hawaii Supreme Court as violating the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 229 (citing York v. State, 53 Hawaii 557, 558, 498 P.2d 644, 645 (Haw. 1972)).
Here, although Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1 previously had durational residency requirements in its text, those requirements were removed in response to the Hawaii Supreme Court and this Court’s rulings finding them unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argue that although the statute on its face does not have a durational requirement, its effect is a de facto durational requirement that places a burden on the right to travel, thus requiring a strict scrutiny analysis. Residency can be established by documentary evidence of filing State income tax returns, registering to vote in Hawaii, obtaining a Hawaii driver’s license or other license, registering a motor vehicle in Hawaii, by a deed or lease, etc. Plaintiffs claim that establishing legal residency as required by the statute entails an onerous and time-consuming process since it would take weeks or months to fulfill the State’s requirement. For example, Plaintiffs state that depending upon when the non-resident arrived, it could take 11 months to file a State tax return. Additionally, Plaintiffs assert it could take weeks for a motor vehicle to be shipped or purchased, or for voter registration to be verified and effective.
16

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 17 of 32
Plaintiffs cite Grace v. City of Detroit, 760 F. Supp. 646 (E.D. Mich. 1991), as support for their argument that a de facto durational requirement is unconstitutional. In Grace, the City of Detroit had a requirement that all applicants for city service positions be residents of the city at the time of their application. Id. at 648. Various rules required that applicants have Detroit residency “not only at the time of application but also throughout the formulation of the eligibility list and until the time of certification and hire.” Id. The court noted that the period of time between application and the formulation of the eligibility list ranged from two months to one year, and the time period between application and certification could be as long as three years. Id. at 649. Thus, the court found that “[t]he practical effect of these requirements is to impose a residency requirement of substantial duration, for the mere opportunity to compete [for a public position] and without any certainty of ultimate success.” Id. Applying the strict scrutiny analysis, the court found the residency requirement resulted in an impermissible burden on the right to travel and enjoined the city from enforcing the requirements. Id. at 653; see also Perez 690 F. Supp. at 676 (finding that the Chicago residency requirement was an unconstitutional de facto durational requirement since in its application it resulted in a 23-month waiting period of uncertainty).
17

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 18 of 32
Defendants argue that satisfying the Hawaii residency requirement is much easier and takes far less time to satisfy than the requirements set forth in the Grace case. Defendants state that any one of the documentary proof of residency could be sufficient to establish residency, and that establishing residency could happen almost instantaneously upon arrival in the State. Defendants use Plaintiff Wilson as an example of how easy it is to claim residency. Wilson filed an affidavit of Hawaii voter registration, and his Certificate of Voter Registration was issued within one week of his submission. Approximately sixteen days after Wilson provided the City with a copy of this Certificate, the City emailed Wilson informing him that they received his proof of residency document and re-activated his application. (DeCosta Decl. Exs. 1-2; Zukeran-Lyman Decl. Ex. 2, attached to the City’s Opp’n.) Based upon Wilson’s own experience, Defendants argue that the instant case is distinguishable from Grace since Grace involved various waiting periods, including one of 60-days to one year, and another period of almost three years. Thus, Defendants argue, that the statute at issue here does not impose a de facto durational requirement. The Court agrees.
Here, unlike in Grace or Perez, there has been no showing by Plaintiffs that obtaining any of the proof of residency documents takes much time at all, let alone a duration of 60-days or more. Indeed, it took only one week for
18

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 19 of 32
Plaintiff Wilson to receive his Certification of Voter Registration and Defendants considered this one document sufficient to establish residency and therefore accept and process his application for employment. Furthermore, with the advent of the internet and email, there is nothing preventing a potential applicant from starting the residency process to establish their intent to be a Hawaii resident before he or she is physically present in Hawaii. For example, certain websites make it easy to find places to rent and enter into leases without being physically present in the State at that time. In addition, many state forms are available on the web and the applicant can at least begin to fill them out before physically moving to Hawaii. Moreover, there is nothing preventing an applicant from shipping his or her vehicle prior to being physically present in the State and then registering it upon their arrival. As any one or combination of these documents would be sufficient to meet the residency requirement, and as obtaining some the above documents can be done either prior to being physically present in Hawaii or soon after arrival, the residency requirement does not impose a de facto durational requirement.
As this Court finds that Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1(c) does not impose a de facto durational residency requirement, the strict scrutiny analysis does not apply. However, because the residency requirement still implicates the
19

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 20 of 32
right to interstate travel, Defendants must prove that the requirement is rationally related to a legitimate policy goal. Perez, 690 F. Supp. at 674; Martinez v. Bynum 461 U.S. 321, 329 n.7 (1983) (“[a] bona fide residence requirement simply requires that the person does establish residence before demanding the services that are restricted to residents.” “A bona fide residence requirement implicates no “suspect” classification, and therefore is not subject to strict scrutiny. . . . the question is simply whether there is a rational basis for it.”).
A. Rational Relation Test Under the rational relation test, Defendants must show that the
residency requirement is rationally related to a legitimate policy goal. Perez, 690 F. Supp. at 674.
[T]here is a point beyond which the State cannot go without violating the Equal Protection Clause. The State must proceed upon a rational basis and may not resort to a classification that is palpably arbitrary. The rule often has been stated to be that the classification must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation. Allied Stores of Ohio (Inc.) v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 527 (1959) (citation and quotation omitted).
20

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 21 of 32
Defendants argue for the first time2 that they have a legitimate policy goal of assuring that persons considered for governmental jobs have a commitment to the State, are loyal, and have knowledge of local problems. Defendants state that these interests are rationally related to the pre-employment residency requirement because hiring newly arrived persons results in quick turnover before the significant investment in training time of those persons has begun to yield a return. Defendants claim that this quick turnover is due to the non-residents’ underestimation of the effect of Hawaii’s geographic isolation or cultural differences.
Plaintiffs argue that the there is no legitimate policy for the statute because the legislative history indicates that it was adopted to deter in-migration, which is an impermissible purpose. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants newly articulated interests of loyalty and commitment are irrational as the likelihood of job turnover could be attributed to any particular group, such as those under 40 years of age, yet only non-residents are barred from applying for public employment.
2 In Nehring, when the same statute was at issue, the State argued that the purpose of Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1 was to control growth, protect the environment, and apportion employment opportunities. 443 F. Supp. at 237, 238.
21

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 22 of 32
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that ‘to the extent the purpose of (such a law) is to inhibit the immigration of (people) generally, that goal is constitutionally impermissible.’” Nehring, 443 F. Supp. at 238 (quoting Memorial Hosp., 415 U.S. at 263-64); Saenz, 526 U.S. at 506 (classifications between residents based upon length of residency may not be justified by a purpose to deter applicants from migrating to a state because “such purpose would be unequivocally impermissible.”).
With respect to the instant case, this Court previously found that the State admitted that the purpose of Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1 was to achieve its goal of controlling growth by “keeping people out of Hawaii.” Nehring, 443 F. Supp. at 238. This Court noted in Nehring that the statute was originally enacted “[i]n order to dissuade people from continuing to settle in Hawaii.” Id. at 229. After the Hawaii Supreme Court struck down the statute’s three-year residency requirement as unconstitutional, then Governor Ariyoshi “expressed his willingness to put this State in direct confrontation with . . . the Constitution of the United States. He called for bold ideas and action to combat the problem of potential overpopulation in Hawaii.” Id. at 229. In response, the State enacted the one-year durational residency requirement. Id.
22

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 23 of 32
After the Nehring case struck down the one-year residency requirement for public employment as unconstitutional, Governor Ariyoshi requested that the pre-employment residency requirement be introduced as part of his “Legislative Package for Growth Management.” (Perrin Decl. Ex. 6, attached to Pls.’ Mot.) The standing committee reports on the pre-employment residency requirement bill followed the objectives of the “Legislative Package for Growth Management” and noted that the purposes of the pre-employment residency requirement was to encourage the hiring of local residents, control growth of the population, and protect limited resources by not encouraging in-migration. (Id. at Exs. 7-9.) This bill was enacted and it replaced the unconstitutional one-year durational requirement with the pre-employment residency requirement.
In addition, after Nehring, the State defended its pre-employment residency requirement in an amicus brief it filed in the Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978) case. The State argued that
migrant job-seekers pose problems for local residents in Alaska and Hawaii . . . Over-population may ultimately mean the demise of Hawaii's visitor industry . . . Consequently, the Legislature of the State of Hawaii, like Alaska's legislature, has also enacted restrictions on public employment requiring Hawaii residency for the vast majority of public jobs.
23

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 24 of 32
Briefing for State of Hawaii as Amicus Curiae, Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518
(1978) (No. 77-324), 1978 WL 206744, at * 3 (Jan. 31, 1978).
Plaintiffs assert that the legislative history and arguments by the State
demonstrate that Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1(c) has the impermissible
purpose of deterring in-migration. The State would have this Court believe that
because it removed the one-year durational requirement, the current incarnation of
Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1 is a complete transformation from the
previous version of the statute. However, Defendants do not contest the original
impermissible purpose of the statute, nor do they explain how the replacement of
the one-year requirement with a pre-employment residency requirement removes
the taint of the original impermissible purpose.3
3 Defendants rely heavily on dicta in the three page, per curiam decision in McCarthy, in which the Supreme Court stated that it has not “questioned the validity of a condition placed upon municipal employment that a person be a resident [a]t the time of his application.” 424 U.S. at 646. The quoted phrase is interpreted by Defendants as meaning that a State’s imposition of a residency requirement at the time of application for municipal employment is literally beyond question, presumably, due to its obvious constitutionality. However, read in conjunction with the immediately succeeding footnote, the phrase we have not “questioned the validity of . . .” is better interpreted simply as the Supreme Court explaining that it has not yet addressed this particular question. Indeed, in discussing previous rulings, the Court stated as follows: “Neither in those cases, nor in any others, have we questioned the validity of a condition placed upon municipal employment that a person be a resident [a]t the time of his application. Nor did any of those cases involve a public agency’s relationship with its own
24

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 25 of 32
The history of this statute makes it clear that the State has continued to perpetuate the original improper purpose. Although the State removed the oneyear durational requirement from the statute, this Court cannot ignore the original and continuing impermissible purpose of the statute - - to deter in-migration by controlling growth first through a three-year durational residency requirement, then through a one-year durational requirement, and finally through a pre-employment residency requirement for public employment. Cf Martinez, 461 U.S. at 333 (upholding a residency requirement since there was no indication that the statute had any impermissible basis). This is especially true since the impermissible purpose results in the denial of the opportunity to apply for public employment, which affects the opportunity to pursue a necessity of life, especially for those who are trained for work performed primarily by the government. Nehring, 443 F. Supp. at 237; Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 908 (finding that the awarding of bonus points to veterans who were New York residents at a past fixed point was unquestionably a substantial benefit since it could “mean the difference between winning or losing civil service employment, with its attendant job security, decent
employees . . . .” Id. at 646 n.6. The Supreme Court is differentiating specifically between the legal questions it is ruling on, and those that it is leaving open. In the McCarthy case, the Supreme Court ruled on the validity of a continuing residency requirement. A pre-employment residency requirement was not at issue.
25

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 26 of 32
pay and good benefits.”); Grace, 760 F. Supp. at 650 (noting that “the right to compete for government employment with city residents . . is a vital benefit and privilege. Employment . . . is the means of providing one’s family with the necessities of life.”). As stated previously by this Court, the State “can constitutionally seek to control growth through the use of zoning and other more enlightened tools of economic planning.” Nehring, 443 F. Supp. at 238.
Furthermore, even if this legislative history demonstrating an impermissible purpose did not exist, Defendants’ newly alleged legitimate interests of finding loyal, committed employees to prevent quick turnover is not rationally related to a pre-employment residency requirement. First, Defendants’ argument that persons who were non-residents at the time of application are more likely to leave a position soon after their hire than those persons who were residents at the time of their application is contradicted by their argument that obtaining residency is easy and instantaneous upon arrival in the State. Indeed, other than the purchasing of a plane ticket and filling out a voter registration affidavit or vehicle registration form, there is no significant difference between persons who are nonresidents at the time of their application and persons who obtained residency immediately upon arrival in the State. If the State’s earlier argument is correct that persons can likely become residents within one day of their arrival in the State (e.g.
26

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 27 of 32
by having already entered into a lease for rental of a home) and immediately apply for public employment, those persons are equally as likely to be unfamiliar with day-to-day life in Hawaii as the person who had not yet established residency, as they likewise have yet to actually experience living in Hawaii. Defendants’ argument that residents are less likely to leave their job implies that Defendants are surreptitiously imposing a durational residency requirement by selecting long-time residents for hire over recently arrived residents, an action which is clearly unconstitutional.
Additionally, Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1 is discriminatory on its face. Indeed, the text of statute grants exceptions to the pre-employment residency requirement for those persons applying for positions as police officers or with the University of Hawaii. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 78-1(c) and (f). Defendants do not even address this inconsistency or offer any justification for why those applying for jobs with the University of Hawaii should be treated differently from those persons applying for any other public position. Thus, Defendants’ argument that section 78-1 is rationally related to its legitimate interest in preventing turnover is severely undermined by the State’s exception to the pre-employment residency requirement for those seeking public positions with the University of Hawaii or as police officers. Moreover, this Court sees no reason why Defendants
27

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 28 of 32
could not accept and review applications from non-residents and make a conditional offer of employment subject to proof of residency within a reasonable period of time of their start date. See Andre, 561 F.2d at 52-53 (upholding a requirement that municipal employees establish residency within a certain period of time after becoming employed).
Finally, the Hawaii Supreme Court has previously found that the rationale that residents better understand local issues was insufficient to support the former durational requirement of Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1 under the rational relation test, since the residency requirement had no rational connection to whether the applicant had the capacity and fitness to serve as a public employee. York, 53 Hawaii at 561 n.3, 498 P.2d at 647 n.3. Also, in Nehring, this Court found that the State’s enumerated purpose for the statute of protecting the environment was not rationally related to the classification of new and old residents. 443 F. Supp. at 238.
Accordingly, as Defendants have not established that the preemployment residency requirement was not enacted for an improper purpose and that it is rationally related to a legitimate interest, this Court finds that Plaintiffs
28

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 29 of 32
have a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the preemployment residency requirement of Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1 is unconstitutional.
This Court is deeply concerned with the law in its current form as a residency requirement that bars non-residents from applying for employment with the State or County acts as a prohibition on the fundamental right to travel and is therefore constitutionally suspect and virtually indefensible. On the other hand, a requirement that a new hire obtain state residency within a reasonable period of time after hire appears to be a responsible requirement that would meet constitutional requirements, as dictated in prior decisions. III. Irreparable Harm
Defendants first assert that Plaintiffs have not proven irreparable harm because they have not established a likelihood of success on their Constitutional claims. Defendants also argue that regardless of Plaintiffs’ success on their Constitutional claims, a deprivation of Constitutional rights is insufficient to establish irreparable harm for purposes of a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs argue that a Constitutional violation is a per se basis for this Court to find irreparable injury. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that they have a
29

