Opinion ID: 2515085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Circuit Court Proceedings Following Sierra Club I Order

Text: On August 23, 2007, the circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Sierra Club on its claim requesting an EA, pursuant to this court's order. On August 27, 2007, Sierra Club moved ex parte for a temporary restraining order (TRO), pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 65(b), to enjoin DOT and Superferry from using the barge attached to Pier 2 at the Kahului Harbor or any of [sic] premises or state lands granted by [DOT] to [Superferry] at the Kahului Harbor for the passenger terminal, for inspection and ticketing and for roadways to and from Pier 2 and the non-harbor Kahului roadway system, unless and until [DOT] has achieved full prior compliance with the mandatory procedural obligations under HRS [c]hapter 343.
On August 27, 2007, the circuit court granted Sierra Club's ex parte motion for a TRO stating the following: 1. On August 24, 2007, this Court entered summary judgment in favor of [Sierra Club] on the claim requiring the preparation of an [EA], pursuant to Chapter 343. 2. By HRS Section 343-5(b): Acceptance of a required final statement shall be a condition precedent to approval of the request and commencement of proposed action. 3. By Chapter 343, acceptance of a required statement is a condition precedent: a. To the commencement or implementation of a proposed project, HRS Section 343-5(c); [Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR)] Section 11-200-23(d); and b. To the use of state lands or funds in implementing the proposed action. HRS Section 343-5(b); HAR Section 11-200-23(c); and c. To the issuance of approvals or entitlements for the project, HRS Section 343-5(c); HAR Section 11-200-23(d); Kepoo v. Kane, 106 Hawai`i 270, 103 P.3d 939 (2005); KSOA v. County of Maui, 86 Hawai`i 66, 947 P.2d 378 (1997). 4. Acceptance refers to the acceptance of an EIS, the entry of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and/or Exemption Determination. Kepoo v. Kane, 106 Hawai`i 270, 103 P.3d 939 (2005).[sic] KSOA v. County of Maui, 86 Hawai`i 66, 947 P.2d 378 (1997). 5. At present, there is no acceptance of this project pursuant to Chapter 343. 6. The proposed action or project is: a. The barge to load and unload vehicles and passengers between [Superferry] and Pier 2 of the Kahului Harbor, Kahului, Maui, Hawai`i; b. Operational support to accommodate the [Superferry], including the provision of utilities (water, power and lighting); security fencing (separating the premises granted to [Superferry] from other state lands); pavement striping (of the roadways from the Pier connecting to local highways as well as the staging areas for ticketing and inspection of passengers and vehicles); the placement of boarding gangway ramps; and the installation of tents at inspection points or customer waiting areas (for passenger terminals); c. The state lands granted by [DOT] to [Superferry] to use for the [Superferry] project at the Kahului Harbor; d. The [Superferry] project or action that is facilitated by the harbor improvements, since these harbor improvements are a condition precedent or prerequisite to [Superferry] operations. KSOA v. County of Maui, 86 Hawai`i 66, 947 P.2d 378 (1997); Citizens for the Protection of the North Kohala Coastline v. County of [Hawai`i], 91 Hawai`i 94, 979 P.2d 1120 (1999). 7. A [TRO] is necessary without notice to [DOT and Superferry] to avoid immediate and irreparable injury in this case because (1) despite the entry of summary judgment in favor of [Sierra Club], [Superferry] and [DOT] are moving forward with implementation of the [Superferry] project at the Kahului Harbor possibly rendering meaningless this Court's requirement that an [EA] be prepared; (b) [sic] [DOT and Superferry] may be violating the prohibitions in Chapter 343 against the implementation of a project and the use of state lands for that project while an EA is being prepared; (c) [sic] if [Superferry] operations are to be halted, there will be less harm to customers who need to be returned to their ports of origin if action is taken at the earliest date; (d) [sic] [DOT and Superferry] are risking actual harm to the environment that may best be explored through the preparation of an EA prior to the implementation of the action. Based upon the foregoing, [DOT and Superferry], their