Opinion ID: 870455
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dec Action

Text: As indicated above, Kaleikini's motion for a stay was re-filed on February 22, 2007 in the dec action and sought to prevent DLNR and its chairperson from approving 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]. A hearing was held on Kaleikini's motion for a stay on February 23, 2007, [12] but no transcript of the proceeding was provided in the record on appeal for the dec action. On March 28, 2007, an order denying Kaleikini's motion for a stay was entered. On February 28, 2007, Kaleikini filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking again to prevent DLNR from approving GGP's burial treatment plan and to prohibit GGP from disinterring numerous graves and relocating ancient Hawaiian human skeletal remains (iwi) located there. Both DLNR and GGP opposed the motion. After a hearing on October 24, 25, and 26, 2007, the circuit court, [13] on November 27, 2007, filed an order denying Kaleikini's motion for a preliminary injunction. On August 21, 2007, Kaleikini filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that DLNR failed to hold a contested case hearing as required by law. Both DLNR and GGP opposed Kaleikini's motion for summary judgment. A hearing was apparently held on Kaleikini's motion on September 27, 2007; however, no transcript of the hearing was included in the record on appeal in the dec action. On October 12, 2007, the circuit court denied Kaleikini's motion for summary judgment. On October 29, 2007, Kaleikiniwith permission of the circuit courtfiled a seven-count second amended complaint in the dec action. [14] Therein, Kaleikini alleged that she was entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief because: (1) DLNR's denial of Kaleikini's request for a contested case hearing was without basis and invalid (count 1); (2) [t]he disinterment of Native Hawaiian burials in this instance would adversely affect [Kaleikini]'s Native Hawaiian rights and would violate Art. XII § 7 of the Hawai`i State Constitution (count 2); (3) the OIBC's failure to investigate alternatives and require the developer to explore alternatives [was] a breach of its public trust responsibilities (count 3); (4) the OIBC's decision to remove the burials violated Kaleikini's fundamental rights because [p]rotection of burials is a fundamental right that all citizens enjoy and that the OIBC's decision was not narrowly tailored given its failure to consider alternatives (count 4); (5) the disinterment of iwi in this instance [would] violate HRS § 6E-43 and HAR § 13-300-36 (count 5); (6) the proposal to remove iwi would irreparably injure the iwi and relief was needed pursuant to HRS § 6E-13 (1993) (governing enforcement of chapter 6E, which relates to historic preservation) (count 6); and (7) DLNR failed to consult with Kaleikini and others prior to authorizing the removal of many of the inadvertently discovered burial remains as required by law or to properly consider the criteria provided in HAR § 13-300-36 prior to authorizing the removal of many of the inadvertently discovered burial remains (count 7). On January 30, 2008, DLNR filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that judgment should be entered in its favor as to all of Kaleikini's claims because, as a matter of law, [Kaleikini could not] prevail on the merits of her claims against [DLNR]. On February 11, 2008, GGP filed a substantive joinder in DLNR's motion for summary judgment. Kaleikini opposed DLNR's motion, and, on March 4, 2008, a hearing was held regarding, inter alia, DLNR's motion for summary judgment. At the close of the hearing, the circuit court orally granted DLNR's motion for summary judgment and GGP's joinder as to count 1 (denial of contested case hearing), count 2 (violation of Hawai`i constitution article XII, section 7), count 3 (breach of public trust), and count 4 (violation of fundamental rights), reasoning that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to those counts inasmuch as DLNR was within [its] discretion to decide whether there was a legal basis for a contested case hearing and that Kaleikini's constitutional claims were not supported by Hawaii's case law. With regard to count 5 (violation of HRS § 6E-43, HAR § 13-30-36), count 6 (irreparable injury to iwi), and count 7 (improper decision-making authorizing the removal of many inadvertent discoveries), the court found that issues of material fact existed and, thus, denied DLNR's motion for summary judgment and GGP's joinder as to those counts. A written order confirming the circuit court's oral ruling was filed on March 19, 2008. On June 10, 2008, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss all of the remaining claims in the second amended complaint ( i.e., counts 5, 6, and 7) with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement agreement, which the circuit court approved. Thereafter, the circuit court entered a judgment in favor of DLNR, but for reasons that are not relevant to the issues before this court, subsequently entered a first and second amended judgment in the dec action on February 9 and February 27, 2009, respectively. Kaleikini filed a timely notice of appeal from the circuit court's first and second amended judgments on March 3, 2009 in appeal No. 29675. [15]