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 30 of 32
strong likelihood of success on the merits of their case, and therefore must only show a possibility of irreparable injury. Plaintiffs assert that either taken together or separately, these two propositions of law entitle them to a finding of irreparable harm sufficient to justify a preliminary injunction.
“When a plaintiffs fundamental constitutional rights are being infringed upon, one can assume that irreparable injury exists.” Nehring, 443 F. Supp. at 228; see also Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F. 2d 804, 806 (2nd Cir. 1984) ("When an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary."); Huston v. Burpo, C94-20771, 1995 WL 73097, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 1995) (“a violation of a constitutional right would constitute an irreparable injury.”); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (in the context of free speech, the Supreme Court held that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”). In addition, where a plaintiff has established a likelihood of success on the merits, he or she need only establish the possibility of irreparable injury. Warsoldier, 418 F.3d at 993-94.
30

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 31 of 32
Here, as set forth above, this Court found that the Hawaii residency requirement very likely violates Plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right to interstate migration. Thus, it can be presumed that irreparable injury is extremely likely.
Even if this Court does not follow Mitchell in assuming that a constitutional violation automatically creates irreparable injury, as this Court found that Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims, they need only establish the possibility of irreparable harm. Plaintiffs have met this burden. Plaintiffs, especially Wilson, have demonstrated that they have been and continue to be deterred from completely migrating to the State since they continue to be precluded from applying for public employment. As such, Plaintiffs are being prevented from plying their trade, and receiving all the attendant benefits. Accordingly, as Plaintiffs have established the possibility of irreparable harm, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
31

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK Document 65 Filed 02/01/2006 Page 32 of 32
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 1, 2006.
_____________________________ David Alan Ezra United States District Judge
Kevin R. Walsh, et al. v. City and County of Honolulu, et al., CV No. 05-00378 DAE-LEK; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
32

 
 DAVIS LEVIN LIVINGSTON GRANDE

ANNE L. WILLIAMS

1662

MICHAEL K. LIVINGSTON 4161

400 Davis Levin Livingston Grande Place

851 Fort Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Telephone: (808) 524-7500

Facsimile: (808) 545-7802

Email: awilliams@davislevin.com

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF HAWAII FOUNDATION

LOIS K. PERRIN

8065

P.O. Box 3410

Honolulu, Hawaii 96801

Telephone: (808) 522-5900

Facsimile: (808) 522-5909

Email: lperrin@acluhawaii.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

KEVIN R. WALSH, BLANE M. WILSON, STEVEN M. ANNARELLI, and LYDIA R. HILL, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, et aI,
Defendants.

) Civil No. 05-378 DAEILEK ) ) [CLASS ACTION] ) ) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT ) FOR DECLARATORY AND ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; EXHIBITS ) A-H ) ) ) ) )

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF I. INTRODUCTION
1. Hawaii is world-renowned for its spirit of aloha, which is described by Defendant City and County of Honolulu ("City and County") as "Hawaii's gift to the world and the glue which holds our diverse people together in harmony." See http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/menulecodev/whyhawaii/whyhawaii.htm. Hawaii is fortunate to have had the lowest unemployment rate in the nation for at least nine of the last fourteen months, and it is actively seeking to position itself as a global power in the AsialPacific region. Its public and private sector leaders have spent enormous sums of money and time fostering Hawaii as a center for world-class research in areas such as software, telecommunications and biochemistry. Indeed, the City and County of Honolulu actively promotes these efforts, stating for example, "[i]n the new millennia, high-tech industries can relocate almost anywhere. Because of our quality of life, political stability, and communication capabilities, Hawaii is an excellent choice for global businesses that must be able to deal on the same day with markets on both sides ofthe Pacific Rim." See id. Yet, at the very same time, the Aloha State has undercut and belied its efforts to become a vibrant leader in a world without walls by maintaining and enforcing an antiquated, provincial and patently unconstitutional law that bars individuals (such as the named Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they
2

represent) irrespective of their talent, experience and vision, from even applying for government jobs unless they are already residents ofthe State.
2. Plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh is an American citizen who lives on the mainland. Plaintiff Walsh is a non-resident of the State of Hawaii who has applied for jobs with Defendant City and County with the hope of not just visiting but living and working in this beautiful state. Plaintiff Walsh has had each of his three job applications promptly and summarily rejected by the City and County's Department of Human Resources ("CCH DHR"), solely on the basis of Plaintiff Walsh's non-residency in the State of Hawaii at the time of application.
3. Plaintiff Blane M. Wilson is an American citizen who currently resides on Oahu. While Plaintiff Wilson was a non-resident ofthe State ofHawaii, he applied for jobs with the Defendant City and County and with the State of Hawaii with the hope of obtaining employment on Oahu while his wife serves active duty in the United States military on Oahu. Plaintiff Wilson has had one of his job applications promptly and summarily rejected by the CCH DHR, solely on the basis of Plaintiff Wilson's non-legal residency in the State of Hawaii at the time of application. Additionally, Plaintiff Wilson has had one of his job applications promptly and summarily rejected by the State of Hawaii's Department of Human Resources Development, specifically by its State Recruiting Office (collectively referred to herein as "DHRD"), based, at least in part, on Plaintiff
3

Wilson's non-resident status in the State ofHawaii at the time of application. (For purposes ofthis Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), the term "non-resident" means both non-residents and non-legal residents unless otherwise clearly noted.)
4. Plaintiff Steven M. Annarelli is an American citizen who lives on the mainland. Plaintiff Annarelli is a non-resident of the State of Hawaii who has applied for jobs with both Defendant City and County and the State of Hawaii with the hope of not just visiting but living and working in this ~eautiful state. Plaintiff Annarelli has had two of his job applications promptly and summarily rejected by the CCH DHR and the State of Hawaii solely on the basis of Plaintiff Annarelli's non-residency in the State of Hawaii at the time of application.
5. Plaintiff Lydia R. Hill is an American citizen who lives on the mainland. Plaintiff Hill is a non-resident of the State of Hawaii who would like to apply for jobs with both Defendant City and County and the State of Hawaii with the hope of not just visiting but living and working in this beautiful state. Plaintiff Hill would like to apply for one of the positions with the City and County of Honolulu and State of Hawaii, such as the Planner positions, but has been and is currently deterred from applying because she does not meet the residency requirement at the time of application.
6. The City and County's and State's residency policies and persistent practices of rejecting applications from non-residents penalize the fundamental
4

constitutional right to interstate travel of Plaintiffs Walsh, Wilson, Annarelli, and Hill (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") and the members ofthe class and subclass that they
represent and unduly infringe upon their right to practice their occupations or common callings. In addition, the City and County's and State's policies and practices treat non-residents differently from residents and former residents in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Finally, the City and County's and State's vague, arbitrary and informal residency "waiver" procedures violate the Plaintiffs' rights to procedural due process.
7. On their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs bring this action to have the City and County's and State's policies and persistent practices pertaining to residency at the time of application declared unconstitutional and for an order enjoining their enforcement by Defendants. In addition, Plaintiffs seek to have H.R.S. § 78-1(c), the statute upon which the City and County and State relied in part in adopting their illegal policies and persistent practices and which, on information and belief, is currently enforced by the CCH DHR and DHRD, respectively, declared unconstitutional and for an order enjoining its enforcement statewide.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
5

9. This Court is authorized to order declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
10. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation, under color oflaw, ofrights secured by the United States Constitution.
11. Venue properly lies before this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The act or omissions giving rise to the claims of Plaintiffs and the class and subclass that they represent have occurred or will occur in this district.
III. PARTIES 12. Plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh is a natural person, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Florida. Plaintiff Walsh is not and has never been a resident of the State of Hawaii. 13. PlaintiffBlane M. Wilson is a natural person, a citizen ofthe United States who resides on Oahu but has been and is a legal resident of the State of Florida. Although Plaintiff Wilson took some initial affirmative steps to establish Hawaii as his legal state of residence in order to qualifY for the privilege of applying for government employment positions, Plaintiff Wilson's intent is to maintain his legal residence in the State ofFlorida.
6

14. Plaintiff Steven M. Annarelli is a natural person, a citizen of the United States and a resident ofthe State ofNew Jersey. Plaintiff Annarelli is not and has never been a resident of the State of Hawaii.
15. Plaintiff Lydia R. Hill is a natural person, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State ofMassachusetts. Plaintiff Hill is not and has never been a resident of the State of Hawaii.
16. Defendant City and County is a municipal corporation in Hawaii and the local governing body for the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.
17. Defendant Mark J. Bennett is a resident of and the Attorney General of the State ofHawaii. As the Attorney General, Defendant Bennett is the chief legal officer of the State of Hawaii and has the ultimate responsibility for enforcement (or preventing enforcement) of laws of statewide application, including H.R.S. § 78-I(c). The State of Hawaii, by and through the Attorney General, is authorized to and has sued to enforce the statewide public employment laws set forth in H.R.S. § 78-1. Defendant Bennett is sued in his official capacity only.
18. Defendant Marie Laderta is Director of the DHRD. Her appointment is subject to Senate confirmation. Upon information and belief, Defendant Laderta is a resident ofthe State of Hawaii. Upon information and belief, the Director ultimately has final decision-making authority for determining whether an
7

applicant for ajob with State of Hawaii possesses the requisite qualification of

legal residency at the time of application. Defendant Laderta is sued in her official

capacity.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A.

The Statute, B.R.S. § 78-1(c)

19. H.R.S. § 78-1(c) provides:

All persons seeking employment with the government of the State or in the

service of any county shall be citizens, nationals, or permanent resident aliens of

the United States, or eligible under federal law for unrestricted employment in the

United States, and residents of the State at the time of their application for

employment and as a condition of eligibility for continued employment.

"Resident" means a person who is physically present in the State at the time

the person claims to have established the person's domicile in the State and shows

the person's intent is to make Hawaii the person's permanent residence. In

determining this intent, the following factors shall be considered:

(1) Maintenance of a domicile or permanent place of residence in the State;

(2) Absence of residency in another state; and

(3) Former residency in the State.

8

B.

The City and County's Residency Hiring Policies and

Persistent Practices

20. Based in part on H.R.S. § 78-1 (c), the City and County adopted and

continues to enforce its own residency policies and persistent practices.

21. The City and County's residency policies are prominently displayed

on the City and County's job opportunities webpage at

http://agency.governmentjobs.com/honolululdefault.cfm?action=jobs. Until nearly

two months after the original Complaint in this action was filed, the City and

County's website provided:

APPLICATIONS WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED FROM

INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE RESIDENTS OR FORMER

RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIL If the residency

requirement has been waived for a particular position, it will be

noted on the job bulletin. CLICK HERE for more information on

WHO CAN APPLY.

(emphasis in original).

22. The link for "WHO CAN APPLY," at http://www.co.honolulu.hi.usl

hrleps.htm#l. Until nearly two months after the original Complaint in this action

was filed, the City and County's website provided:

WHO CAN APPLY?

9

Applications can only be accepted from individuals who are residents or former residents of the State of Hawaii; and who are citizens, nationals, or permanent resident aliens of the United States. A non-citizen with employment authorization from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may also apply. You may be asked to provide proof of eligibility to apply during the application process.
The residency requirement is mandated by state law and can be waived only for special circumstances. If the residency requirement has been waived for a particular position, it will be noted on the job bulletin.
Note: Resident means a person who is physically present III the State and who intends to make Hawaii the person's permanent residence. Further information about the citizenship and residency requirements can be found in the Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 78-1. 23. According to the City and County's website at www.co.honolulu.hi.uslhrleps.htm#5. applicants who meet the qualification requirements, including residency, are placed on an eligible list that is effective for at least one year.
10

24. Upon information and belief, placement on the eligible list can lead to consideration for City and County jobs other than the job for which an application was originally submitted - all without submitting a further application.
25. Non-residents such as Plaintiffs are denied all the advantages of placement on the City and County eligible list.
26. The City and County residency policies and its persistent practices differ from H.R.S. § 78-I(c) in a number of material respects, including: (I) requiring a resident to be physically present in the State at the time of application for employment; (2) allowing either residents or former residents (while barring all others) to apply for City and County jobs; (3) prominently placing its residency requirements in red font on its employment related websites; (4) failing to include a formal mechanism for waiving the residency requirement and providing no information on any informal policy the City may have to waive certain jobs from its residency policies and persistent practices; and (5) barring non-residents from its "eligible list," even though this list may later be used to fill jobs to which the residency policies have been waived.
27. The City and County's residency policies and persistent practices make no distinction between Hawaii residents who are employed and those who are not employed. Thus, the policies and persistent practices have no substantial
11

relationship to solving any material unemployment in the City and County of Honolulu.
28. In or about 1985, the State of Hawaii, by and through its-then Attorney General, Corinne Watanabe, sued John E. Hirten, in his official capacity as Director of Transportation Services, City and County of Honolulu, and the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii Supreme Court No.1 0887 ("the Hirten action"), alleging that Mr. Hirten's hiring violated the residency hiring requirement in H.R.S. § 78-1(b).
29. In defending the Hirten action, the City and County took the position that the residency requirement ofH.R.S. § 78-1(b) violated several provisions of both the United States and Hawaii Constitutions.
C. Use of the City and County's Hiring Policies to Reject and Deter Non-Residents From Applying for City and County Jobs
30. On or about March 15,2005, Plaintiff Walsh submitted electronic applications for employment to the City and County's Department of Human Resources. Plaintiff Walsh applied for the following positions: (a) Data Processing Systems Analyst III (SR-24); (b) Data Processing Systems Analyst II (SR-22); and (c) Computer Programmer II (SR-18).
12

31. While Plaintiff Walsh is currently a resident of Florida, he has a desire to travel to, live, and practice his profession in Hawaii. Plaintiff Walsh has never yet lived in Hawaii.
32. Question number 4 of Plaintiff Walsh's electronic application for employment reads, "RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT: The Hawaii public employment law requires that applicants be current or former legal residents of Hawaii at the time of application. The response you provide on the following questions will be taken into consideration (together with any other information submitted with your application) in determining whether you have acquired or maintained legal residency in Hawaii, or in verifying that you were formerly a legal resident of Hawaii."
33. Plaintiff Walsh responded to question 4 by stating, "I am not a legal resident of the State of Hawaii."
34. On or about March 25, 2005, Plaintiff Walsh received three separate rejection letters dated March 17,2005, for each of the three positions for which he had applied. Plaintiff Walsh was rejected from these positions solely because of his status as a non-resident at the time of application. Each of the rejection letters stated, "[y]our application cannot be accepted because you are not a resident of the State of Hawaii, which is required for this position. Hawaii State law requires that applicants be current or former residents of Hawaii at the time of application."
13

