2025-08-14 PL-BOA-2025-000124 Petition

Home

159 P.3d 143, 156(2007). "[The declaratory ruling procedure] was not intended to allow review of concrete agency decisions for which other means of review are available. Id., 114 Hawai`i at 197, 159 P.3d at 156. The Director's determination about this subdivision was made upon the issuance of final subdivision approval in 2005. This determination has been extensively litigated through Petitioner's various attempts to invalidate the subdivision for nearly 20 years at the County Board of Appeals, the Third Circuit Court, the ICA and HISC. The declaratory ruling procedure is not intended to provide yet another opportunity to appeal a long-settled determination when all other avenues have been exhausted because Petitioner is unsatisfied with the previous results. B. Preclusion It is well settled that preclusion is a doctrine that limits a litigant to one opportunity to litigate aspects of a case to prevent inconsistent results and multiplicity of suits and to promote finality and judicial economy. Exotics Hawai'i-Kona, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, 90 P.3d 250, 256, 104 Hawaii 358, 364. The Third Circuit in its 2019 Final Judgment dismissed with prejudice Count I of the First Amended Complaint which sought a declaratory judgment that SUB-05-00064 was invalid for violating the County Code. The ICA affirmed this final judgment and the HISC denied Petitioner's application for writ of certiorari. This Petition makes the same claim that the subdivision is invalid. See Petition at Page 11, Section V[Statement of Petitioner's Position or Opinion]. The parties to this Petition are the same as the parties to Petitioner's lawsuit: The County of Hawaii and Petitioner,with the notable absence of any owners of the lots at issue. The declaratory ruling procedure is not intended as a substitute for the courts when Petitioner is precluded from raising the same claim, against the same parties following a final judgement in a prior action. 6