subordinates, agents, attorneys, and all other persons acting in concert or participation with them who have actual knowledge of this Order, are prohibited from the following until the Court's decision on [Sierra Club's] Motion for Preliminary Injunction, such period not to exceed ten (10) days from the grant of this order[ [3] ] unless this Court extends the order for good cause shown: A. [Superferry] is prohibited from using the barge attached to Pier 2 at the Kahului Harbor or any of the premises or state lands granted by [DOT] to [Superferry] at the Kahului Harbor for the passenger terminal, for inspection and ticketing and for roadways to and from Pier 2 and the non-harbor Kahului roadway system. B. [DOT] is prohibited from permitting [Superferry] from [sic] using the barge attached to Pier 2 at the Kahului Harbor or any premises or state lands granted by [DOT] to [Superferry] at the Kahului Harbor for the passenger terminal, for inspection and ticketing and for roadways to and from Pier 2 and the non-harbor Kahului roadway system. C. To mitigate any harm to customers whom [Superferry] has already transported to Maui, [Superferry] is required to immediately offer to return such a customer to his or her home port or port of origin, to promptly return any such customer so desiring to return to his or her home port or port of origin, and thereafter to immediately cease operations at Kahului Harbor, as provided in Paragraphs A and B above. D. The issue of security may be addressed at the hearing on [Sierra Club's] Motion to Enforce Judgment Requiring [EA] by Prohibiting Implementation of Hawaii Superferry Project and for Temporary, Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction.[ [4] ] (Some formatting altered.) Also on August 27, 2007, Sierra Club filed a motion to enforce the judgment requiring an EA and for an injunction prohibiting the implementation of the Superferry project.
On October 9, 2007, the circuit court granted Sierra Club's request to enforce the judgment and permanently enjoin Superferry and DOT from implementing the Superferry project at Kahului Harbor while an EA was being prepared. The court found and concluded, among other things that: (1) Sierra Club already prevailed on the merits of its claim that an EA must be prepared; (2) Sierra Club demonstrated the possibility of irreparable injury with respect to environmental impacts of Superferry's operations; and (3) the public interest in the environmental review process supported the grant of a permanent injunction.
Regarding the permanent injunction, the court further ordered: a. A permanent injunction is hereby issued prohibiting [Superferry] from using the barge attached to Pier 2 at the Kahului Harbor, in Kahului, Maui, Hawai`i or any of premises or state lands granted by [DOT] to [Superferry] at the Kahului Harbor for the passenger terminal, for inspection and ticketing and for roadways to and from Pier 2 and the non-harbor Kahului roadway system. b. A permanent injunction is hereby issued prohibiting [DOT] from permitting [Superferry] from using the barge attached to Pier 2 at the Kahului Harbor or any of premises or state lands granted by [DOT] to [Superferry] at the Kahului Harbor for the passenger terminal, for inspection and ticketing and for roadways to and from Pier 2 and the non-harbor Kahului roadway system. c. This permanent injunction shall remain in full, [sic] force and effect while the Environmental Assessment ... is being prepared and until the environmental review process required by HRS Chapter 343 and the underlying regulations, HAR งง 11-200-1 et. seq., has been lawfully concluded.
Regarding the operating agreement between DOT and Superferry, the circuit court ordered: As it relates to the Kahului Harbor in Kahului, Maui, Hawai`i, the Harbors Operating Agreement entered into on the 7th day of September, 2005 between [DOT] and [Superferry], as amended on the 25th of October, 2005, is hereby declared void because it was not preceded by the requisite [EA] which was a condition precedent to approval of the request and commencement of the proposed action. HRS ง 343-5.
Additionally, the circuit court authorized Sierra Club to request attorney's fees and costs, stating: Plaintiffs, as the prevailing parties, may, by separate motion, file a request for the reimbursement of their reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in this case.