35. True and correct copies ofthese rejection letters are attached to this TAC as Exhibits "A" - "C." The letters have been redacted to remove Plaintiff Walsh's home address.
36. All of the three positions for which Plaintiff Walsh applied have been posted by Defendant City and County since October 20, 2003 and remain unfilled.
37. On or about May 20,2005, Plaintiff Wilson submitted an electronic application for employment to the City and County's Department of Human Resources for the Police Evidence Specialist position (SR-18).
38. At the time of his application, Plaintiff Wilson was a legal resident of Florida even though he had already moved to Hawaii on or about April 1, 2005, to accompany his wife, who is on active duty in the United States Military on Oahu. Plaintiff Wilson has a desire to practice his professional calling in Hawaii.
39. Question number 4 ofPlaintiff Wilson's electronic application for employment reads, "RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT: The Hawaii public employment law requires that applicants be current or former legal residents of Hawaii at the time of application. The response you provide on the following questions will be taken into consideration (together with any other information submitted with your application) in determining whether you have acquired or maintained legal residency in Hawaii, or in verifying that you were formerly a legal resident of Hawaii."
14

40. Plaintiff Wilson responded to question 4 by stating, "I am not a legal resident of the State of Hawaii."
41. On or about June 7, 2005, Plaintiff Wilson received at his Kailua, Hawaii address a rejection letter dated June 6, 2005, for the position for which he had applied. Plaintiff Wilson was rejected from this position solely because of his status as a non-legal resident at the time of application. Specifically the rejection letter stated, "[y]our application cannot be accepted because you are not a resident of the State of Hawaii, which is required for this position. Hawaii State law requires that applicants be current or former residents of Hawaii at the time of application."
42. A true and correct copy of this rejection letter is attached to this TAC as Exhibit "D." The letter has been redacted to remove Plaintiff Wilson's home address.
43. The position for which Plaintiff Wilson applied has been posted by Defendant City and County since October 20, 2003 and remained unfilled until late 2005.
44. On October 2,2005, Plaintiff Annarelli submitted a written application for employment to the City and County's Department of Human Resources. Plaintiff Annarelli applied for the position of Liquor Control Administrator.
15

45. While Plaintiff Annarelli is currently a resident ofNew Jersey, he has a desire to travel to, live, and practice his profession in Hawaii. Plaintiff Annarelli has never yet lived in Hawaii.
46. In late November, 2005, Plaintiff Annarelli received a rejection letter
for the City and County position for which he had applied. Plaintiff Annarelli was rejected from this position solely because of his status as a non-resident at the time of application. The rejection letter stated, "[y]our application cannot be accepted because you are not a legal resident of the State of Hawaii. Hawaii State law requires that applicants be residents of Hawaii at the time of application."
47. True and correct copy of this rejection letter, which is a duplicate of the original letter sent in November of2005, is attached to this TAC as Exhibit "E". The letter has been redacted to remove Plaintiff Annarelli's home address.
48. While Plaintiff Hill is currently a resident of Massachusetts, she has a desire to travel to, live, and practice her profession in Hawaii. Plaintiff Hill spent several weeks in Hawaii during the summer of 1997.
49. Plaintiff Hill is a graduate of Brown University and is currently a Technical Assistance Project Manager with the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. Plaintiff Hill periodically peruses the City and County of Honolulu job postings and has considered applying for available positions in her field, such as
16

Planner positions, but has been deterred from doing so due to the pre-employment residency requirement.
50. Upon information and belief, nearly two months after the original Complaint herein was filed, Defendant City and County began removing the language exempting former Hawaii residents from its residency policies from its various websites and job postings. Additionally, upon information and belief, after the original Complaint herein was filed, Defendant City and County began the administrative process to repeal the portion of the City and County's resident hiring policy that exempted former residents.
51. The March 17, 2005 rejection letters to Plaintiff Walsh, the June 6, 2005 rejection letter to Plaintiff Wilson, and the November, 2005 rejection letter to Plaintiff Annarelli, which are on the City and County's Department ofHuman Resource's letterhead, make no mention ofPlaintiffs' talents, abilities or other qualifications.
52. Based on these categorical rejections due solely because Plaintiffs are not nor have they ever been Hawaii residents, Plaintiffs Walsh, Wilson and Annarelli have been and remain deterred from applying for further positions with the City and County of Honolulu.
53. Based on these categorical rejections due solely because Plaintiffs are not nor have they ever been Hawaii residents, Plaintiffs have been denied all
17

benefits resulting from placement for one year on the City and County's eligible list.
D. The State of Hawaii's Residency Policies and Persistent Practices
54. At the time of its rejection of Plaintiff Wilson' job application at least in part on the basis ofnon-residency, the DHRD, in enforcing H.R.S. § 78-1(c), broadcast on its job search website, "[f]or most jobs, you must be a legal resident of the State of Hawaii at the time of application. Former legal residents may also apply." See http://pahoehoe.ehawaii.gov/dhrdlstatejobs/exeljobSearch.cgi.
55. The State of Hawaii's hiring residency policies were prominently displayed. For example, the DHRD website provided (and still provided as of August 22, 2005) in its "How to Apply" section at http://www.ehawaiigov.orgldhrdlstatejobslhtml/howto.html#LEGAL:
BASIC PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS Residence Requirement You must be a legal resident ofthe State of Hawaii at the time you apply for a job. Former legal residents may also apply. The residence requirement may be waived for some jobs and will be stated on the job announcement. If there is a question regarding your residence status, it is your responsibility to provide documentary evidence of abandonment of your previous residence and/or
18

establishment of Hawaii residence, or evidence of former legal residence in the State of Hawaii (i.e., filing State income tax returns as a resident of Hawaii, registering to vote in Hawaii's elections, and so on.) If you are unsure about your residence status, please complete a residence questionnaire and submit it with your application.
56. The State's residency hiring policies are also set forth in each job announcement for which the residency requirement has not been waived.
57. The State's residency policies differed from H.R.S. § 78-1(c) in a number of material respects, including, most significantly, a blanket exception for former residents of the State. The State's residency policies and persistent practices make no distinction between Hawaii residents who are employed and those who are not employed. Thus the policies and persistent practices have no substantial relationship to solving any material unemployment in the State of Hawaii.
58. Upon information and belief, after the original Complaint herein was filed, the State of Hawaii began removing the language exempting former Hawaii residents from its residency policies from its various websites and job postings. In addition, on or about July 29,2005, the State DHRD, by and through then Director Kathleen N.A. Watanabe, gave public notice of the proposed repeal of Section 14-
19

3.01-4, Hawaii Administrative Rules, which states in pertinent part: "Applicants shall be residents or fonner residents of the State ... at the time of application."
E. Use of the State's Residency Hiring Policies to Reject and Deter Non-Residents From Applying for State Jobs
59. On or about June of2004, Plaintiff Wilson's wife was infonned by military orders of her transfer, to Oahu. Plaintiff Wilson thus began a search from his residence in Pensacola, Florida to obtain employment prior to moving to Oahu. On or about late February of2005, Plaintiff Wilson applied for the position of Public Health Administrative Officer IV (Recruitment No. 204245) with the State of Hawaii. Plaintiff Wilson also submitted several other job applications for positions with the State of Hawaii.
60. On or about March 20, 2005, Plaintiff Wilson received a rejection letter on DHRD's letterhead dated March 15,2005, for the Public Health Administrative Officer IV position for which he had applied. Plaintiff Wilson was rejected from this position at least in part because he had failed to demonstrate that he was "a legal resident of the State of Hawaii as required by our public employment law."
61. A true and correct copy of this rejection is attached to this TAC as Exhibit "F". The letter has been redacted to remove Plaintiff Wilson's home address.
20

62. The Public Health Administrative Officer position has been posted by the State of Hawaii since November 28, 2004 and remains unfilled.
63. Because of the conspicuously displayed residency requirement of H.R.S. § 78-1(c), because Plaintiff Wilson had already been rejected from one State position at least in part due to his non-resident status, and because of the delay in processing Plaintiff Wilson's outstanding applications, which on information and belief is due to his non-legal residency status, Plaintiff Wilson is deterred from applying for any other positions with the State ofHawaii.
64. In March of2005, there were several postings for jobs with the State of Hawaii for which Plaintiff Walsh was professionally qualified to apply for including several in the computer technology area.
65. Because of the conspicuously displayed residency requirement of H.R.S. § 78-1(c) Plaintiff Walsh had already been rejected from three positions with Defendant City and County solely on the basis ofhis out-of-state residency at the time of application, Plaintiff Walsh was and remains deterred from applying for any position with the State of Hawaii.
66. On April 29, 2005, Plaintiff Annarelli submitted a written application for employment to the State of Hawaii, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Regulated Industries Complaints Office (RICO). Plaintiff Annarelli applied for the position ofInvestigator IV (Honolulu).
21

67. Investigator Ronald R. Nicholas, RICO Investigations Manager, contacted Plaintiff Annarelli to arrange a telephonic interview. The interview was conducted on Monday, June 6, 2005. Later that evening, Mr. Nicholas contacted Plaintiff and advised him that he had interviewed well and requested that he forward a photograph of himself to RICO for identification purposes. Plaintiff Annarelli submitted the photograph and a thank you letter to RICO via electronic mail on June 7, 2005.
68. On June 29, 2005, Investigator Nicholas informed Plaintiff Annarelli that another candidate had been selected, but that RICO (Hilo) would have openings for similar positions in the fall of 2005. He encouraged Plaintiff Annarelli to apply again at that time.
69. Plaintiff Annarelli received a formal rejection letter dated August 3, 2005 for the State of Hawaii Investigator IV (Honolulu) position referenced in paragraph 66 above.
70. A true and correct copy of this rejection letter is attached to this TAC as Exhibit "G". The letter has been redacted to remove Plaintiff Annarelli's home address.
71. On September 9,2005, Plaintiff Annarelli submitted an application to the State of Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs RICO for the position of Investigator IV (Hilo).
22

72. On or about October 15,2005, Plaintiff Annarelli received a rejection letter dated October 10, 2005 for the State of Hawaii Investigator IV (Hilo) position for which he had applied. Plaintiff Annarelli was rejected from this position solely because ofhis status as a non-resident at the time of application. The rejection letter stated, "Current State Law, Chapter 78 ofthe Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires applicants be residents ofthe State of Hawaii at the time of their application for employment. As you do not appear to be a resident ofthe State of Hawaii at this time, we are unable to consider you for this position."
73. A true and correct copy of this rejection letter is attached to this TAC as Exhibit "H". The letter has been redacted to remove PlaintiffAnnarelli's home address.
74. Since April of2005, there have been and continue to be several postings for jobs with the State of Hawaii for which Plaintiff Annarelli was and is professionally qualified to apply for including several in the investigation field.
75. Because of the residency requirement ofH.R.S. § 78-I(c), the fact that Plaintiff Annarelli is not nor has ever been a Hawaii resident, and because Plaintiff Annarelli has already been rejected from one position with the State and one position with Defendant City and County solely on the basis of his out-of-state residency at the time of application, Plaintiff Annarelli is now deterred from
23

applying for any additional positions with the State of Hawaii and the City and County of Honolulu.
76. There have been and continue to be several postings for jobs with the State ofHawaii (and with the City and County ofHonolulu) for which Plaintiff
Hill was and is professionally qualified to apply including several in the field of
government planning. 77. Because of the conspicuously displayed residency requirement of
H.R.S. § 78-1(c) and because Plaintiff Hill is not nor has ever been a Hawaii resident, Plaintiff Hill has been and remains deterred from applying for any position with the State of Hawaii or with the City and County ofHonolulu.
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 78. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) the named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the class consisting of those other persons who are non-residents ofthe State of Hawaii and who have applied, who are now applying, or who will in the future apply for employment with the City and County and/or the State of Hawaii and whose applications have been or will be rejected in whole or in part on the basis of their non-resident status at the time of application. 79. Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of the subclass consisting of those who have been, are, or will be discouraged from applying for any job with
24

the City and County and/or the State of Hawaii because of the residency hiring requirement as set forth in H.R.S. § 78-1(c), and/or the City and County's residency hiring policies and/or the State's residency policies, which will result in the rejection in whole or in part on the basis oftheir non-resident status at the time of application.
80. Upon information and belief, the class and subclass of Plaintiffs are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
81. In addition, there are questions oflaw and fact common to the members of the Plaintiff class and subclass. These include the legality and constitutionality ofthe City and County's residency policies and persistent practices, which are based in part on H.R.S. § 78-1(c), and the City and County's failure to adopt any formal policy for waiving this bar to employment even when jobs have not been filled by resident applicants. These issues also include the legality and constitutionality ofthe State's residency hiring policies and ofH.R.S. § 78-1(c).
82. Upon information and belief, Defendant City and County imposes the residency policies and persistent practices challenged in this action through the CCH DHR so that the claims ofPlaintiffs are typical of those of the class.
83. Upon information and belief, the State imposes its residency policies onjob applicants through Defendant Laderta, Director (and her predecessors) and
25

the DHRD, including its subdivision, the State Recruiting Office, so that the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of those ofthe class.
84. Defendants City and County and Laderta (and her predecessors) conspicuously post their respective residency policies on their websites in several locations to deter non-residents such as Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff subclass from even applying for posted jobs so that the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of those of the subclass.
85. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and the subclass. Plaintiffs possess the requisite personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit. Counsel experienced in class action litigation and in constitutional issues represent them. Undersigned counsel have prior experience with civil rights and class actionlitigation. The attorneys of the ACLU of Hawaii and Davis Levin Livingston Grande have extensive litigation experience in federal court.
86. Defendants have acted and continue to act in a manner generally applicable to the class and the subclass, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the Plaintiff class and subclass as a whole.
VI. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
26

