Opinion ID: 2646157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stay the decision granting the conservation

Text: district use permit. C. Reverse the decision granting the conservation district use permit. On January 4, 2011, UH filed a motion to dismiss KOH’s notice of appeal in the circuit court. In support of the motion, UH argued 3 (...continued) (1) There is likelihood that the subject person will prevail on the merits of an appeal from the administrative proceeding to the court; (2) Irreparable damage to the subject person will result if a stay is not ordered; (3) No irreparable damage to the public will result from the stay order; and (4) Public interest will be served by the stay order. . . . . 4 On November 22, 2010, KOH also filed an original complaint in circuit court seeking declaratory relief. On January 11, 2011, KOH filed a motion to consolidate the declaratory action with the agency appeal. On February 7, 2011, a hearing on the motion to consolidate was held before the Honorable Virginia L. Crandall; Judge Crandall took the motion under submission pending Judge Nishimura’s ruling on UH’s motion to dismiss the agency appeal. Because the motion to dismiss was granted, the motion to consolidate was denied as moot. 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  that the appeal had to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and on ripeness grounds because no contested case hearing had been held, and further that KOH’s request for such a hearing had not yet been decided. On January 11, 2011, BLNR filed a joinder to UH’s motion to dismiss. In its February 10, 2011 memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss, KOH argued that Hawai#i case law does not require a formal contested case hearing as a necessary condition precedent to a chapter 91 appeal when the appellant has done all it can to participate in the agency proceedings and preserve its right to appeal; accordingly, in this case, KOH argued that the circuit court had jurisdiction to determine whether the permit was properly granted even in the absence of a formal contested case hearing. KOH therefore argued that the appeal was ripe because even without a formal contested case hearing, BLNR’s decision to grant the permit at the December 1, 2010 meeting constituted final agency action that was therefore appealable. KOH further argued that BLNR’s granting of the permit had the mark of finality because once granted, a permit can only be revoked if BLNR is ordered to do so by a court or if the permit applicant fails to comply with a condition of the permit. KOH also noted that a contested case hearing on a matter, when such a hearing is required, must take place before an agency’s decision 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  on that matter; in this case, therefore, “[t]he granting of a permit to develop in the face of a [pending] request for a contested case hearing effectively denies the request for the hearing.” Furthermore, as KOH argued, “[n]othing in BLNR’s rules would allow it to: first, grant a conservation district use permit; second, conduct a formal contested case hearing; and then revoke the conservation district use permit if the party challenging the conservation district use application prevailed.” Meanwhile, on February 11, 2011, BLNR granted KOH’s request for a contested case hearing and authorized the appointment of a hearing officer to conduct all hearings regarding UH’s application, subject to a preliminary hearing to determine whether KOH had standing to participate in a contested case hearing. On February 15, 2011, UH replied to KOH’s memo in opposition, arguing that KOH’s appeal was now moot because BLNR’s February 11 grant of KOH’s contested case hearing request afforded KOH the relief it was seeking from the circuit court. On February 18, 2011, the circuit court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Before ruling, the court expressed concerns regarding the implementation of the permit in light of the pending contested case hearing. BLNR’s counsel asserted that the contested case hearing would be the appropriate venue for pursuing a possible stay of the permit. The circuit court then 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  granted the motion to dismiss, but it encouraged BLNR to stay the permit until the contested case hearing concluded. KOH timely appealed to the ICA. B. The ICA’s June 28, 2012 Memorandum Opinion On appeal to the ICA, KOH raised one general point of error: that the circuit court erred in dismissing its agency appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In support of that point of error, KOH argued, adhering to its position in circuit court, that a party can appeal pursuant to HRS chapter 91 even when a formal contested case hearing has not been held, and that the circuit court had jurisdiction to rule on whether BLNR properly granted the permit even in the absence of a formal contested case hearing; that the case was ripe and not moot; that KOH had exhausted the administrative remedies that were available to it; and that BLNR could not grant a permit before holding a contested case hearing. In response, UH argued that the circuit court did lack jurisdiction because KOH was not a “person aggrieved by a final decision and order in a contested case” pursuant to HRS § 91-14. Specifically, UH noted that “[a]mong its prerequisites, [HRS § 91-14(a)] requires that a contested case must have occurred before appellate jurisdiction may be exercised.” UH also argued that the agency appeal was moot because a contested case hearing 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  was in fact granted. Similarly, UH argued that the appeal was not ripe because at the time of its filing, no contested case hearing had been held; moreover, because a contested case hearing had been granted, the appeal would remain unripe until BLNR issued a final decision and order from which KOH could then appeal. In a memorandum opinion, the ICA affirmed the final judgment of the circuit court dismissing KOH’s agency appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The ICA’s brief analysis focused on the following passage explaining the requirements that an appellant must meet in an HRS § 91-14 appeal from an agency to the circuit court: first, the proceeding that resulted in the unfavorable agency action must have been a contested case hearing -- i.e., a hearing that was (1) required by law and (2) determined the rights, duties, and privileges of specific parties; second, the agency’s action must represent a final decision and order, or a preliminary ruling such that deferral of review would deprive the claimant of adequate relief; third, the claimant must have followed the applicable agency rules and, therefore, have been involved in the contested case; and finally, the claimant’s legal interests must have been injured -- i.e., the claimant must have standing to appeal. Kilakila #O Haleakalâ v. Bd. of Land & Natural Res., No. CAAP-110000353, 2012 WL 2476802, at  (Haw. App. June 28, 2012) (mem. op.) (emphasis in original) (quoting Kaleikini, 124 Hawai#i at 16-17, 237 P.3d at 1082-83 (quoting Pub. Access Shoreline Haw. v. Haw. Cnty. Planning Comm’n (PASH), 79 Hawai#i 425, 431, 903 P.2d 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  1246, 1252 (1995))) (internal quotation marks omitted). The ICA relied solely on the first requirement in its disposition of the case. It stated that “[b]ecause KOH does not meet the first criteria [sic] -- that the agency action stemmed from a contested case hearing -- we look no further and conclude [that the] circuit court did not err when it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.” Id. KOH timely filed its application for writ of certiorari on September 27, 2012.