Opinion ID: 2515085
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Injunction Dissolved and Order Voiding Operating Agreement Vacated

Text: On November 5, 2007, Superferry and DOT moved to dissolve the injunction and vacate the order voiding the operating agreement between DOT and Superferry. In support of its motion, Superferry stated: As the court knows (and indeed as every citizen of Hawaii who has read a newspaper or watched a newscast in the past few weeks knows), the Hawaii State Legislature swiftly responded to the decisions made by the Hawaii Supreme Court and by this court in this case, by enacting Act 2 of the Second Special Session of 2007. The nature of that response is a change to the law applicable to large capacity ferry vessel companies operating in the State, including [Superferry]. Under this changed law, it is no longer illegal or improper for [Superferry] to operate during the environmental review process. Just as the August 2007 Supreme Court rulings required this court to change its July 2005 ruling, the legislative response to the Supreme Court rulings now requires this court to change its October 9, 2007, [sic] order to comply with the new law. Specifically, this court should alter the prospective effect of its order by dissolving the injunction prohibiting use of Kahului Harbor improvements by defendants and should vacate that portion of the order that voids part of the operating agreement. Also on November 5, 2007, Sierra Club moved for voluntary dismissal of its remaining claims [5] and entry of final judgment. On November 13, 2007, Sierra Club filed a memorandum in opposition to Superferry and DOT's motions to dissolve the injunction and vacate the order voiding the operating agreement. Sierra Club requested evidentiary hearings to: (1) determine what irreparable harm would be caused by dissolving the injunction; (2) demonstrate that Superferry was the only entity meant by the term large capacity ferry vessel company in Act 2; and (3) determine whether there remains any need to continue the injunction or whether the purposes of the litigation as incorporated into the decree have been served. On November 14, 2007, the circuit court granted DOT's and Superferry's motions to dissolve the injunction and vacate the order voiding the operating agreement. In the final paragraph of the November 14, 2007 order, the circuit court stated: IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph D of the order granting Plaintiffs' motion to enforce judgment requiring environmental assessment by prohibiting implementation of Hawaii Superferry Project, for temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunction, filed herein on October 9, 2007, authorizing Plaintiffs, as the prevailing parties, to, by separate motion, file a request for the reimbursement by [Superferry] of their reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred shall remain in effect. On January 15, 2008, Sierra Club filed a motion for reimbursement of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. On January 31, 2008, the circuit court granted Sierra Club's motion for voluntary dismissal of its remaining claims and entry of final judgment. The motion was granted as follows: A. On August 24, 2007, the above Court entered its Order Entering Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiffs on Claim for Environmental Assessment. On October 9, 2007, the above Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Judgment Requiring Environmental Assessment by Prohibiting Implementation of the Hawaii Superferry Project, for Temporary, Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction. On November 2, 2007, Act 2 (Second Special Session 2007) was signed into law by the Honorable Linda Lingle, Governor of the State of Hawai`i. On November 14, 2007, the above Court entered its Order Granting (1) [DOT's] Motion to Dissolve Injunction and Vacate Order Voiding Operating Agreement; and (2) [Superferry's] Motion to Dissolve Injunction and Vacate Order Voiding Operating Agreement (Order Granting Motion to Dissolve). B. Count I of the First Amended Complaint herein, by virtue of the Legislature's enactment of Act 2 and this Court's Order Granting Motions to Dissolve, is now moot and dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. C. Count II of the First Amended Complaint herein, alleging a claim relating to the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Kahului Harbor Improvements dated June 2004 is dismissed without prejudice in its entirety. D. Count III of the First Amended Complaint herein, by virtue of the Legislature's enactment of Act 2 and this Court's Order Granting Motions to Dissolve, is now moot and dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. E. Count IV of the First Amended Complaint herein, by virtue of the Legislature's enactment of Act 2 and this Court's Order Granting Motions to Dissolve is now moot and dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. F. Count V of the First Amended Complaint herein, by virtue of the Legislature's enactment of Act 2 and this Court's Order Granting Motions to Dissolve, is now moot and dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. G. A Final Judgment shall be entered pursuant to this Order. On January 31, 2008, the circuit court issued its final judgment. The final judgment dismissed the claims as outlined in the order granting Sierra Club's motion for voluntary dismissal and added the following: Paragraph D of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Judgment Requiring Environmental Assessment by Prohibiting Implementation of Hawaii Superferry Project, for Temporary, Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction, filed herein on October 9, 2007, authorizing Plaintiffs to, by separate motion, file a request for the reimbursement by [Superferry] of their reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred shall remain in effect unless otherwise ordered by the above Court. This Final Judgment resolves all claims as to all parties. There are no further claims or parties remaining in this action. Any and all other claims, cross-claims or counterclaims are hereby dismissed. On February 29, 2008, Sierra Club filed a timely notice of appeal. On March 13, 2008, DOT filed a notice of cross-appeal. On March 14, 2008, Superferry filed a notice of cross-appeal. On March 27, 2008, the circuit court granted Sierra Club's motion for reimbursement of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The court stated that it had not given weight to fifteen exhibits submitted by Sierra Club in an attempt to challenge Superferry's claim of reliance in good faith on DOT's exemption determination. Superferry had raised the claim of reliance in good faith to avoid an award of attorney's fees against it based on HRS ง 607-25. [6] The court then stated the following, The Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Reimbursement of Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Costs ..., in part, based upon HRS ง 607-25 and the Private Attorney General Doctrine, and awards Plaintiffs, with the exceptions noted on the record, attorney's fees, at the hourly rate of $200 per hour, and costs, both commencing as of August 24, 2007. The total amount of attorney's fees hereby awarded is $86,270.28. The total amount of costs hereby awarded is $5,442.44. The total amount of attorney's fees and costs hereby awarded is $91,712.72. Defendants [Superferry] and [DOT] shall pay this total amount of attorney's fees and costs to Plaintiffs. On April 3, 2008, DOT filed its notice of appeal. On April 4, 2008, Superferry filed its notice of appeal. On April 15, 2008, Sierra Club filed its notice of cross-appeal. On October 14, 2008, we granted Sierra Club's application for transfer of the appeal to this court pursuant to HRS ง 602-58(a)(1) (Supp. 2007). On December 18, 2008, we held oral argument.