Communication No. 2021-14- Flaherty Testimony

Home

Communication Number 2021-14 limited partnership. The issues that will remain on appeal involve the Plaintiffs and the State Department of Health and County of Hawai'i. 6. The Court also finds that vacating portions of the Third Amended Final Judgment, and the Orders which it incorporates, is appropriate given the new evidence on stipulated facts submitted by the Plaintiffs. The Court has independently determined from the new evidence that the affirmative defense of laches prevents Plaintiffs from pursuing portions of Count IV of their Fifth Amended Complaint. 7. The components of laches are well established, see Adair, 64 Haw. at 320, 640 P.2d at 300 (1982), citing W. McClintock, EQUITY § 528 at 71 (2ed. 1948). 8. Plaintiffs have now acknowledged, in the form of a judicial admission, imputed knowledge of the planned dwelling/agricultural lot use of the property no later than 1995. 9. The validity and sufficiency of Oceanside's entitlements was first challenged in these proceedings in the Second Amended Complaint, filed in December of 2000. 10. Whether a claim is barred by the doctrine of laches is determined by the particular circumstances of each case. Small v. Badenhop, 67 Haw. at 640. 11. In light of the new Stipulated Facts provided to the Court, the Court concludes that the elements of laches are now present in this case, barring the challenge to Hokuli'a based upon its alleged failure to comply with the provisions of Hawai'i Rev. Stat. Chapter 205. 12. This Court does not vacate its Judgment lightly. A court may vacate a -5-