87. An actual and immediate controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent and Defendants. The parties have genuine and opposing interests that are direct and substantial.
88. The policies and persistent practices of Defendant City and County as described herein, which are based in part on H.R.S. § 78-1(c), violate the United States Constitution for at least the reasons set forth in this TAC. In addition, the State's residency hiring policies and H.R.S. § 78-1(c) violates the United States Constitution for at least the reasons set forth in this TAC. Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent are thus entitled to a declaratory judgment as well as such other and further relief as may follow from the entry of such a declaratory judgment.
89. Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent have no adequate remedy at law. Unless enjoined by the Court, Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent will continue to be arbitrarily and categorically rejected and/or deterred from exercising their right to travel interstate by applying for jobs with Defendant City and County and any other branch of govermnent within the State that are within their chosen callings or professions. This threat of injury to Plaintiffs and the members of the class and
27

subclass that they represent denies them their civil rights and requires permanent injunctive relief.
90. Defendants have acted and continue to act in a manner generally applicable to the class and subclass, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and injunctive relief with respect to the class and subclass each as a whole. In addition, the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent are capable ofrepetition, yet may evade review, thereby making class relief appropriate.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation ofthe Privileges and Immunities Clause ofArt. IV, Section 2 ofthe
United States Constitution, Actionable Pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 (Against Defendants Laderta and City and County)
91. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully contained herein, the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 90, above.
92. The City and County's and State's policies and persistent practices of as described herein impermissibly deprive Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent of their rights secured under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation ofthe Privileges and Immunities Clause ofArt. IV, Section 2 ofthe
United States Constitution, Actionable Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983 (AgainstAll Defendants)
93. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully contained herein, the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 92, above.
94. H.R.S. § 78-1(c) impermissibly deprives Plaintiffs and the members ofthe class and subclass that they represents of their rights secured under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 ofthe United States Constitution.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution,
Actionable Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983 (Against Defendants Laderta and City and County) 95. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully contained herein, the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 94 above. 96. The right to interstate travel is a crucial part ofthe liberty interests constitutionally protected through substantive due process and infringement ofthat right is subject to constitutional scrutiny pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. 97. The City and County's and State's policies and persistent practices as described herein impermissibly infringe on the fundamental right to travel of Plaintiffs and the members ofthe class and subclass that they represent.
29

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution,
Actionable Pursuant to 42 U.S.G. § 1983 (Against All Defendants)
98. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully contained herein, the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 97 above.
99. The right to interstate travel is a crucial part ofthe liberty interests constitutionally protected through substantive due process and infringement of that right is subject to constitutional scrutiny pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.
100. H.R.S. § 78-1(c) impermissibly infringes on the fundamental right to travel of Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation ofthe Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Actionable Pursuant to 42 U.S.G. § 1983
(Against Defendants Laderta and City and County) 101. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully contained herein, the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 100 above. Defendants Laderta and City and County discriminated against Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass solely on the basis of their non-residency at the time of application. 102. The City and County's and State's policies and persistent practices as described herein unduly infringe upon the rights ofPlaintiffs and the members of
30

the class and subclass that they represent, which are protected by the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation ofthe Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Actionable Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983
(Against All Defendants) 103. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully contained herein, the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 102 above. 104. H.R.S. § 78-1(c) discriminates against Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent based on their non-resident status at the time of application. Additionally, both the City and County's and State's policy of exempting former residents from the reach ofH.R.S. § 78-1(c) discriminate against Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent based on the fact that they have never yet been residents of Hawaii. 105. H.R.S. § 78-1(c) unduly infringes upon the rights of Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent, which are protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
31

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation ofthe Due Process Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution, Actionable Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983
(Against All Defendants) 106. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully contained herein, the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 105 above. 107. The City and County's and State's residency policies and persistent practices are devoid of any formal procedures to challenge an ineligibility determination based on non-residency at the time of application. Although the City and County apparently has a "waiver" policy, such policy is inherently vague and thus applied arbitrarily, if at all. 108. The lack of procedural protections constitutes a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the members ofthe class and subclass that they represent pray for the following relief: (a) A certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (b) A judgment declaring that the policies and persistent practices of Defendants pertaining to residency at the time of application as described herein, violate the United States Constitution on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs and the members of the class and subclass that they represent;
32

(c) A judgment declaring that the policies and persistent practices of Defendants exempting former residents from the reach ofH.R.s. § 78-1(c) violate the United States Constitution on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs and the members ofthe class and subclass that they represent;
(d) A judgment declaring that H.R.S. § 78-1(c) violates the United States Constitution on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs and the members ofthe class and subclass that they represent;
(e) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants (and their divisions, officers, servants, employees, attorneys, agents and representatives, successors-in-office and all persons acting or purporting to act in concert or in cooperation with Defendants or pursuant to Defendants' authority) from enforcing H.R.S. § 78-1 (c) and any policies and/or practices that are based in whole or in part on H.R.S. § 78-1(c), including the City and County's and State's residency policies and persistent practices including the blanket exemption of former residents as described herein;
(f) An award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenditures incurred as a result of bringing this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other applicable laws; and
(g) Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
33

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, March 13,2006. Respectfully submitted, DAVIS LEVIN LIVINGSTON GRANDE ACLU OF HAWAIl FOUNDATION
Is Lois K. Perrin
LOIS K. PERRIN Attorneysfor Plaintiffs
34

 
 Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LK Document 164 Filed 07/14/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1432

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

KEVIN R. WALSH, BLANE M. WILSON, STEVEN M. ANNARELLI and LYDIA R. HILL, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL NO: 05-00378 DAE/LEK
[CLASS ACTION]
PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF H.R.S. § 78-1(c) AND THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BASED THEREON

PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF H.R.S. § 78-1(c) AND THE POLICIES
AND PRACTICES BASED THEREON On February 1, 2006, this Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which barred Defendants from enforcing the pre-employment residency requirement set forth in H.R.S. § 78-1(c) (“February 1 Order”). On February 13, 2006, this Court entered its Preliminary Injunction Order Enjoining Enforcement of H.R.S. § 78-1(c) and the Policies and Practices Based Thereon, which incorporated the reasoning of the February 1 Order. On April 18, 2006, this Court entered its Order approving of the Stipulation of the Parties Regarding Implementation of Preliminary Injunction Orders (the February

1

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LK Document 164 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1433
1, February 13 and April 18 Orders are referred to collectively as the “Preliminary Injunction Orders”).
On April 5, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and for Entry of a Permanent Injunction and supporting papers. In that Motion, Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on the First through Sixth Causes of Action of the Third Amended Complaint and “a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of H.R.S. § 78-1(c) and the policies and practices based thereon (the“pre-employment residency requirement”), as well as the Defendants’ policy and practice of favoring former residents for public employment, whether by exemption or preference.” (See Amended Motion at 2.)
On May 16, 2006, while Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motion was pending, this Court approved and entered the Stipulation of the Parties Regarding Certification of Class and Appropriate Appointments and Order (“Class Certification Order”).
On June 14, 2006, this Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants’ Counter Motion for Summary Judgment (“Permanent Injunction Order”).
In accordance with the Preliminary Injunction Orders, the Class Certification Order and the Permanent Injunction Order, this Court hereby permanently enjoins
2

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LK Document 164 Filed 07/14/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1434
Defendants from enforcing the pre-employment residency requirement set forth in H.R.S. § 78-1(c) and the policies and practices based thereon, which include without limitation: 1. Defendants shall not enforce the requirement that an applicant for public
employment be a current legal resident of Hawaii at the time of application, as set forth in H.R.S. § 78-1(c); 2. Defendants shall not enforce any policies or practices based on the portion of H.R.S. § 78-1(c) that requires that an applicant for public employment be a current legal resident of Hawaii at the time of application, including but not limited to the City and County of Honolulu’s Civil Service Rule 3-4; 3. Defendants shall remove any remaining language from the Internet and from future job postings and recruitments that provides that public employment applications can only be accepted from current legal residents of Hawaii. This Permanent Injunction Order is limited to enjoining enforcement of the pre-employment residency requirement as set forth in H.R.S. § 78-1(c) and the policies and practices based thereon. This Permanent Injunction Order shall not be applicable to the residency requirements for elective and appointive officers of the State or the County, as set forth in H.R.S. §§ 78-1(a) and (b), or the requirement that employees be residents of the State to be eligible for continued employment
3

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LK Document 164 Filed 07/14/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1435
(“continuing residency requirement”). With respect to the continuing residency requirement, it is furthered ordered that: 1. Defendants are permanently enjoined from requiring that an applicant for a
public employment position establish residency before hire; 2. Nothing precludes Defendants from requesting that a new hire on his or her
first day of employment certify that he or she is a resident of Hawaii, provided, however, that such certification itself shall be sufficient to establish residency at the time of hire; 3. Defendants, in the event that documentary evidence of Hawaii residency is required, shall afford new hires a reasonable amount of time after beginning employment to provide any such document, e.g., Hawaii voter registration, Hawaii driver license, etc. This Permanent Injunction Order shall be binding on all those as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Charleen M. Aina Charleen M. Aina Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants Bennett and Laderta
4

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LK Document 164 Filed 07/14/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1436
/s/ Gordon D. Nelson Gordon Nelson Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Defendant City and County of Honolulu
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 13, 2006.
_____________________________ David Alan Ezra United States District Judge
_________________________________________________________________ Walsh, et al. v. City and County of Honolulu, et al., USDC CV No. 05-00378, Permanent Injunction Order Enjoining Enforcement of H.R.S. § 78-1(c) and the Policies and Practices Based Thereon
5

 
 Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LK Document 175 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1477

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

KEVIN R. WALSH and BLANE M. )

WILSON, STEVEN M.

)

ANNARELLI, and LYDIA R. HILL, )

as individuals and on behalf of all )

others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

CITY AND COUNTY OF

)

HONOLULU, a Hawaii municipal )

corporation; MARK J. BENNETT, )

Attorney General of the State of )

Hawaii, in his official capacity; and )

MARIE LADERTA, Interim

)

Director, State of Hawaii Department )

of Human Resources Development, )

in her official capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

CV NO 05-00378 DAE LEK [CLASS ACTION]

ERRATA TO AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On June 29, 2006, this Court issued its Amended Order Granting
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants’ Counter
Motion for Summary Judgment. Footnote 2 on page 16 of the Order states that:

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LK Document 175 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1478
Prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, Section 781(c) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes contained a former resident exception, which permitted former Hawaii residents to apply for state government positions even though they currently resided on the mainland. However, following the inception of the lawsuit, the Hawaii legislature repealed this exception in the statute. The Court also referenced the repeal of the “former resident exception” in Footnote 3 on Page 17 of the Order stating that: Plaintiffs urge the Court to issue an opinion on the constitutionality of the former residence exception. While the Court does not see how the existence of an exemption for former residents would change its calculus, the Hawaii legislature repealed this exception at the inception of this lawsuit, and therefore, the Court finds no occasion to address this issue. The Court clarifies that the “former resident exception” was not contained in the statute itself but rather in the applicable Hawaii Administrative Rule and City and County of Honolulu Civil Service Rule to implement Section 78-1(c) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. This “former resident exception” was later repealed and/or amended by the Defendants in this action as opposed to the Hawaii legislature.
2

Case 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LK Document 175 Filed 08/16/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1479
Accordingly, the Court issues an errata to Footnotes 2 and 3 of its June 29, 2006 Amended Order to reflect the above facts.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 15, 2006.
_____________________________ David Alan Ezra United States District Judge
Kevin R. Walsh, et al. vs. City and County of Honolulu, et al., Civil No. 05-00378 DAE-LEK; ERRATA TO AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
3

 
 460 F.Supp.2d 1207 (2006)
Kevin R. WALSH and Blane M. Wilson, Steven M. Annarelli, and Lydia R. Hill, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Hawaii municipal corporation; Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, in his official capacity; and Marie Laderta, Interim
Director, State of Hawaii Department of Human Resources Development, in her official capacity, Defendants.
No. CV 05-00378 DAE LEK.
United States District Court, D. Hawai`i.
July 3, 2006.
1208 *1208 Charleen M. Aina, Office of the Attorney General 0907 Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for Mark J. Bennett, Kathleen N.A. Watanabe, Marie Laderta, Defendants.
Mark J. Bennett, Office of the Attorney General-Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for City and County of Honolulu, Marie Laderta, Mark J. Bennett, Defendants.
James Earl Halvorson, Office of the Attorney General-Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for Mark J. Bennett, Kathleen N.A. Watanabe, Marie Laderta, Defendants.
Michael K. Livingston, Davis Levin Livingston Grande, Honolulu, HI, for Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson, Lydia R. Hill, Steven M. Annarelli, Plaintiffs.
Deirdre Marie 0907 Iha, Office of the Attorney General-Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for Mark J. Bennett, Kathleen N.A. Watanabe, Marie Laderta, City and County of Honolulu, Defendants.
1209 *1209 Gordon D. Nelson, Office of Corporation Counsel-Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, for City and County of Honolulu, Defendant.
Lois K. Perrin, American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson, Lydia R. Hill, Steven M. Annarelli, Plaintiffs.
Richard H. Thomason, Office of the Attorney General-Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for Mark J. Bennett, Kathleen N.A. Watanabe, Marie Laderta, Defendants.
Anne L. Williams, Davis Levin Livingston Grande, Honolulu, HI, for Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson, Lydia R. Hill, Steven M. Annarelli, Plaintiffs.
Donna M. Woo, Office of Corporation Counsel-Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, for City and County of Honolulu, Defendant.
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DAVID ALAN EZRA, District Judge.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After reviewing Plaintiffs' Motion and the supporting and opposing memoranda, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction.

BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2006, this Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction of Hawaii Revised Statute Section 78-1(c). In reaching its decision, this Court found that Defendants did not establish that the preemployment residency requirement was not enacted for an improper purpose and that it is rationally related to a legitimate interest. Plaintiffs now seek summary judgment and a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the pre-employment residency requirement of Hawaii Revised Statute Section 78-1(c).
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the pre-employment residency requirement for public employment set forth in Hawaii Revised Statute Section 78-1(c). That section provides as follows:
All persons seeking employment with the government of the State or in the service of any county shall be citizens, nationals, or permanent resident aliens of the United States, or eligible under federal law for unrestricted employment in the United States, and residents of the State at the time of their application for employment and as a condition of eligibility for continued employment.
"Resident" means a person who is physically present in the State at the time the person claims to have established the person's domicile in the State and shows the person's intent is to make Hawaii the person's permanent residence. In determining this intent, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) Maintenance of a domicile or permanent place of residence in the State;
(2) Absence of residency in another state; and
(3) Former residency in the State.
Haw.Rev.Stat. § 78-1(c).
The Hawaii Administrative Rules provide that "[a]pplicants shall be residents or former residents of the State and citizens, nationals, permanent resident aliens of the United States . . . at the time of application." Haw. Admin. R. § 14-3.01-4. At the hearing, State Defendants represented that this rule has been repealed.
In addition, the City has implemented the residency requirement through its Civil Service Rules. Initially, Section 3-4 provided that at the time of application, applicants shall be residents or former residents of the State. 1210 However, prompted *1210 by the instant lawsuit, effective November 19, 2005, the City amended the rule to eliminate the reference to "former residents."
On March 15, 2005, prior to the amendment to the Civil Service Rule and prior to any action taken to repeal the administrative regulation, Kevin Walsh ("Walsh") applied for three positions with the City. On May 20, 2005, Blane Wilson ("Wilson") applied for one position with the City. On October 2, 2005, Steven Annarelli ("Annarelli") applied for one position with the City. Question 4 of the City's electronic application for employment that Plaintiffs filled out provided as follows: "RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT: The Hawaii public employment law requires that applicants be current or former legal residents of Hawaii at the time of application." (Walsh Decl. ¶ 6; Wilson Decl. ¶ 17, attached to Pls.' Mot.) Each Plaintiff responded that they were not a legal resident of Hawaii. Walsh received three rejection letters, one for each position, Wilson received one rejection letter, and Annarelli also received one rejection letter. Each rejection letter stated that "your application cannot be accepted because you are not a resident of the State of Hawaii, which is required for this position. Hawaii State law requires that applicants be current or former residents of Hawaii at the time of application." (Walsh Decl. Exs. 1-3; Wilson Decl. Ex. 3.) Wilson and Annarelli also applied for jobs with the State. Wilson applied for one position with the State. Annarelli applied for two positions with the State. Wilson received a letter dated March 15, 2005, informing him that he was ineligible for the position because he did not meet the minimum experience required and he was not a legal resident of the State of Hawaii. (Wilson Decl. Ex. 2.) Annarelli was rejected from both positions, the first because another candidate had been selected and the second solely because he was not a resident at the time of application. (Annarelli Decl. ¶ 13, attached to Pls' Mot.) Annarelli received a letter dated October 10, 2005, that

