Opinion ID: 2518820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Substantive Motions

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.
As previously noted, the County's first motion for summary judgment was withdrawn after the proposed Charter Amendment was approved by the voters. See supra note 3. Thereafter, on November 10, 2004, the County filed its first amended complaint. On November 23, 2004, the County filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the Defendants from implementing the newly approved Charter Amendment, which was to become effective on December 2, 2004. [9] On December 30, 2004, the County filed its second motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Charter Amendment is unconstitutional, violates the [RCCK], and impermissibly usurps the taxing authority of the County Council. Additionally, the County maintained, inter alia, that [t]he Charter Amendment also fails because it is void for vagueness. On January 19, 2005, the Appellants filed their memorandum in opposition to the County's second motion for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part that the Charter Amendment: (1) is not in violation of the Hawai`i Constitution; (2) is not an ordinance and that it merely caps real property taxes; and (3) is not vague or substantially incomprehensible. In granting summary judgment in favor of the County, the circuit court concluded that the Charter Amendment violated article VIII, section 3 of the Hawai`i Constitution and was void under the RCCK; the circuit court did not reach the vagueness issue. Final judgment was entered on May 20, 2005. On June 9, 2005, the Appellants timely appealed.