Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:22-cv-00247-DKW-RT Document 85 Filed 12/21/23 Page 11 of 28 PagelD.3071 <br /> (1) the case touches on a sensitive area of social policy upon which the <br /> federal courts ought not enter unless no alternative to its adjudication is <br /> open, (2) constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided if a definite <br /> ruling on the state issue would terminate the controversy, and (3) the proper <br /> resolution of the possible determinative issue of state law is uncertain. <br /> Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776, 783-84 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation <br /> omitted). "The court has no discretion to abstain in cases that do not meet the <br /> requirements." Courtney v. Goltz, 736 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation <br /> marks and citation omitted). Pullman abstention "is limited to uncertain questions <br /> of state law because abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the <br /> exception, not the rule." Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 236 (1984) <br /> (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). <br /> Here, even assuming the City could satisfy the first and second requirements <br /> for Pullman abstention, the third requirement plainly cannot be. First, as the Court <br /> has already held, the language of HRS § 46-4(a) and Ordinance 22-7 is plain and <br /> unambiguous. See Dkt. No. 31 at 12-14 (discussing the clear reading of HRS § <br /> 46-4(a) and Ordinance 22-7). There is nothing to suggest that HRS § 46-4(a) does <br /> not mean exactly what it says—that a county is barred from passing any law that <br /> would eliminate existing lawful residential uses. See id. at 12-19; accord Waikiki <br /> Marketplace Inv. Co. v. Chair of Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City & Cnty. of <br /> Honolulu, 949 P.2d 183, 193 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997) (explaining that HRS § 46-4(a) <br /> bars changes to the zoning code which fully eliminate prior lawful uses); Robert D. <br /> - 11 - <br />