stated "Current State Law, Chapter 78 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires applicants be residents of the State of Hawaii at the time of their application for employment. As you do not appear to be a resident of the State of Hawaii at this time, we are unable to consider you for this position." (Annarelli Decl. Ex. 3.)
Lydia Hill ("Hill"), a Plaintiff in this action, is currently living on the mainland and is a resident of Massachusetts. She is not nor has she ever been a resident of Hawaii. Hill alleges that she has not completed an employment application because it was apparent that her application would be rejected because of her past and present residency status. Hill argues that she cannot bear the financial burden of relocating to Hawaii without any assurance of being employed upon arrival. Hill further alleges that she has been and will continue to be discouraged from applying for any job with the City and County and/or the State of Hawaii because of the preemployment residency requirement.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment shall be granted when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Porter v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2005); Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir.2000). One of the principal purposes of summary judgment is to identify and 1211 dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses. Celotex *1211 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
Summary judgment must be granted against a party that fails to demonstrate facts to establish what will be an essential element at trial. See id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. A moving party without the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial 0907 usually, but not always, the defendant 0907 has both the initial burden of production and the ultimate burden of persuasion on a motion for summary judgment. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2000). The moving party must identify for the court "those portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548). "When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (footnote omitted). The nonmoving party may not rely on the mere allegations in the pleadings and instead "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Porter, 419 F.3d at 891 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). "A genuine dispute arises if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." California v. Campbell, 319 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th Cir.2003); Addisu, 198 F.3d at 1134 ("There must be enough doubt for a `reasonable trier of fact' to find for plaintiffs in order to defeat the summary judgment motion.").
When "direct evidence" produced by the moving party conflicts with "direct evidence" produced by the party opposing summary judgment, "the judge must assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the nonmoving party with respect to that fact." T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. In other words, evidence and inferences must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Porter, 419 F.3d at 891. The court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence at the summary judgment stage. Id. However, inferences may be drawn from underlying facts not in dispute, as well as from disputed facts that the judge is required to resolve in favor of the nonmoving party. T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631.
The standard for granting a permanent injunction is essentially the same as a preliminary injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a actual success, instead of probable success on the merits. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987). When actual success on the merits is shown, however, the inquiry is over. A party is entitled to relief as a matter of law irrespective of

the amount of irreparable injury that may be shown. Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307, 1318 n. 16 (9th Cir.1988).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that the pre-employment residence requirement is unconstitutional because it has the impermissible purpose of deterring migration into the State and fails all levels of scrutiny. Plaintiffs further argue that the law unduly burdens the fundamental right to travel and cannot withstand strict scrutiny or even rational basis analysis. In addition, Plaintiffs argue that the residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article VI since it discriminates against non-residents seeking to practice their trade. Finally, Plaintiffs 1212 argue that the former resident exception violates *1212 the Equal Protection Clause and that the claim is not mooted by Defendants' voluntary acts.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing and that Plaintiffs' challenge to the "former residency" factor is moot. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs' Privileges and Immunities claim fails because public employment is not a fundamental right. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs present no viable right to travel claim. Finally, Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs present a right to travel claim, the State's non-durational residency requirement satisfies the applicable rational basis test.
I. Standing
At the time of the preliminary injunction, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs Walsh and Wilson did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1. Walsh v. City and County of Honolulu, 423 F.Supp.2d 1094 (D.Haw.2006). This Court held that Plaintiffs Walsh and Wilson both have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1. Id. In reaching its earlier decision, this Court cited Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977), where the Supreme Court held that a large class of people who did not apply for the specific job at issue had nonetheless suffered an injury in fact that could be redressed. 431 U.S. at 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843. This injury existed since the class of people were deterred from even applying for the job because the practices of the Union convinced them that it would be futile to do so. This Court affirms its preliminary findings that Walsh and Wilson both have injuries in fact that can be redressed as they are both deterred applicants.
Defendants now argue that Plaintiff Hill does not have standing because she did not apply for a position with the State, and therefore, suffered no injury in fact. To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: 1) an injury in fact 0907 an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized, as well as actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; 2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct 0907 an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and 3) a likelihood, not mere speculation, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); San Diego County. Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1996).
As stated above, the Supreme Court has held that a class of applicants suffers an injury if they are deterred from applying for a job because the State convinced them it would be futile to do so. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, at 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843. In the instant matter, Hill stated "I have perused the job listings posted by the City and County of Honolulu and the State of Hawaii in the hope of finding a suitable public employment position . . . The requirement that I be a current resident at the time of application was prominently stated on the Internet as well as in several job postings. I did not complete the employment applications because it was apparent that my application would be rejected because I was not and never have been a Hawaii resident." (Hill Decl. ¶ 8-9). Based on this Court's reasoning in the preliminary injunction, Plaintiff Hill was deterred from applying for a public position and under the rationale of Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, has standing to challenge `the constitutionality of Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1. Walsh, at 1100.
1213 *1213 Accordingly, this Court fords that Plaintiffs Walsh, Wilson and Hill have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1.

II. Right to Interstate Migration
The parties agree that there are no genuine issues of material fact and only the questions of law remain. In the preliminary injunction this Court held that Defendants did not establish that the pre-employment residency requirement was not enacted for an improper purpose and that it is rationally related to a legitimate interest. Thus, this Court found that the Hawaii residency requirement very likely violates Plaintiffs' fundamental Constitutional right to interstate migration. Walsh, at 1108.
Here, Defendants restate the argument that they have a legitimate policy goal of assuring that persons considered for governmental jobs have a commitment to the State, are loyal, and have knowledge of local problems. Defendants again argue that these interests are rationally related to the pre-employment residency requirement because hiring newly arrived persons results in quick turnover before the significant investment in training time of those persons has begun to yield a return. Defendants claim that this quick turnover is due to the non-residents' underestimation of the effect of Hawaii's geographic isolation or cultural differences. Defendants do not support their argument, however, with new information to persuade this Court that the pre-employment residency requirement was not enacted for improper purpose and that it is rationally related to a legitimate interest. Instead, Defendants assert the exact argument that resulted in this Court issuing the preliminary injunction.
This Court affirms its findings at the Preliminary Injunction stage.[1] The history of this statute, among others, establishes that the State has continued to deter in-migration through statutory law. In response, the Courts have continuously struck down such legislation as constitutionally impermissible.
In 1972, the Hawaii Supreme Court struck down the three-year residency requirement of this statute, holding that "the residency requirement created an arbitrary classification without rational relation to a public employee applicant's capabilities of performing satisfactorily for the State and operated irrationally without reference to any legitimate state interest." York v. State, 53 Haw. 557, 560-61, 498 P.2d 644, 647 (Haw.1972). Following the York decision, the State legislature amended the statute to include a one-year residency requirement providing that all employees in public employment had to residents of the State for at least one year immediately preceding their application for employment. In 1977, this Court struck down the one-year requirement as unconstitutional. Nehring v. Ariyoshi, 443 F.Supp. 228 (D.Haw.1977). This Court found that the purpose of Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1 was to control growth by "keeping people out of Hawaii." Id. at 238. Again, the State introduced a bill to amend the one-year residency requirement with the pre-employment residency requirement. The admitted 1214 purpose of the pre-employment residency requirement was to encourage the hiring of local residents, control *1214 growth of the population, and protect limited resources by not encouraging in-migration. Here, Defendants do not contest the original impermissible purpose of the statute nor do they explain how the replacement of the one-year requirement with a pre-employment residency requirement removes the taint of the original impermissible purpose.
Additionally, the Courts have consistently held unconstitutional other Hawaii statutes that impose residency requirements. For example, in 1971 Hawaii established a one-year durational residency requirement as a condition of eligibility for state welfare benefits. Relying on Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), (Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a state statute denying welfare benefits to residents who had not resided in state for at least one year preceding their application for assistance), plaintiff filed suit against the Director of Hawaii's Department of Social Services challenging the constitutionality of the Hawaii statute. Prior to trial, the defendant abandoned his position and stipulated to judgment in favor of plaintiff. Brandenburger v. Thompson, 494 F.2d 885 (1974). Also in 1971, this Court struck down a Hawaii statute which mandated a preexamination residency requirement on persons applying to take the Hawaii State Bar Examination. Potts v. Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, 332 F.Supp. 1392 (D.Haw.1971). The law at issue required an applicant be a qualified registered voter in the State of Hawaii and that they have physically resided in Hawaii continuously for a period of six months after attaining the age of 15 years. Defendant argued that the law was enacted to ensure that "a person with some degree of maturity will be able to absorb, appreciate and understand the unique government structure, linguistics, and customs of Hawaii . . ." Id. at 1397. This Court rejected defendant's argument holding that an "understanding" of Hawaii's "uniqueness" has no

relevance to an applicant's legal education or ability to be a sound lawyer. Thus, this Court held that the preexamination residential requirements imposed under the statute contravened the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and struck down the statute.
Even if the storied legislative history of Hawaii statutes did not exist, "Defendants' argument that persons who were non-residents at the time of application are more likely to leave a position soon after their hire than those persons who were residents at the time of their application is contradicted by their argument that obtaining residency is easy and instantaneous upon arrival in the State." Walsh, at 1107. If Defendants' earlier argument is correct that persons can likely become residents within one day of their arrival in the State and immediately apply for public employment, "those persons are equally as likely to be unfamiliar with day-to-day life in Hawaii as the person who had not yet established residency, as they likewise have yet to actually experience living in Hawaii." Id.
Additionally, the law as currently written has the anomalous effect of prohibiting former Hawaii residents living on the mainland, even those born and raised in Hawaii, who wish to return home from applying for Hawaii 1215 government jobs since they are not Hawaii residents "at the time of application."[2] This flies in the face of *1215 the argument that the law is designed to ensure that applicants are "familiar with Hawaii" and have a commitment to the state.
The fact of the matter is that the residency requirement imposes a significant hardship upon both non-residents and former residents of Hawaii who are seeking to either relocate or return to Hawaii. Many people do not have the financial resources or ability to weather the uncertainty and risk of moving to a new place without the assurance of a job waiting for them. By targeting the natural aversion of people to relocate in the absence of a firm job offer, the current statute is but one in a long series of thinly veiled measures by the legislature to improperly discourage migration to Hawaii.
The Court also affirms its finding that Hawaii Revised Statute section 78-1 is discriminatory on its face. The text of the statute grants exceptions to the residency requirement for those persons applying for positions as police officers or with the University of Hawaii. Haw.Rev.Stat. § 78-1(c) and (f). This Court found that "Defendants' argument that section 78-1 is rationally related to its legitimate interest in preventing turnover is severely undermined by the State's exception to the preemployment residency requirement for those seeking public positions with the University of Hawaii or as police officers." Id.
As there are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendants have presented no new information to show that the preemployment residency requirement is rationally related to a legitimate interest, this Court finds that Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1(c) violates Plaintiffs' fundamental Constitutional right to interstate migration. Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and permanently enjoins Defendants from enforcing the requirement that an applicant for public employment be a current legal resident of Hawaii at the time of application as set forth in Hawaii Revised Statute 78-1(c).[3]
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Entry of Permanent Injunction and DENIES Defendants' Counter Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] At the Preliminary Injunction stage, this Court found that strict scrutiny analysis did not apply. In the instant matter, Plaintiffs again argue that strict scrutiny is warranted, however, it is unnecessary for the Court to reexamine the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply because the pre-employment residence requirement is not rationally related to any legitimate goal.
[2] Prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, Section 78-1(c) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes contained a former resident exception, which permitted former Hawaii residents to apply for state government positions even though

they currently resided on the mainland. However, following the inception of the lawsuit, the Hawaii legislature repealed this exception in the statute.
[3] Plaintiffs urge the Court to issue an opinion on the constitutionality of the former residence exception. While the Court does not see how the existence of an exemption for former residents would change its calculus, the Hawaii legislature repealed this exception at the inception of this lawsuit, and therefore, the Court finds no occasion to address this issue.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 1 of 24

CLOSED, KSCREC, REOPEN
U.S. District Court District of Hawaii - CM/ECF V3.04 (3/07) (Hawaii) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-00378-DAE-LEK

Walsh, et al v. Nakamatsu, et al Assigned to: Judge David Alan Ezra Referred to: Mag Judge Leslie E Kobayashi Demand: $0 Case in other court: USCA Ninth Circuit, 06-15615
USCA Ninth Circuit, 06-16280
USCA Ninth Circuit, 06-16568 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

Date Filed: 06/09/2005 Date Terminated: 09/06/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional - State Statute Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Kevin R. Walsh as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated

represented by Anne L. Williams Davis Levin Livingston Grande 400 Davis Levin Livingston Grande Place 851 Fort Street Ste 400 Honolulu, HI 96813-4317 524-7500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lois K. Perrin American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii P O Box 3410 Honolulu, HI 96801 522-5907 Email: lperrin@acluhawaii.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Blane M. Wilson as individuals and on behalf of all others

Michael K. Livingston Davis Levin Livingston Grande 400 Davis Levin Livingston Grande Place 851 Fort Street Ste 400 Honolulu, HI 96813-4317 524-7500 Fax: 545-7802 Email: mlivingston@davislevin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne L. Williams (See above for address)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 2 of 24

similarly situated
Plaintiff Steven M. Annarelli
Plaintiff Lydia R. Hill
V. Defendant Kenneth Y. Nakamatsu

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lois K. Perrin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Livingston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne L. Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lois K. Perrin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Livingston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anne L. Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lois K. Perrin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Livingston (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 3 of 24

