Opinion ID: 2582211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend

Text: After the State moved to dismiss the first amended complaint but prior to the court's dismissal of the complaint, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint on October 1, 2003. The proposed second amended complaint [hereinafter, the original second amended complaint]: (1) added a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the Act 304 Settlement because upon further reflection counsel for [the plaintiffs] believe[ ] that the State's failure to oppose the FAA's position not only constitutes a breach of the Act 304 Settlement as a contract but also the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the Act 304 Settlement; (2) deleted the claims for misrepresentation and non-disclosure; (3) deleted relief seeking to reinstate Act 304 because upon further reflection [the plaintiffs] believe[ ] that this can only be accomplished by the legislative branch; and (4) clarified that, although [the plaintiffs] alleged damages measured by the standards established under Act 304, the fact that [ OHA I ] effectively repealed Act 304 is not relevant because the State's alleged wrongs caused the effective repeal of Act 304. On October 13, 2003, the State filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to amend, in which the State argued that the proposed amendments are futile and that the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the proposed amendments when the initial complaint was filed. In response to the State's memorandum, the plaintiffs asserted that the proposed amendments were not futile. After the circuit court orally dismissed the first amended complaint, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion in support of their motion to amend on November 28, 2003. The plaintiffs attached to the memorandum a revised second amended complaint [hereinafter, the revised second amended complaint]. In addition to changes proposed in the original second amended complaint, the revised second amended complaint requested the following declaratory relief: [The plaintiffs are] entitled to a declaratory judgment that declares that the State breached fiduciary duties as trustee of the native Hawaiian public trust, breached the Act 304 Settlement, breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the Act 304 Settlement, violated H.R.S. Chapter 10 and/or violated Article XII, Sections 4-6 of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that the State's breaches, errors and omissions as set forth above were substantial factors that resulted in the passing of the Forgiveness Act and the Hawaii Supreme Court's invalidation of Act 304 in [ OHA I ]. On December 1, 2003, the State responded to the plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum and alleged that: To the extent that OHA seeks to engraft a new claim for declaratory judgment onto the old claim for declaratory judgment, that request is futile. The law is that declaratory judgments may only issue in cases of actual controversy,  and where an actual controversy exists between contending parties. Because this court has already ruled that OHA's claims for monetary and injunctive relief are non-justiciable, a declaration that the State violated a fiduciary duty, breached a contract, etc., would be a purely advisory opinion. Because OHA will not receive monetary or injunctive relief as a result of any such declaration, it would have no judicial consequences for OHA. (Emphases in original.) The State also asserted that, [s]imply as a matter of procedure, there is no basis for [the plaintiffs'] filing. On December 19, 2003, without holding a hearing on the matter, the circuit court entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend.