Opinion ID: 6491122
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ormra

Text: The authority behind the promulgation of ORMRA is HRS chapter 200 (referred to as the “Ocean Recreation and Coastal Areas Program”). The legislative history behind HRS chapter 200 indicates that the DLNR is essentially responsible for, inter alia, “addressing] the impact an activity may have on the marine environment when it regulates small boat harbors, boating, and ocean-based recreation activities.” 1991 Haw. Sess. L. Act 272, § 1 at 607 (emphases added). In addition, HRS § 200-21 (1993) provides the “declaration of policy” behind boating law: Declaration of policy. The legislature hereby finds, determines, and declares that this part is necessary to promote and attain: (1) The full use and enjoyment of the waters of the State; (2) The safety of persons and the protection of property as related to the use of the waters of the State; (3) A reasonable uniformity of laws and rules regarding the use of the waters of the State; and (4) Conformity with, and implementation of, federal laws and requirements. (Bold emphasis in original.) Although ORMRA’s specific purpose “is to reduce conflicts among ocean water users, especially in areas of high activity,” HAR § 13-256-1, ORMRA was generally promulgated “to further the public interest and welfare and to promote safety within the geographical limits of certain portions of Hawaii’s ocean waters, navigable streams and beaches[.]” HAR § 13-250-1. As such, it is clear that the policies and objectives behind ORMRA is to promote safety, recreation, and protection and preservation of the environment rather than protection of business interests or competition. Furthermore, HAR § 13-252-7, entitled “Penalties,” provides: “Any person who is guilty of violating these rules shall be punished as provided in [HRS § 200-25 (1993)].” In turn, HRS § 200-25 states: Fines and Penalties. Any person violating any of the provisions of this part, or of the rules adopted pursuant to this part, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided that in addition to, or as a condition to the suspension of, the fines and penalties, the court may deprive the offender of the privilege of operating any vessel, including, but not limited to, any thrill craft or vessel engaged in parasailing, in the waters of the State for a period of not more than two years [24] (Bold emphasis in original.) The HAR also provides the following enforcement rights to the relevant public authority: [HAR] § 13-252-8 Powers of arrest. Any police officer or any employee, agent, or representative of the department authorized by the chairperson of the board of land and natural resources who observes any violation by any person of these rules may forthwith arrest the person without a warrant. [HAR] § 13-252-9 Taking legal custody of property. As incident to a lawful arrest, the arresting authority may take legal custody of any personal property which is the subject of or related to any violation of these rules. The property may be released only upon approval by the court which has jurisdiction of the case. [HAR] § 13-252-10 Attorney general. The attorney general may bring appropriate proceedings to enjoin the continuance of any act or omission in violation of these rules. (Underscored emphases in original.) Thus, based on the foregoing, it appears that a private right of action for damages under ORMRA was not contemplated in favor of commercial boating operators alleging injury to their business interests. See Med. Soc’y of New Jersey, 868 A.2d at 1168; Stebbins, 818 A.2d at 716. Moreover, case law in this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions support the conclusion that, when asserting business tort claims as in the instant case, a private right of action for damages should not be inferred from regulations that were not promulgated with the objective of protecting business competition. In Robert’s Hawai‘i, disappointed bidders for public school bus transportation contracts (the plaintiffs) sued their competitors, alleging that their competitors (the defendants)—acting in concert—created, operated, and controlled shell corporations to circumvent the State of Hawai'i Department of Accounting and General Services’ (DAGS) bidding rules and specifications. 91 Hawai'i at 230, 982 P.2d at 859. The plaintiffs’ complaint included claims of, inter alia, unfair competition in violation of HRS § 480-2, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Id. This court first addressed the issue whether the Hawai'i Public Procurement Code and DAGS’ General Conditions afford a private right of action by a disappointed bidder against a successful bidder. Id. at 240, 982 P.2d at 869. The defendants alleged that the foregoing statute and regulations do not provide a private right of action and that, therefore, the plaintiffs’ claims were barred. Id. The defendants specifically argued “that a claim of tortious interference with prospective business advantage cannot be maintained within a state bidding framework.” Id. at 257 n. 39, 982 P.2d at 886 n. 39. However, this court disagreed with the defendants and held that the plaintiffs were not precluded from bringing their claims for relief. Id. at 240, 982 P.2d at 869. This court noted that “DAGS encouraged competition in the instant bidding process.” Id. at 257 n. 39, 982 P.2d at 886 n. 39. Specifically, this court stated: Incorporated into DAGS’s bid solicitations since the 1970s, Specification M, entitled “Prevention Against Monopolization of School Bus Routes,” ... provided: Inasmuch as the State is the sole customer of school bus services in Hawai'i and therefore, school bus service seems to be a unique line of commerce, the State will deem it to be in its best interest to reject all or part of any bid if the effect of awarding part of or the entire bid may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in the school bus industry in any one county within the State of Hawai’i. [[Image here]] [S]ection 2.12(a) of the General Conditions provided that “[a] bidder shall be disqualified and his bid automatically rejected for ... [p]roof of collusion among bidders, in which case, all bids involved in the