Director, City and County of Honolulu Department of Human Resources, in his individual and official capacities TERMINATED: 08/31/2005 Defendant City and County of Honolulu a Hawaii municipal corporation
Defendant Mark J. Bennett in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii

represented by Donna M. Woo Office of Corporation Counsel-Honolulu 530 S King St Ste 110 Honolulu, HI 96813 523-4859 (main) Email: dwoo@honolulu.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gordon D. Nelson Office of Corporation Counsel-Honolulu 530 S King St Ste 110 Honolulu, HI 96813 523-4859 (main) Email: gnelson1@honolulu.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark J. Bennett Office of the Attorney General-Hawaii 425 Queen St Honolulu, HI 96813 586-1500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deirdre Marie-Iha Office of the Attorney General-Hawaii 425 Queen St Honolulu, HI 96813 586-1500 Email: deirdre.marie-iha@hawaii.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charleen M. Aina Office of the Attorney General-Hawaii 425 Queen St Honolulu, HI 96813 586-1500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deirdre Marie-Iha

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 4 of 24

Defendant
Kathleen N.A. Watanabe Director, State of Hawaii Department of Human Resources Development, in her individual and official capacities TERMINATED: 08/31/2005

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Earl Halvorson Department of the Attorney General-State of Hawaii Employment Law Division 235 S Beretania St 15th Floor Honolulu, HI 96813-2406 587-2900 Email: james.e.halvorson@hawaii.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark J. Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard H. Thomason Office of the Attorney General-Hawaii 425 Queen St Honolulu, HI 96813 586-1500 Email: richard.h.thomason@hawaii.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charleen M. Aina (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deirdre Marie-Iha (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Earl Halvorson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard H. Thomason (See above for address)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 5 of 24

Defendant
Marie Laderta Interim Director, State of Hawaii Department of Human Resources Development, in her official capacity

TERMINATED: 08/31/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charleen M. Aina (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deirdre Marie-Iha (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Earl Halvorson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark J. Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard H. Thomason (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/09/2005 06/09/2005 06/09/2005 07/06/2005
07/20/2005 07/20/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT for declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages; exhibits a-c; and Summons in a civil case (ecs) (Entered: 06/13/2005)

2 ORDER by Judge David A. Ezra rule 16 conference set for 9:00 9/12/05 before Mag Judge Kevin S. Chang (ecs) (Entered: 06/13/2005)

FILING FEE PAID in the amount of $ 250.00, receipt # 229834 (ecs) (Entered: 06/13/2005)

3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for declaratory relief and monetary damages; exhibits a-e; summons in a civil case [1-1] by plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh; adding Blane M. Wilson, Kathleen N.A. Watanabe (ecs) (Entered: 07/08/2005)

4 ORDER of RECUSAL by Mag Judge Kevin S. Chang KSC recusing, reassigned to LEK (cc: all counsel and CRMs) (ecs) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

5 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Mark J. Bennett (Mark M. Nomura for Mark J. Bennett, in his official capacity as Atty General) on 7/6/05 (ecs) (Entered: 07/22/2005)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 6 of 24

07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/25/2005 08/26/2005 08/29/2005 08/31/2005
09/01/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/09/2005

6 RETURN OF SERVICE (First Amended) executed upon defendant Mark J. Bennett (Mark M. Nomura for Mark J. Bennett, in his official capacity as Atty General) on 7/6/05 (ecs) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
7 RETURN OF SERVICE (First Amended) executed upon defendant Kathleen N.A. Watanabe, Director, Dept of Human Resources on 7/6/05 (ecs) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant City and County of H (via Reid Yamashiro) on 7/6/05 (ecs) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE (First Amended) executed upon defendant City and County of H (Reid Yamashiro for City)on 7/6/05 (ecs) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
10 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Kenneth Y. Nakamatsu, Director, City and County, Dept of Human Resources on 7/6/05 (ecs) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
11 RETURN OF SERVICE (First Amended) executed upon defendant Kenneth Y. Nakamatsu, Director, City and County of Honolulu, Dept of Human Resources on 7/6/05 (ecs) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
12 FIRST STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge David A. Ezra on behalf of defendants extending time for filing of answer or response to first amended complaint and setting briefing schedule (emt) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
13 REPORT OF PARTIES PLANNING MEETING; certificate of service - by plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh, plaintiff Blane M. Wilson (ecs) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
14 STIPULATION to file second amended complaint , related dates and Order; Exhibit 1 - by Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi filed by plaintiff[3-1] (ecs) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
15 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT for declaratory and injunctive relieft; exhibits a-e; summons - [3-1], [1-1] by plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh, plaintiff Blane M. Wilson terminating defendant Kathleen N.A. Watanabe, defendant Kenneth Y. Nakamatsu; adding Marie Laderta (ecs) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
16 CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh, plaintiff Blane M. Wilson (ecs) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
17 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE STATEMENT; certificate of service - by defendant City and County of H (ecs) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
18 State Defendants'SCHEDULING CONFERENCE STATEMENT; certificate of service - by defendant Mark J. Bennett, defendant Marie Laderta (ecs) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
19 Plaintiffs' SCHEDULING CONFERENCE STATEMENT; certificate of service - by plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh, plaintiff Blane M. Wilson (ecs) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
20 INITIAL DISCLOSURES (FRCP RULE 26); certificate of service by defendant City and County of H (ecs) (Entered: 09/13/2005)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 7 of 24

09/09/2005 09/09/2005 09/09/2005 09/12/2005
09/12/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005 09/16/2005

21 INITIAL DISCLOSURES pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; certificate of service by Plaintiffs (ecs) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
22 INITIAL DISCLOSURES; certificate of service by State Defendants (ecs) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
23 ANSWER to second amended complaint; certificate of service - by state defendants to [15-1] (ecs) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
24 EP :Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held. 1. Non-jury trial on July 18, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. before DAE 2. Final Pretrial Conference on June 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. before LEK 3. Final Pretrial Conference before District Judge N/A 4. Final Pretrial Statement by May 30, 2006 5. File motions to Join/Add Parties/Amend Pleadings by December 16, 2005 6. File other Non-Dispositive Motions by April 19, 2006 7. File Dispositive Motions by February 15, 2006 8a. File Motions in Limine by June 27, 2006 8b. File opposition memo to a Motion in Limine by July 5, 2006 11a. Plaintiff's Expert Witness Disclosures by January 16, 2006 11b. Defendant's Expert Witness Disclosures by February 15, 2006 12. Discovery deadline May 19, 2006 13. Settlement Conference set for February 2, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. before LEK 14. Settlement Conference statements by January 26, 2006 20. Submit Voir Dire Questions, Special Verdict Form, Concise Statement of Case and Jury Instructions by N/A 21. File Final witness list by June 27, 2006 24. Exchange Exhibit and Demonstrative aids by June 20, 2006 25. Stipulations re: Authenticity/Admissibility of Proposed Exhibits by June 27, 2006 26. File objections to the Exhibits by July 5, 2006 28a. File Deposition Excerpt Designations by June 27, 2006 28b. File Deposition Counter Designations and Objections by July 5, 2006 29. File Trial Brief by July 5, 2006 30. File Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by July 5, 2006 Other Matters: Status Conference/Settlement Conference set for 2:00 1/6/06, LEK. A copy of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order mailed to all parties. ; Trial set for 9:00 7/18/06 before Judge David A. Ezra , ; final pretrial conference set for 9:00 6/6/05 ; Discovery ddl set for 5/19/06 ; Motion filing ddl set for 2/15/06 ; settlement/status conference set for 2:00 1/6/06 in court hearing set for 2:00 2/2/06 ; rule 16 conference held on 9:00 9/12/05 before Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi ( Ct Rptr : C7-no record) JUDGE Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi (ecs) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
25 ANSWER to second amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed August 31, 2005; certificate of service by defendant City and County of H [15-1] (ecs) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
26 EO : Continued : [Status Conference Re: ADR] from 01/06/2006 02:00:00 PM to 02/21/2006 02:00:00 PM before LEK. Stipulation to follow. ( Ct Rptr : ) JUDGE Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi (ecs) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
27 EO : Continued : [Settlement Conference] from 02/02/2006 02:00:00 PM to 03/23/2006 02:00:00 PM before LEK. Stipulation to follow. ( Ct Rptr : ) JUDGE Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi (ecs) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
28 FIRST STIPULATION regarding schedule for plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and order and ORDER by Judge David A. Ezra : Mtn to be filed on or before November 3, 2005 and will be heard on December 19, 2005 9:45 am

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 8 of 24

09/16/2005 09/30/2005 10/03/2005 11/01/2005 11/03/2005 11/03/2005
11/03/2005 11/04/2005 11/07/2005
11/10/2005 11/10/2005

before DAE [14-2] ; settlement/status conference set for 2:00 2/21/06 ; In hearing set for 2:00 3/23/06 before Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi (ecs) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
29 RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi (cc: all counsel) (ecs) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
30 CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh, plaintiff Blane M. Wilson (ecs) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
31 CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh, plaintiff Blane M. Wilson (ecs) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
32 CERTIFICATE of service by defendant City and County of H (ecs) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
34 CERTIFICATE of service by defendant City and County of H, defendant Mark J. Bennett, defendant Marie Laderta (ecs) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
35 NOTICE OF MOTION and motion by plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh, plaintiff Blane M. Wilson for preliminary injunction ; memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction; certification of Lois K. Perrin pursuant to Local Rule 7.5 (e); declaration of Lois K. Perrin, exhibits 1-23; declaration of Kevin R. Walsh (fax), exhibits 1-4; declaration of Blane M. Wilson (fax), exhibits 1-3; certificate of service - set for 9:45 12/19/05 before Judge David A. Ezra (ecs) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
36 CERTIFICATE of service by defendant City and County of H, defendant Mark J. Bennett, defendant Marie Laderta (ecs) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
33 CERTIFICATE of service by defendant City and County of H, defendant Mark J. Bennett, defendant Marie Laderta (ecs) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
37 DISCOVERY ORDER by Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi (cc: all counsel): court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs' request to compel and the city and state defts are hereby ordered to produce pursuant to a stipulated protective order: (1) list of applicants at the time the application was made by no later than November 22, 2005, 4:00 pm (2) copies of docs responsive to pla's doc request with the applicant's personal information redacted, etc. Production of docs shall be made by later than January 23, 2006, 4:00 pmm (ecs) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
38 SUBMISSION by plaintiff Kevin R. Walsh, plaintiff Blane M. Wilson of original signature of Kevin R. Walsh and Blane Wilson pursuant to local rule 10.2(e); exhibits 1-2; certificate of service [35-1] (ecs) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
39 AMENDED DISCOVERY ORDER by Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi re [371] (cc: all counsel) - The Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs' request to compel and the City and State defendants are hereby ordered to produce: (1) a list containing the first initial and last names of the applicants, and the city and state, or city, province and country of the applicants' home addresses at the time that the application was made by no later than November 22, 2005, 4:00pm; (2) copies of documents responsive to plaintiffs' document request with the applicants' personal information redacted. Such personal information shall include family members' names, home addresses (except as ordered by the

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 9 of 24

11/17/2005 11/21/2005
11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/22/2005 11/22/2005 11/29/2005
11/29/2005 11/30/2005

Court), birth dates, social security numbers, credit card numbers, educational and professional work histories, medical information and history, drivers' licenses, financial information, income tax returns, motor vehicle registration, and voter registration records. This production of documents shall be made by no later than January 23, 2006, 4:00 pm. (emt) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
40 State Defendants' motion to exceed word limits; declaration of Deirdre MarieIha; ORDER by Judge David A. Ezra granting State Defendant's motion to exceed work limits; certificate of service (sealed) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
STATE DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUM by defendant Mark J. Bennett, defendant Marie Laderta in opposition to plaintiffs'motion for preliminary injunction; certification of Deidrdre Marie-Iha pursuant to local rule 7.5(e); declaration of Janice T. Kemp; exhibits 1-4; declaration of Mark J. Bennett declaration of Wayne M. Horie; certificate of service [35-1] (ecs) Modified on 11/22/2005 (Entered: 11/22/2005)
42 MEMORANDUM by defendant City and County of H in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction filed November 3, 2005; declaration of Jo-Ann K. Zukeran-Lyman; exhibits 1-3; declaration of Lois S.E. Yoshikawa; declaration of Denise C. De Costa; exhibits 1-5; declaration of Kenneth Y. Nakamatsu; certificate of service [35-1] (ecs) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
41 STATE DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUM by defendant Mark J. Bennett, defendant Marie Laderta in opposition to plaintiffs'motion for preliminary injunction [35-1]; certification of Deirdre Marie-Iha pursuant to local rule 7.5(e); declaration of Janice T. Kemp; exhibits 1-3; declaration of Mark J. Bennett; declaration of Wayne M. Horie; certificate of service (ecs) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
43 CERTIFICATE of service by defendant Mark J. Bennett, defendant Marie Laderta (ecs) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
44 STIPULATION and ORDER by Mag Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi : to extend time for defendants to produce lists of applicants from November 22, 2005 to December 1, 2005 : defts shall have until the morning of December 1, 2005 to hand deliver their respective lists to Plaintiffs' counsel (ecs) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
45 NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED NON HEARING MOTION; plaintiffs' unopposed motion to exceed word limit for reply memorandum ; declaration of Lois K. Perrin; PROPOSED ORDER granting plaintffs' unopposed motion to exceed work limit for reply memorandum; certificate of service - by plaintff Kevin R. Walsh and Blane M. Wilson referred to Judge David A. Ezra (ecs) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
46 ORDER by Judge David A. Ezra granting plaintiffs' unopposed motion to exceed word limit for reply memorandum [45-1] (ecs) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
47 ERRATA by defendant City and County of H to defendant City and County of Honolulu's memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injuction filed November 3, 2005, filed November 21, 2005; certificate of service [35-1] (ecs) (Entered: 12/02/2005)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 10 of 24

11/30/2005 12/01/2005 12/02/2005 12/05/2005
12/05/2005 12/05/2005 12/05/2005 12/09/2005 12/09/2005

48 EO :Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction Defendants' Motion to Dismiss The above motions have been continued from 12/19/2005 09:45:00 AM to 12/20/2005 09:45:00 AM before DAE cc: All counsel [35-1] ( Ct Rptr : ) JUDGE Judge David A. Ezra (ecs) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
49 CERTIFICATE of service by defendant Mark J. Bennett, defendant Marie Laderta (ecs) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
50 CERTIFICATE of service by defendant Mark J. Bennett, defendant Marie Laderta (ecs) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
51 ORDER OF ENTRY: MINUTES EO: COURT ORDER:On December 2, 2005, the parties submitted the Stipulation to Seal Document and to Re-File Document with Redacted Exhibits and Order ("Stipulation"). The Court construes the Stipulation as the parties' request to have Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction sealed and to permit the parties to substitute a redacted document in place of the sealed document. The request is hereby DENIED.The parties may wish to consider filing a request to withdraw Exhibit 4 and to substitute it with Exhibit 4A, a redacted version of Exhibit 4. If the parties desire to do so, such a request should be made in writing and submitted to District Judge David Alan Ezra.In the event of future submissions under seal, the Court hopes that the parties will continue to be mindful of the burden imposed by Rule 26(c) - that the party seeking a protective order must make a particular showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Further, [a] party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).IT IS SO ORDERED.Cc: all counsel. Ordered by Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI on 12/5/05. (ecs, ) Modified on 12/12/2005 to link to doc. 53(ecs, ). (Entered: 12/12/2005)
52 MODIFIED STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND ORDER. Signed by Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI on 12/5/05. (ecs, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
53 STIPULATION to seal document and to re-file document with redacted exhibits and AND ORDER - DENIED. DENIED by Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI on 12/5/05. (ecs, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
54 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of [35] Motion for Preliminary Injunction; certification of Word Count; Supplemental Declaration of Lois K. Perrin, Exs. 1-3; Certificate of Service filed by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (ecs, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
55 MINUTES: EO Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction has been continued from 12/20/05 9:45 am to 1/30/06 10:30 am before DAE. cc: all counsel. - by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 12/9/05. (ecs, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to [35] Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Motion Hearing set for 1/30/2006 10:30 AM before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. (ecs, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 11 of 24

