Opinion ID: 870455
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal of the Instant Agency Appeal Case Before the ICA

Text: Relying primarily on Public Access Shoreline Hawai`i v. Hawai`i County Planning Commission [hereinafter, PASH ], 79 Hawai`i 425, 903 P.2d 1246 (1995), Kaleikini argued before the ICA that the circuit court erred in dismissing sua sponte her agency appeal for lack of jurisdiction. She maintained that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to HRS chapter 91. In response, DLNR contended that HRS chapter 91specifically, HRS § 91-14 (1993 and Supp. 2008) [16] did not confer jurisdiction on the circuit court to review DLNR's denial of Kaleikini's request for a contested case hearing because Kaleikini did not participate in a contested case. On June 2, 2009, the ICA issued an order requesting supplemental memoranda, stating specifically: Inasmuch as Kaleikini, in filing the separate proceeding in [the dec action] may have already obtained the remedy she seeks in this appealjudicial review of [DLNR]'s allegedly wrongful denial of her request for a contested-case hearing and a stay of decisionmaking [sic] on the burial-treatment plan for the projectthis appeal may be moot. To assist this court in determining whether an actual controversy continues to exist in this case [( i.e., the agency appeal case)], Kaleikini and [DLNR] are hereby directed to file supplemental memoranda not to exceed five pages, no later than ten calendar days from the filing of this order, discussing the following issues: (1) The status of [the dec action] and whether any orders, decisions, or judgments have been rendered [therein] that affect this appeal and any remedial relief sought by Kaleikini in [the agency appeal case]; (2) Whether the burial-treatment plan for the project has been implemented; and (3) Why this appeal is not moot. On June 12, 2009, Kaleikini filed her supplemental memorandum, indicating that, although she had filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court's February 9 and February 27, 2009 amended judgments in the dec action, the proceedings were stayed due to GGP's notice of filing of bankruptcy. Thus, Kaleikini contended that she had  not received the relief she requested in [the agency appeal] from [the dec action]. (Emphasis in original.) With regard to whether the burial treatment plan had been implemented, Kaleikini stated it was her understanding that all the terms of the current burial treatment plan [had] not been fully implemented. (Emphasis in original.) Additionally, Kaleikini acknowledged that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement in the dec action with respect to counts 5-7 of her second amended complaint, but indicated that the settlement agreement did not settle [c]ounts 1-4, which include[d] the [c]ount regarding the denial of the contested case hearing and, in fact, Kaleikini stated that [t]he settlement explicitly acknowledged [Kaleikini]'s right to appeal [c]ounts 1-4 ... [and, thus, t]he settlement did not affect [Kaleikini]'s rights in this appeal. (Emphasis in original.) Lastly, Kaleikini asserted that, [e]ven if the [ICA] were to interpret the settlement agreement so broadly as to resolve the issue of the contested case and burial treatment plan, exceptions to the mootness doctrine clearly apply; specifically, the public interest and the capable of repetition yet evading review exceptions. Conversely, DLNRin its supplemental memorandum filed on June 15, 2009asserted that the mootness doctrine would be properly invoked in the case at bar because (1) [the dec action] substantively disposed of the issue on appeal in [the agency appeal case] and (2) the terms of the [s]ettlement [a]greement provided that all of the previously identified burials ... would be reinterred either in a [c]entral [b]urial [p]reservation [s]ite or in a specific reburial site for specified remains. [17] In DLNR's view, Kaleikini's appeal was moot because the parties [had] ... agreed to the relocation and reinterment of the burials, which ha[d] already occurred,  and, thus, there [was] no basis for contesting the decision of the OIBC to relocate the burials and there [was] no effective remedy which this court could order in this case. (Emphasis added.) On July 9, 2009, the ICA issued an order dismissing Kaleikini's appeal as moot. Therein, the ICA stated, inter alia, that: Based on our review of the record in this appeal, this court's Order Requesting Supplemental Memoranda filed on June 2, 2009, Kaleikini's supplemental memorandum filed on June 12, 2009, and [DLNR's] supplemental memorandum filed on June 15, 2009, it appears that ..., Kaleikini filed a [dec. action] which, among other claims, challenged (1) the denial of her request for a contested-case hearing, and (2) the [OIBC]'s approval for disinterment and relocation of the historic remains. In [the dec action], the circuit court dismissed Kaleikini's claim for wrongful denial of her request for a contested-case hearing via summary judgment. Her remaining claims were dismissed by summary judgment or stipulation of the parties. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, general release, and waiver of claims (settlement agreement). Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to a revised burial plan that addressed the inadvertently discovered and future discoveries of historic remains. The revised burial plan has been implemented. Inasmuch as the remedy sought by Kaleikinia determination that the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the denial of Kaleikini's request for a contested-case hearingis no longer necessary, this appeal is moot. See Carl Corp. v. State, Dep't of Educ., 93 Hawai`i 155, 164, 997 P.2d 567, 576 (2000) (holding that invocation of the mootness doctrine is proper where `events have so affected the relations between the parties that the two conditions [for] justiciability relevant on appealadverse interest and effective remedyhave been compromised'). (Ellipsis omitted.) [18] (Emphasis added.) (Footnote omitted.) Thereafter, this court accepted Kaleikini's application on November 4, 2009 and heard oral argument on December 17, 2009.