Opinion ID: 2518820
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Appellants' Second Motion to Dismiss

Text: On January 20, 2005, the Appellants again moved to dismiss the first amended complaint (the second motion to dismiss). The Appellants specifically contended, inter alia, that: In this case, the First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Simply put, there is no justiciable controversy between adverse parties in this case, and the [County] lacks standing to pursue these issues. Moreover, the issues are not ripe for adjudication[.] (Emphases in original.) On March 4, 2005, the circuit court denied the Appellants' second motion to dismiss, concluding that: (1) HRS § 603-23, quoted infra, provided subject matter jurisdiction; (2) there was no challenge to an election process; [8] (3) there was a case in controversy; and (4) the County had standing.