12/20/2005
01/04/2006 01/06/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/30/2006 01/30/2006
01/30/2006 01/30/2006
01/30/2006 02/01/2006

56 Notice of Unopposed Non-Hearing Motion; Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Exhibits and to substitute redacted exhibits; Declaration of Gordon D. Nelson; exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and DC 1A; Order Granting Defendant City and County of Honolulu's Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Exhibits and Substitute Redacted Exhibits re [42]; Certificate of Service. Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 1/20/2005. (gab, ) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of Honolulu (ecs, ) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
58 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE REDACTED APPLICANT RECORDS FROM JANUARY 23, 2006 TO FEBRUARY 22, 2006; ORDER [39] . Signed by Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI on 1/6/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
59 EO: Settlement Conference set for 3/23/2006 02:00 PM is continued to 4/26/2006 02:00 PM before JUDGE LESLIE E KOBAYASHI. Confidential Settlement Conference Statements are now due 4/19/2006. (Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI )(wnn, ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
60 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta (ecs, ) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
61 EP: Motion Hearing held on 1/30/2006 re [35] Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson, Motions Taken Under Advisement: [35] Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Court Reporter Cynthia Fazio.) (Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA )(tl, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
62 EO: Parties are in agreement to continue trial and all deadlines which have not expired. New trial date and deadlines given. Bench Trial set for 9/19/2006 09:00 AM before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/8/2006 09:00 AM before JUDGE LESLIE E KOBAYASHI. Settlement Conference set for 6/30/2006 02:00 PM before JUDGE LESLIE E KOBAYASHI. Status Conference re: ADR set for 4/26/2006 02:00 PM before JUDGE LESLIE E KOBAYASHI. Motions due by 4/19/2006. Discovery due by 7/21/2006. (Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI )(wnn, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
63 Rule 16 SCHEDULING ORDER:Signed by Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI on 1/30/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 63 Rule 16 Scheduling Order has been served by First Class Mail to Charleen Aina, Esq.; James Earl Halvorson, Esq.; Michael K. Livingston, Esq.; Deirdre Marie-Iha, Esq.; Richard H. Thomason, Esq.; Anne L. Williams, Esq.; Donna M. Woo, Esq. at the addresses of record on 1/30/06. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
64 Declaration of Deirdre Marie-Iha. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(ecs) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
Motions Taken Under Advisement: [35] Motion for Preliminary Injunction

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 12 of 24

02/01/2006 02/01/2006
02/02/2006
02/02/2006 02/02/2006 02/09/2006
02/09/2006 02/13/2006 02/13/2006

(ecs, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
65 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [35] . Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 2/1/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 65 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on 2/1/06 has been served by First Class Mail to Charleen M. Aina, Esq.; James E. Halvorson, Esq.; Michael K. Livingston, Esq.; Deirdre Marie-Iha, Esq.; Richard H. Thomason, Esq.; Anne L. Williams, Esq.; Donna M. Woo, Esq. at the addresses of record on 2/1/06. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
66 REQUEST Submission of Plaintiffs' [Proposed] Preliminary Injunction Order Enjoining Enforcement of HRS 78-1(c) and the Policies and Practices Based Thereon Pursuant to LR 58.2 by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Plaintiffs' [Proposed] Preliminary Injunction Order Enjoining Enforcement of HRS 78-1(c) and the Policies and Practices Based Thereon)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
67 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 66 Request, Pursuant to LR 58.2 of Plaintiffs' Submission of [Proposed] Preliminary Injunction Order Enjoining Enforcement of HRS 78-1(c) and the Policies and Practices Based Thereon (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
68 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction held on 1/30/06 before Judge David Alan Ezra. Court Reporter: Cynthia Fazio. (cf@hid.uscourts.gov) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
69 REQUEST PLAINTIFFS? SUBMISSION OF REVISED [PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF H.R.S. ? 78-1(c) AND THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BASED THEREON, EXHIBIT 1 by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: [Proposed] Preliminary Injunction Order Enjoining Enforcement of HRS 78-1(c) and the Policies and Practices Based Thereon)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
70 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 69 Request, PLAINTIFFS? SUBMISSION OF REVISED [PROPOSED] PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF H.R.S. ? 78-1(c) AND THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BASED THEREON, EXHIBIT 1 (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
71 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER Enjoining Enforcement of H.R.S. Section 78-1(c) and the Policies and Practices Based Thereon. Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 2/10/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 71 Preliminary Injunction ORDER Enjoining Enforcement of H.R.S. Section 78-1(c) and the Policiess and Practices Based Thereon, has been served by First Class Mail to Charleen M. Aina/James E. Halvorson/Deirdre Marie-Iha/Richard H. Thomason; Anne L. Williams; Donna Woo at the addresses of record on 2/13/06. Registered

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 13 of 24

02/17/2006 02/21/2006 02/21/2006 02/22/2006 02/23/2006 02/24/2006
03/07/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/29/2006

Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
72 State Defendants' MOTION to Extend Time in Which to File NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 65 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Extend Time in Which to File Notice of Appeal, # 2 Declaration of Deirdre Marie-Iha and Certificate of Service)(ecs, ) [cc: DAE] (Entered: 02/21/2006)
73 STATEMENT of No Opposition to State Defendants' Motion to Extend Time in Which to File Notice of Appeal filed by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
74 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 73 Statement of No Opposition To State Defendants' Motion to Extend Time In Which To File Notice of Appeal (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
76 Defendant City and County of Honolulu's STATEMENT of Non Opposition to State Defendants' 72 MOTION to Extend Time in which to file Notice of Appeal; Certificate of Service - filed by City and County of Honolulu. (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
75 ORDER granting 72 State Defendants' Motion to Extend Time in which to File Notice of Appeal as to 65 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Appeal due by 4/2/2006. Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 2/22/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
77 STIPULATION Re: Defendants Completion of Plaintiffs' First Request for Answers to Interrogatories to Defendant Marie Laderta, First Request for Answers to Interrogatories to City and County of Honolulu, First Set of Requests for Productions of Documents and Things to Defendants Mark J. Bennett and Marie Laderta, First Set of Requests for Productions of Documents and Things to Defendant City and County of Honolulu; ORDER. Signed by Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI on 2/23/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
78 STIPULATION TO Permit Plaintiffs to file THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, related dates and ORDER . Signed by Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI on 3/7/06. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(ecs, )[plaintiff shall file and serve Third Amended Complaint within 5 business days after the filing of this ORDER] (Entered: 03/08/2006)
79 AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD against City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta, filed by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Errata D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
80 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 79 Amended Complaint, Third (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
92 STIPULATED FACTS 77 by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1# 2 Exhibit A2# 3 Exhibit A3# 4 Exhibit A4# 5 Exhibit A5# 6 Exhibit A6# 7 Exhibit A7# 8 Exhibit A8# 9 Exhibit

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 14 of 24

03/29/2006 03/30/2006 03/30/2006 03/30/2006
03/30/2006 03/30/2006 03/30/2006

B1# 10 Exhibit B2) NOTE: Additional Exhibits B3 - B5, C1, D1 - D8 - See next document (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
93 Additional Exhibits to 92 Stipulated Facts, filed by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B3, # 2 Exhibit B4, # 3 Exhibit B5, # 4 Exhibit C1, # 5 Exhibit D1, # 6 Exhibit D2, # 7 Exhibit D3, # 8Exhibit D4 # 9 Exhibit D5, # 10 Exhibit D6, # 11 Exhibit D7, # 12 Exhibit D8)(ecs, ) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of a Permanent Injunction# 2 Declaration [Certification] of Lois K. Perrin Pursuant to L.R. 7.5(e))(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
82 MOTION to Certify Class and Subclass by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Certification of Class and Subclass)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
83 CONCISE STATEMENT in Support re 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction filed by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Certification of Lois K. Perrin Pursuant to Local Rules 7.5(e) and 56.1(d)# 2 Declaration Steven M. Annarelli# 3 Exhibit 1 Annarelli# 4 Exhibit 2 Annarelli# 5 Exhibit 3 Annarelli# 6 Exhibit 4 Annarelli# 7 Declaration Kat Brady# 8 Declaration Lydia R. Hill# 9 Exhibit 1 Hill# 10 Declaration Lois K. Perrin# 11 Exhibit 1 Perrin# 12 Exhibit 2 Perrin# 13 Exhibit 3 Perrin# 14 Exhibit 4 Perrin# 15 Exhibit 5 Perrin# 16 Exhibit 6 Perrin# 17 Exhibit 7 Perrin# 18 Exhibit 8 Perrin# 19 Exhibit 9 Perrin# 20 Exhibit 10 Perrin# 21 Exhibit 11 Perrin# 22 Exhibit 12 Perrin# 23 Exhibit 13 Perrin# 24 Exhibit 14 Perrin# 25 Exhibit 15 Perrin# 26 Exhibit 16 Perrin# 27 Exhibit 17 Perrin# 28 Exhibit 18 Perrin# 29 Declaration Kevin R. Walsh# 30 Exhibit 1 Walsh# 31 Exhibit 2 Walsh# 32 Exhibit 3 Walsh# 33 Exhibit 4 Walsh# 34 Declaration Anne Williams# 35 Declaration Blane M. Wilson# 36 Exhibit 1 Wilson# 37 Exhibit 2 Wilson# 38 Exhibit 3 Wilson)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
84 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 83 Concise Statement in Support of Motion,,,,, 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction, 82 MOTION to Certify Class and Subclass (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
85 NOTICE OF APPEAL of 65 ORDER Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed February 1, 2006 and 71 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed February 13, 2006 - by Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. Filing fee $ 255, Receipt 234455, Received from Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B and Certificate of Service)(ecs, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
86 MOTION for Stay Pending Appeal 85 by Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of State Defendants' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, # 2 Declaration of Deirdre Marie-Iha and Certificate of Service) (ecs, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 15 of 24

03/30/2006
03/30/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 04/03/2006 04/05/2006 04/05/2006 04/05/2006
04/05/2006

87 State Defendants' Ex Parte MOTION to Shorten Time for hearing on 86 MOTION for Stay Pending Appeal Or in the Alternative Motion to Decide Stay without a Hearing 85 by Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Deirdre Marie-Iha, # 2 [PROPOSED] Order Shortening Time for Hearing Motion for STAY Pending Appeal and Certificate of Service)(ecs, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
Filing fee: $ 255.00, receipt number 234455 Notice of Appeal (ecs, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
88 Defendant City and County of Honolulu's ANSWER to Complaint (Third Amended) for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Filed March 13, 2006 by City and County of Honolulu.(Nelson, Gordon) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
89 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of Honolulu re 88 Answer to Complaint (Third Amended) for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Filed March 13, 2006 (Nelson, Gordon) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
91 NOTICE of Hearing on Motions' - 82MOTION to Certify Class and Subclass and 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction set for 5/22/2006 09:00 AM before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. (lls, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
95 State Defendants' ANSWER to Third Amended Complaint; Certificate of Service by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta.(ecs, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
96 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta for proceedings held on 1/30/06, Cynthia Fazio, before Judge David Alan Ezra, re 85 Notice of Appeal, Transcript due by 4/10/2006, expedited. (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 85 Notice of Appeal, (lmg, ) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
97 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to State Defendants' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Lois K. Perrin# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2) (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
98 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 97 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
99 MOTION to Amend/Correct 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction# 2 Declaration Certification of Word Count# 3 Declaration Amended Declaration of Kat Brady)(Perrin, Lois) Modified on 4/6/2006 - Note: Please refer to #101 Errata - in which a corrected copy of the Table of Contents is attached as Exhibit 1. (ecs, ). (Entered: 04/05/2006)
100 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R.

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 16 of 24

04/05/2006 04/05/2006 04/06/2006 04/06/2006 04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/10/2006
04/10/2006

Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 99 MOTION to Amend/Correct 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
101 Errata re 99 MOTION to Amend/Correct 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Table of Contents)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 101 Errata (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
103 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion-99-MOTION to Amend/Correct 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction set for 5/22/2006 09:00 AM before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. (lls, ) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
104 State Defendants' WAIVER of REPLY in SUPPORT of 86 MOTION for Stay Pending Appeal 85 filed by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
105 STIPULATION of the Parties to Dismiss Count 7 from the Third Amended Complaint; ORDER . Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 4/7/06. [With this dismissal, plaintiff's pending motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction scheduled to be heard on 5/22/06, is a full, and not partial motion for summary judgment](ecs, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
106 STIPULATION regarding Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffis' Motion for Summary Judgment and for a Permanent Injunction, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and State Defendants' Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER. Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 4/7/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
107 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta [re: First Amendment to State Defendants' First Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents] (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kenneth Y. Nakamatsu, City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett [re: Frist amendment to Defendant Laderta;s First Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Answers to Interrogatories; Amended Attachment A; Declaration of Marie Laderta] (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
109 ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 86 MOTION for Stay ; Motions terminated: 87 Ex-Parte MOTION to Shorten Time for hearing motion for Stay pending appeal. Motion Hearing set for 4/17/2006 10:30 AM before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 4/10/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 109 Order Shortening Time for Hearing Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on 4/10/06. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 17 of 24

