Opinion ID: 4531835
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the conduct is of a continuing

Text: nature or has produced a permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the actor knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect upon the public right. 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  the Plaintiffs 0.3 miles away. 3. Plaintiffs’ Response to Chung Partners’ Motions for Summary Judgment Citing Littleton v. State, 66 Haw. at 67, 656 P.2d at 1344-45 (1982), and Territory v. Fujiwara, 33 Haw. 428, 429-30 (1935), Plaintiffs argued that a court may not decide at summary judgment whether a public nuisance exists; instead, that question is reserved for the fact-finder. Plaintiffs also argued that, as a matter of law, defendants can be held liable for public nuisances that extend from activity on the defendants’ property. Plaintiffs next noted that the use of the storage units for residences was “illegal” because the area was zoned as “General Industrial.” Furthermore, Plaintiffs relied on the expert testimony of Spike Denis, a premises security expert, that it was reasonably foreseeable that homeless residents would commit assault, not only on the premises but in the surrounding community. Plaintiffs presented evidence that the encampment at Allied was long-running and obvious. For example, Plaintiffs quoted from the declaration of James Smith, who stated that he resided in a storage unit, and that Roy Ebert, who worked under Sung Hun Chung, told Smith “what I don’t see, I don’t know,” in 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  reference to residential use of the storage unit. Plaintiffs further stated that Allied changed its name to Kaiwi Storage after this incident, and hired Metro to address the issue of homeless individuals residing in units. Metro employees working there after the assault testified that they observed signs of residential use on the property. Plaintiffs argued Chung Partners was liable for the nuisance maintained by Allied because one of Chung Partners’ principals, Sung Hun Chung, knew or should have known of the homeless situation on Allied’s leased property. On the date of the incident, Plaintiffs alleged, Sung Hun Chung was not only the managing partner of Chung Partners, but also the manager and secretary of Allied. Further, Sung Hun Chung had an office and P.O. box on Allied’s premises for nearly six years. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argued Sung Hun Chung knew or should have known about Allied’s homeless residents.10 10 Plaintiffs presented two other alternative theories of liability. First, Plaintiffs argued that there were unresolved issues of material fact as to whether Chung Partners, as transferee of Allied’s business in 2012, assumed Allied’s liabilities. Though the purchase and sale agreement was written as a sale of assets, Plaintiffs raised several factual issues that they contended could have supported Chung Partners’ liability. Second, Plaintiffs argued that Chung Partners was never out of possession of the premises leased to Allied, and therefore Chung Partners was tenants-in-common with Allied and equally liable for Allied’s torts. The Allied premises were originally leased by the Trustees of the Lili‘uokalani (continued) 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  The circuit court heard Chung Partners’ Motions for Summary Judgment and Allied’s Notice of Joinder, and subsequently granted the three motions in a minute order. The court’s minute order was brief and did not explain its specific rationale for granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Chung Partners then filed a Motion for Costs pursuant to HRCP Rules 54(d)11 and 6812. In its Memorandum of Support, Trust to Chung Partners. Chung Partners thereafter subleased a portion of the premises to Allied, but the sublease did not provide specific metes and bounds of the premises. Therefore, Allied and Chung Partners were co-tenants in equal possession of the premises under Hawai‘i law and Allied maintained interest in all of the larger area. 11 HRCP Rule 54(d) provides in relevant part: