Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:22-cv-00247-DKW-RT Document 85 Filed 12/21/23 Page 9 of 28 PagelD.3069 <br /> B. Permanent Injunction <br /> "To be entitled to a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) <br /> actual success on the merits; (2) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (3) that <br /> remedies available at law are inadequate; (4) that the balance of hardships justify a <br /> remedy in equity; and (5) that the public interest would not be disserved by a <br /> permanent injunction." Indep. Training & Apprenticeship Program v. California <br /> Dep't oflndus. Rels., 730 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing eBay Inc. v. <br /> MercExch., LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). When the government is the <br /> opposing party, the final two factors—balance of hardships and the public <br /> interestmerge. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> I. Count L• Violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes 464(a) <br /> HILSTRA seeks summary judgment on Count I, contending that Ordinance <br /> 22-7 is invalid as preempted by Hawaii Revised Statutes § 464(a). Dkt. No. 60 at <br /> 18. Specifically, HILSTRA argues that HRS § 464(a) plainly restricts counties <br /> from passing zoning ordinances, such as Ordinance 22-7, which discontinue prior <br /> lawful residential uses, regardless of whether the county provides for the <br /> amortization or phasing out of the same. Id. at 17. HILSTRA provides that, <br /> should the Court rule in its favor on Count I, the balance of its claimsincluding <br /> its constitutional claims—can and should be dismissed. Id. at 3. <br /> - 9 - <br />