Opinion ID: 2632470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CASI's complaint

Text: On April 17, 2002, CASI brought a complaint for declaratory and monetary relief against the DLNR Defendants in circuit court. (Capitalization omitted.) Specific jurisdiction was claimed under HRS § 662-3 (1993). [11] CASI sought recovery of, or, in the alternative, future setoff of, DLNR usage fees in the amount of the $40,882.52 in Hula Kai ORMA permit fees paid to DLNR. CASI additionally made the following allegations: 29. At all times relevant hereto, [the DLNR] Defendants and their predecessors in office were unwilling to allow CASI to pay under protest or segregate the disputed use payments, or allow the payments to be deposited with the clerk of the court in [federal district court action] pending a final determination of the constitutionality of the [ORMA permit fee]. 30. [The DLNR] Defendants and their predecessors intentionally and knowingly took this position despite asserting the position in the [federal district court action] that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States [Constitution] barred the federal court from ordering the state to refund to CASI the amount of the wrongful assessment, citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). 37. When [DLNR] refused to reconsider its assessment of the ORMA [permit] [f]ees, CASI requested a contested case hearing pursuant to H.R.S. Chapter 91, which request [the DLNR] Defendants denied. As to paragraph 30 of CASI's complaint, the DLNR Defendants admitted that the eleventh amendment to the United States Constitution precluded an award of money damages against the State of Hawai`i in federal court. CASI asserted a total of seven claims in its complaint: (1) lack of authority for the DLNR Defendants to assess the ORMA permit fees under HRS § 200-10(c)(4) (1993), [12] (2) unlawful withholding of the ORMA permit fees by the individual DLNR Defendants despite demand for their return, (3) wrongful conversion of the ORMA permit fees such that defendant Mason Young, acting administrator of the DLNR subdivision that assessed the fees, was personally liable, (4) unjust enrichment and equitable restitution, (5) bad faith and unfair dealing such that Mason Young (on this alternative basis) was personally liable to repay the ORMA permit fees to CASI, (6) malicious misconduct by Mason Young and co-defendant David Parsons (a DLNR ocean subdivision administrator) rendering both jointly and severally liable to CASI, and (7) in the alternative, future DLNR fee setoff for CASI in the amount of the Hula Kai ORMA permit fees. (Some capitalization omitted.)