collusive action will be rejected and any participant [in] such collusion will be barred from future bidding until reinstated as a qualified bidder.” Id. at 232, 982 P.2d at 861 (some brackets and some ellipses in original) (emphases added). In addition, a contract specialist in DAGS’ student transportation branch during the relevant time period testified at trial that: DAGS included the foregoing provisions [i.e., Specification M and section 2.12(a) of the General Conditions] to guarantee fairness, to prevent collusive bidding practices that DAGS suspected had occurred in the past, to address price fixing, and to insure that bidders were truly independent. Specifically, [the contract specialist] testified that DAGS suspected prior collusive bidding practices between [the defendants. He] explained that Specification M was enacted to maximize competition within the industry and to address potential monopolies, but that, to his knowledge, DAGS had never enforced Specification M. Id. (emphases added). Coupled with the fact that DAGS’ General Conditions and Special Provisions’ enabling statute, former HRS chapter 103 (1985), “did not limit private remedies[,]” this court held that the plaintiffs’ claims were viable. In Klinger v. Morrow County Grain Growers, Inc., 102 Or.App. 375, 794 P.2d 811 (1990), the plaintiff operated a retail gasoline station while the defendant operated a “card-lock” service station, where customers are permitted to serve themselves in making gasoline purchases. The plaintiff contended that, by allowing self-service, the defendant had violated Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) § 480.330, which prohibited any person, other than the owner, operator, or employee of a gas station, from dispensing fuel. Id. at 811-12. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had “thereby engaged in ‘unfair competition’ and ha[d] also intentionally interfered with plaintiffs business relationships with his customers.” Id. at 812. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff was not within the class protected by ORS § 480.330 and that injury to business interests was not among the harms that the statute was intended to prevent. Id. On appeal, the plaintiff acknowledge^] that the legislative objective of ORS [§ ]480.330 is safety, that his business interests are not within the class that it is intended to protect and that injury to his business is not a harm that the statute is intended to prevent. He contends, however, that that is beside the point, because his claims are for common law torts, not for statutory liability or negligence per se. He asserts that defendant’s violation of ORS [§ ]480.330 constitutes the “improper means” element of the intentional interference claim but is not the gravamen of the action in itself. Therefore, [the] plaintiff maintains, the protected class/prevented harm test, derived from statutory liability and negligence per se cases, is inapposite, and he has adequately stated claims for common law relief. Id. The Oregon Court of Appeals, however, was not convinced by the plaintiffs arguments and stated: [The p]laintiff urges us to conclude that ... his common law claims are viable independently of the statutory violation that allegedly also occurred by virtue of [the] defendant’s conduct. The problem is that, were it not for the statutory violation, there could be no misconduct here.... [U]nder [the] plaintiffs allegations, [the] defendant’s conduct cannot be improper, unfair[,] or otherwise tortious, unless it violates ORS [§ ] 480.330. Although [the] plaintiff contends that he is asserting common law claims rather than statutory liability, he has simply attached common law labels to allegations that assert no wrong other than the statutory violation. [[Image here]] [The p]laintiff understands ... that any statutory violation can supply the “improper means” element for an intentional interference claim. We disagree. It would make no sense for an intentional interference claim to be maintainable simply because the defendant violated a statute that has no nexus with the business or economic relationships allegedly harmed.... As noted, the statute has no objective—even incidentally—of protecting business interests or competition. [25] Id. at 813 (citation omitted) (some emphases in original, some omitted, and some added). Consequently, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the defendant. Id.; see also Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Net Contents, Inc., 10 F.Supp.2d 84 (D.Mass.1998) (holding that plaintiff wholesaler had no private right of action to bring tortious interference with business relations claim where defendant purveyor of wines sold alcohol without a valid license or certificate in violation of Massachusetts law). As evident in the discussion relating to HEMP and ORMRA, these county and state regulations and rules are unlike the DAGS’ General Conditions and Special Provisions in Robert’s Hawai'i. The purposes and objectives behind the relevant rules promulgated by DAGS were to, inter alia, maximize competition, prevent collusion, and to insure that bidders were truly independent. 91 Hawai'i at 232, 982 P.2d at 861. As such, allowing the plaintiffs in Robert’s Hawai'i to pursue their business tort claims advanced the underlying purposes and objectives of DAGS’ General Conditions and Special Provisions. In this case, however, allowing Appellants to pursue their business tort claims would not advance the underlying purposes and objectives of HEMP and ORMRA, namely, the preservation and protection of the natural resources of the Hanalei SMA, safety, and recreation inasmuch as HEMP and ORMRA have no objective—even incidentally—of protecting business interests or competition. Moreover, similar to the plaintiff in Klinger, Appellants have “simply attached common law labels to allegations that assert no wrong other than the statutory violation.” 794 P.2d at 813 (citation omitted). As such, in light of the foregoing, we hold that no private right of action for damages exists under HEMP and ORMRA in the instant case. Accordingly, we believe that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Napali Appellees and Sheehan Appellees. 26