Opinion ID: 2561872
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Complaint and Pretrial Motions

Text: On August 11, 1995, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (First Amended Complaint), seeking injunctive and, alternatively, declaratory relief. [12] The plaintiffs requested: (1) an injunction against all sales of ceded lands (Count I); (2) an injunction to specifically bar the sale of the Leiali`i parcel (Count II); and, alternatively, (3) a declaratory judgment that (a) any conveyance to a third-party violates the Hawai`i State Constitution and the Admission Act, and/or (b) any sale of ceded lands does not directly or indirectly release or limit claims of [n]ative Hawaiians to those lands (Count III). [13] The plaintiffs alleged that they would suffer irreparable harm if the defendants were allowed to transfer ceded lands to third-parties inasmuch as alienation of the land to a third-party would erode the ceded lands trust and the entitlements of the native Hawaiian people. In other words, the plaintiffs alleged that an injunction was proper because, in light of the Apology Resolution, any transfer of ceded lands by the State to thirdparties would amount to a breach of trust inasmuch as such transfers would be without regard for the claims of Hawaiians to those lands to whom the State, as trustee, owes a fiduciary duty.