Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:22-cv-00247-DKW-RT Document 85 Filed 12/21/23 Page 6 of 28 PagelD.3066 <br /> owner, operator, or proprietor was subject to daily fines." Id. at 9-10; Stip. Facts <br /> at ¶¶ 101, 112-13. <br /> On June 6, 2022, HILSTRA filed a Complaint challenging various aspects of <br /> Ordinance 22-7 before it was to take effect. The Complaint alleges violations o£ <br /> HRS § 46-4(a) (Count I); the state law doctrines of vested rights and/or zoning <br /> estoppel (Count I1); substantive due process under the federal Constitution (Count <br /> III) and Hawaii Constitution (Count IV); just compensation under the Takings <br /> Clauses of the federal Constitution (Count V) and Hawaii Constitution (Count <br /> VI); the Contracts Clause of the federal Constitution (Count VII); the Excessive <br /> Fines Clauses of the federal Constitution (Count VIII) and Hawaii Constitution <br /> (Count IX); and civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count X). Through these <br /> claims, HILSTRA seeks to compel Defendants to: (1) "recognize the prior lawful <br /> use and advertisement of those owners and operators that were engaged in the <br /> previously legal advertisement and rental of property on Oahu for 30 days or more <br /> before the effective date of Ordinance 22-7; (2) "allow those owners and <br /> operators to continue to advertise and rent for periods of 30 days or more . . . after <br /> the effective date of Ordinance 22-7; (3) "provide a process for the determination <br /> and protection" of such uses; and (4) issue an "injunction against the enforcement <br /> of Ordinance 22-7 until such rights are recognized." Complaint at¶ 8, Dkt. No. 1. <br /> - 6 - <br />