04/10/2006 04/12/2006 04/18/2006 04/19/2006
04/19/2006
04/19/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006
04/21/2006
04/21/2006

the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
110 USCA Case Number 06-15615 for 85 Notice of Appeal(ecs, ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
112 Notice of WITHDRAWAL of State Defendants' pending 86 MOTION to Stay pending Appeal 85 ; Certificate of Service - filed by Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta, City and County of Honolulu. (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
113 Stipulation of the Parties Regarding Implementation of Preliminary Injunction Orders; ORDER 65 . Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 4/18/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
114 State Defendants' COUNTER-MOTION for Summary Judgment - by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents; Table of Authorities;# 2 Memorandum in Support of State Defendants' Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment# 3 Certification of Deirdre Marie-Iha Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5(e) ; Certificate of Service)(ecs, ) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
115 State Defendants' Separate and Concise Statement Accompanying Counter Motion for Summary Judgment 114 filed by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marie Laderta, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Declaration of Deirdre Marie-Iha, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Certificate of Service)(ecs, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
116 State Defendants' RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' 83Separate and Concise Statement and Certificate of Service - filed by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
117 Joinder re 114 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by City and County of Honolulu,, Mark J. Bennett,, Marie Laderta, filed by City and County of Honolulu. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Joinder)(Nelson, Gordon) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
122 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Separate and Concise Statement re 83 filed by City and County of Honolulu. (gls, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
123 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 99 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment, 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction filed by City and County of Honolulu. (Attachments: # 1 Index# 2 Memorandum in Opposition# 3 Certificate of Compliance)(gls, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
118 Concise Statement in Support of Joinder in State Defendants' Counter Motion for Summary Judgment filed by City and County of Honolulu. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jo-Ann Zukeran-Lyman# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Declaration of Lois Yoshikawa# 6 Declaration of Denise De Costa# 7 Exhibit 1# 8 Exhibit 2# 9 Exhibit 3# 10 Exhibit 4# 11 Exhibit 5# 12 Declaration of Kenneth Nakamatsu)(Nelson, Gordon) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
119 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of Honolulu re 117 Joinder in State Defendants' Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment filed April 19, 2006

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 18 of 24

04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/24/2006 04/24/2006 04/26/2006
04/26/2006 04/26/2006 04/26/2006 04/27/2006
04/27/2006 04/27/2006 04/28/2006

(Nelson, Gordon) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
120 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 114 State Defendants' COUNTER-MOTION for Summary Judgment - by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta.: Motion Hearing set for 5/22/2006 09:00 AM before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. (tl, ) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
124 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of Honolulu (gls, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
121 EO: Status Conference Re: ADR set for 4/26/2006 at 02:00 PM before Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi is Vacated. Parties are in agreement that the above entitled action is not suitable for ADR. (Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI )(wnn, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
125 ORDER of USCA as to 85 Notice of Appeal, filed by Mark J. Bennett,, Marie Laderta, This appeal is DISMISSED (gls, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
126 MEMORANDUM in Support re 99 MOTION to Amend/Correct 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction and In Opposition to Defendants Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration A Gardner# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Declaration Certification of Word Count)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
127 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 126 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
128 RESPONSE re 118 Concise Statement in Opposition, Concise Statement in Support,, filed by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
129 RESPONSE re 115 Concise Statement in Opposition, Concise Statement in Support,, filed by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY. The entry docket number 126 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson, Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, was filed with a page missing. The filing party has advised the Court that they will file an Errata to the Memorandum . (ecs, ) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
130 Errata re 126 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,. (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
131 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 130 Errata to Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY. The entry docket number 131 Certificate of Service filed by Kevin R. Walsh,, Blane M. Wilson,, Steven M. Annarelli,, Lydia R.

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 19 of 24

05/03/2006
05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/10/2006 05/11/2006 05/11/2006 05/16/2006 05/17/2006

Hill,, 130 Errata was filed incorrectly in this case. Since a User's Login and Password constitutes their Electronic Signature, the submitter of a pleading must be the signator. Ms. Perrin should not enter a pleading signed by Ms. Williams. The entries will remain; however, the filing party is cautioned to enter pleadings signed correctly in future filings.. (gls, ) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
132 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion: The hearing time for the following motions has been changed from 900am to 130pm on 5/22/2006 before JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA. 81MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. 82MOTION to Certify Class and Subclass by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. 99MOTION to Amend/Correct MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson.114State Defendants' COUNTER-MOTION for Summary Judgment - by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (tl, ) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
133 State Defendants' MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiffs' 82 MOTION for Class Certification filed by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents; Table of Authorities# 2 Memorandum in Opposition fo Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification# 3 Certificate of Service)(ecs, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
134 Defendant City and County of Honolulu's MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class and Subclass, filed March 30, 2006 ; Certificate of Service 82 (ecs, ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
137 State Defendants' REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support of their COUNTER MOTION for Summary Judgment 114 filed by City and County of Honolulu, Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents; Table of Authorities# 2 Reply Memorandum in Support of their Counter Motion for Summary Judgment# 3 Declaration of Patti Ann S. Taketa# 4 Certificate of Service)(ecs, ) (Entered: 05/13/2006)
135 MOTION to Withdraw 82 MOTION to Certify Class and Subclass without prejudice by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
136 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 135 MOTION to Withdraw 82 MOTION to Certify Class and Subclass without prejudice (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
138 STIPULATION of the Parties Regarding Certification of Class and Appropriate Appointments AND ORDER . Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 5/15/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
139 EO:Motions' Taken Under Advisement-81MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction, 99 MOTION to Amend/Correct 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and for Entry of Permanent Injunction and 114 MOTION for Summary Judgment set for hearing on 5/22/2006 before JUDGE DAVID EZRA have been vacated. All Counsel have agreed to have the Court rule on these Motions without Oral Argument.

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 20 of 24

06/14/2006
06/14/2006 06/14/2006
06/21/2006 06/21/2006 06/23/2006 06/27/2006
06/27/2006 06/27/2006 06/29/2006 06/29/2006

(Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA )(lls, ) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
141 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 99 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying 114 Defendants' Counter Motion for Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 6/14/06. [Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Entry of Permanent Injunction and Denies Defendants' Counter Motion for Summary Judgment] (ecs, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
142 JUDGMENT in a Civil Case - by S. Beitia/Clerk, E. Sakoda/Deputy Clerk on 6/14/06. (Attachments: # 1 Rule 77, FRCP letter)(ecs, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 141 Order and 142 Judgment has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on 6/14/06. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
143 SUBMISSION of Proposed Order to Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Permanent Injunction Order)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
144 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 143 Submission of Proposed Order (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
145 OBJECTION re 143 Submission of Proposed Order Enjoining Enforcement of H.R.S. 78-1(c) and the Policies and Practices Based Thereon filed by City and County of Honolulu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Certificate of Service) (Nelson, Gordon) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
146 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motion# 2 Declaration of L. Perrin# 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10# 13 Declaration of A. Williams# 14 Exhibit A. Williams 1# 15 Exhibit A. Williams 2# 16 Declaration of P. Alston# 17 Exhibit P. Alston 1) (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
147 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
152 State Defendants' Statement of OBJECTION to Plaintiffs' Proposed Permanent Injunction Order and [Substitute] Proposed Order (Ex.1) 143 filed by Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Certificate of Service) (ecs, ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
149 EO: Court's Order re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Settlement Conference Re: Attorneys' fees, costs and expenses set for 8/3/2006 at 09:30 AM before JUDGE LESLIE E KOBAYASHI. (Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI )(wnn, ) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
150 Errata re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 06/29/2006)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 21 of 24

06/29/2006 07/03/2006
07/03/2006
07/07/2006 07/07/2006
07/10/2006 07/11/2006 07/11/2006 07/11/2006 07/11/2006 07/11/2006 07/11/2006

151 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 150 Errata re Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
153 Amended ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENYING Defendant's Counter Motion for Summary Judment 141 . Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 6/29/06. [Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Entry of Permanent Injunction and denies Defendants' Counter Motion for Summary Judgment](ecs, ) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 153AMENDED Order, has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on 7/3/06. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
154 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 235674 re 85 Notice of Appeal, filed by Mark J. Bennett,, Marie Laderta, (ecs, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
155 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 141 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's Counter Motion for Summary Judgment, 142 Judgment in a Civil Case, 153 Amended Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Counter Motion for Summmary Judgment. Filing fee $ 455. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Certificate of Service/Representation Statement)(ecs, )(cc'd: DAE) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
158 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 155 Notice of Appeal, (Rule 3(d) FRAP letter) (ecs, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/11/2006 (ecs, ). (Entered: 07/11/2006)
156 SUBMISSION of Proposed Order to Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Perrin, Lois) 141 153 Modified on 7/11/2006 (gab, ). (Entered: 07/11/2006)
157 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 156 Submission of Proposed Order (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
160 MOTION to Amend/Correct 153 Order, by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support of Motion# 2 Declaration Lois K. Perrin)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
161 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 160 MOTION to Amend/Correct 153 Order, (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
162 NOTICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees Statement of Consultation (Perrin, Lois) Modified on 7/12/2006 highlight text(ecs, ). (Entered: 07/11/2006)
163 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 162 Notice (Other) Statement of Consultation (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 07/11/2006)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 22 of 24

07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/20/2006 07/21/2006 07/24/2006
08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/09/2006 08/09/2006 08/09/2006

164 PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF H.R.S. 78-1(c) AND THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BASED THEREON. Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 7/13/06. (ecs, ) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 164 Permanent Injunction ORDER has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on 7/14/06. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
167 USCA Case Number 06-16280 for 155 Notice of Appeal,. (ecs, ) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
165 EO: Settlement Conference Re: Attorneys' Fees and Costs set for 8/3/2006 at 09:30 AM before Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi is Vacated.Motions terminated: 146 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Kevin R. Walsh,, Blane M. Wilson,, Steven M. Annarelli,, Lydia R. Hill,. Stipulation signed by the Court. (Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI )(wnn, ) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
166 STIPULATION re Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 146 ; ORDER. Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 7/21/06. [Order shall designate plaintiffs as the prevailing parties in this district court proceeding and award them attorney's fees in the amount of $133,124.15 for work performed as of the date of this stipulation, and costs and expenses in tha mount of $2,677.79 incurred as of the date of this stipulation, for a total of $135,801.24. Plaintiff shall not file a Bill of Costs pursuant to FRCP 54 or Local Rule 54.2, or seek any other award or remibursement for fees, costs or expenses incurred in the district court proceeding as of the date of this stipulation against defendants other than as specified herein. Nothing in this stipulation precludes defts:(a) from appealing any order or judgment granting plaintiff's motion for judgment and denying defendants' counter motion for summary judgment, or entering a permanent injunction in plaintiffs' favor and against defendants; or (b) from filing a notice of appeal from an making a motion to stay any order awarding plaintiffs fees, costs, and expenses in conpunction with an appeal on the merits under (a). (ecs, ) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
168 EO: Court's Order:Motions terminated: 160 MOTION to Amend/Correct 153 Order, filed by Kevin R. Walsh,, Blane M. Wilson,, Steven M. Annarelli,, Lydia R. Hill,. (Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI )(wnn, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
169 Correspondence re: USCA Order setting Assessment Conference set for 8/31/06 (ecs, ) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
170 NOTICE OF APPEAL 166, 141 - by Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta. Filing fee $ 455. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Certificate of Service/Representation Statement)(emt, ) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
171 Filing fee: $ 455, receipt number 236171 (emt, ) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
172 TRANSCRIPT Designation and Ordering Form by Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta for proceedings held on 1/30/06 before Judge David Alan Ezra, re 155 Notice of Appeal - re: 9CCA appeal no. 06-16280, filed 7/7/06. (emt, ) (Entered:

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 23 of 24

08/14/2006 08/14/2006 08/16/2006
08/16/2006
08/17/2006 08/25/2006 08/31/2006 08/31/2006 09/05/2006
09/26/2006 08/03/2007 08/27/2007 08/27/2007

08/10/2006)
173 SUBMISSION of Proposed Order to Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
174 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Steven M. Annarelli, Lydia R. Hill, Kevin R. Walsh, Blane M. Wilson re 173 Submission of Proposed Order of Correction (Perrin, Lois) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
175 ERRATA TO AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 153 . Signed by Judge DAVID ALAN EZRA on 8/15/06. [Court issues an errata to Footnotes 2 and 3 of its June 29, 2006 Amended Order to reflect the above facts](ecs, ) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 175 "Errata to Amended Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Counter Motion for Summary Judgment" has been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on 8/16/06. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). (ecs, ) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
176 Certificate of Record USCA Number: 06-16280 by A. Greaney/Deputy clerk (ecs, ) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
177 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals; Docket Fee Payment Notification Form re 170 Notice of Appeal (ecs, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/1/2006 (ecs, ). (Entered: 09/01/2006)
178 USCA Case Number 06-16568 for 170 Notice of Appeal filed by Mark J. Bennett,, Marie Laderta,. (ecs, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
179 USCA Time Schedule Order as to 170 Notice of Appeal filed by Mark J. Bennett,, Marie Laderta,. (ecs, )(cc: Court Reporter) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
180 TRANSCRIPT Designation Form by Mark J. Bennett, Marie Laderta for proceedings held on 1/30/06 before Judge David Ezra, re 170 Notice of Appeal Please Note: Designated transcript already on file as Clerk's Docket Sheet #68. this form is filed to designate the transcript, but not to order it. (ecs) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
181 Certificate of Record by A. Greaney, Deputy Clerk 9/26/06 (USCA 06-16568) (ecs, ) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
183 UNCERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order - "Defendants unopposed motion for vacatur due to mootness is GRANTED" 155 170 (afc) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
184 CERTIFIED copy of ORDER of USCA - "Defendants' unopposed motion for vacatur due to mootness is GRANTED" 155, 170 (afc) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
185 CERTIFIED copy of USCA JUDGMENT - Judgment of the District Court is VACATED. 155, 170 (Attachments: # 1 USCA Transmittal Sheet and Service List for service of USCA Judgment and 184 USCA Order) (afc) (Entered: 08/28/2007)

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

CM/ECF-DC V3.0.4 (3/07) **LIVE** - Docket Report

Page 24 of 24

08/27/2007
08/29/2007 09/05/2007

COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - a copy of 184 the USCA Order and a copy of 185 the USCA Judgment, will be served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record on August 29, 2007. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Interoffice delivery: Chambers of Judge David Alan Ezra & Courtroom Manager Theresa Lam; Interoffice delivery service on 8/28/07: Chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi & Courtroom Manager Warren Nakamura. (afc) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
186 EO: Status Conference Re: 9th CCA Judgment set for 9/17/2007 at 09:30 AM before JUDGE LESLIE E KOBAYASHI. (Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI ) (wnn, ) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
187 EO: Status Conference Re: 9th CCA Judgment set for 9./17/2007 at 10:00 AM before JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI is Vacated. Case to be terminated. (Judge LESLIE E KOBAYASHI )(wnn, ) (Entered: 09/05/2007)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

09/11/2007 08:43:11

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code: ddalton

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:05-cv-00378-DAELEK

Billable Pages: 16

Cost:

1.28

https://ecf.hid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113311279399115-L_353_0-1

9/11/2007

 
 Walsh v. City and County of Honolulu, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 1663370 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Hawai’i.
Kevin R. WALSH and Blane M. Wilson, Steven M. Annarelli, and Lydia R. Hill, as individuals and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Hawaii municipal corporation; Mark J. Bennett, Attorney
General of the State of Hawaii, in his official capacity; and Marie Laderta, Interim Director,

State of Hawaii Department of Human Resources Development, in her official capacity, Defendants.
No. CV 05–00378 DAE LEK. | June 14, 2006.
Opinion
For superseding opinion, see 2006 WL 3071364.
	  

1