Opinion ID: 870455
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Agency Appeal Case

Text: On February 21, 2007, Kaleikini filed a motion for a stay in the agency appeal, seeking to prevent DLNR from granting final approval of GGP's [b]urial [t]reatment [p]lan, which would allow the immediate disinterment of human remains discovered on the project site, until a decision on the merits of [the] agency appeal [was] issued by [the circuit court]. [10] A hearing was held on Kaleikini's motion for a stay on February 22, 2007. At the outset of the hearing, the circuit court stated that: I do know and appreciate from [Kaleikini]... that you have filed a [dec action], which I think is the only way now that you can actually get judicial review of the relief. Because, as I have read Aha Hui Malama o Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Commission, 111 Hawai`i 124[, 139 P.3d 712 (2006) [hereinafter, Kaniakapupu, ]] ... affirming [the circuit c]ourt's decision that [it] lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction because there was no contested case hearing decision appealed from, it's clear that while you're appealing the decision not to give a contested case, obviously there hasn't been one. Now, I actually remember [Kaleikini's attorney] being here on a different case where it was, if I'm not mistaken, the same situation. And he was very articulate in suggesting that it's a major Catch 22, because if you're denied a contested case hearing, and the denial can't be appealed, then there is no way to get judicial review of that. And any agency could improperly deny a contested case hearing. Well, the Supreme Court didn't actually answer that in ... Kaniakapupu. But the majority said ... []if the [c]ircuit [c]ourt has no jurisdiction to determine if an appellant were [sic] entitled to a contested case hearing after having requested one, any agency could arbitrarily and capriciously deny anyone a hearing at any time, regardless of whether such hearing were required by law, and the aggrieved party could never obtain judicial review of such denial....[] However, in [ Kaniakapupu ], the Hui did not request a contested case hering [sic]. Indeed, the Hui concede[d] that ... []there is no procedural vehicle for any party or interested person to obtain a contested case hearing on whether a petitioner has failed to perform according to the conditions imposed, or failed to perform according to representations or commitments she made.... [] ... So [the circuit court], while not sure about it, because they didn't actually answer the question, believe[s] that the filing of the [dec action], assigned to Judge Lee, is the proper vehicle. That [the circuit court] doesn't have jurisdiction, because there wasn't a contested case hearing. [11] Accordingly, the circuit court dismissed Kaleikini's agency appeal case. Additionally, the circuit court ruled that, inasmuch as it did not have jurisdiction to hear the agency appeal, Kaleikini's motion for a stay was rendered moot. However, recognizing the pending dec action, the circuit court sua sponte re-filed Kaleikini's motion for a stay in that case. An order dismissing Kaleikini's agency appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, consistent with the circuit court's oral ruling, was entered on March 16, 2007. On April 4, 2007, the circuit court entered its final judgment. On April 9, 2007, Kaleikini filed a timely notice of appeal in the case at bar from the circuit court's March 16, 2007 order and April 4, 2007 final judgment.