2026-05-12 Appellant's Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss (PL-BOA-2025-000119 & 121)

Home

395, 126 P.3d at 1081-1082 (long- indulged agency practice not allowed if"practice" violates a specific law). 5. Although Section 91-9(c), Hawaii Revised Statutes allows parties, with the Board of Appeals' approval, to waive or to modify the legislative provisions for a "contested case" or to allow for pre-hearing discovery or a one-time summary judgment procedure, that can be done only with the consent of all parties and the Appellants Ford, et al. and Gage did not consent to the use of a summary judgment procedure. 6. Further, the Appellee Board of Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure do not describe the standard that is to be used in the disposition of a motion for summary judgment in an agency proceeding. Such a standard is critical to prevent the abuse of an agency procedure. 8. Section 91-1(5) and Section 91-9(d), Hawaii Revised Statutes guarantee the Appellants Ford, et al. and Gage an "agency hearing" with "opportunities ... to present evidence and argument on all issues involved." The Appellee Board of Appeals' own Rule 8-11 (b) also guarantees the Appel lants "a full hearing on the appeal in accordance with Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes." 9. A summary judgment procedure, as it was applied below, denies the Appellants Ford, et al. and Gage the "full hearing" to which they are entitled under Section 91- 9(d), Hawaii Revised Statutes and the board's Rule 8 11 (b). See In re Kauai Electric Division of Citizens Utilities Company, 60 Haw. 166, 181-182, 590 P.2d 524, 536 (1978) ("full hearing" assured to parties in an agency proceeding). In addition, the Appellee Board of Appeals could have made findings and conclusions that explain why it used an unpublished summary judgment procedure, but did not do so, which leaves this Court to guess on the board's reasoning. 10. The Appellee Board of Appeals erred when it utilized an unpublished summary judgment procedure that violates Section 91-2(a)(2). Hawaii Revised Statutes and, as applied below, that denies the Appellants Ford, et al. and Gage their right to a "full hearing." Accordingly, the Appellee Board of Appeals' Orders must be reversed and vacated. I will address the standing issue separately, preferably as part of my case in chief in a contested case hearing. This is all I have time for now. Respectfully submitted, Appellant, pro se FORD DECISION AND ORDER.pdf 1448K