2005-04-01_Defendant-Appellant-Cross_Appellees_County_of_Hawaiis_Amended_Opening_Brief

Home

injunction against any further construction by the landowner and issuance of permits by the county until such time as the landowner obtains redistricting of the property to Urban by the Land Use Commission ultimately gives no protection to the burial sites on the property. In fact, the Urban designation ordered by the Circuit Court permits higher density uses than those allowed in the agricultural districts, which could lead to conflict with even more burial sites than with Oceanside 1250's current proposed agricultural subdivision. Thus,only a remedy tailored under HRS Chapter 6E could redress plaintiff PKO's injury and such a remedy would have to be(and was) directed to the state not to the county. As a result,plaintiffs are unable to prove the third prong of standing to o bring Chapter 205 claims, redressibility. Likewise, nothing in HRS Chapter 205's agricultural district use restrictions provide the County with any authority or duty regarding erosion and runoff. There is no causal connection, nor any judicial redress available under Chapter 205. Plaintiff-Appellees have no standing under HRS Chapter 205 regarding either burials or pollution control. Neither does the record show any other basis for Chapter 205 standing for Plaintiff-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Based on the foregoing, the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' Chapter 205 claims, since Plaintiff-Appellees/Cross Appellants do not have standing to bring the suit against the county over its interpretation of permissible uses in the agricultural district. The Chapter 205 claims should be remanded to the Circuit Court for dismissal. B. The Circuit Court Erred In Ruling that Plaintiffs' HRS Chapter 205 Claims Were Not Barred by Laches or Limitations. 1. Principles of Laches. "There are two components to laches,both of which must exist before the doctrine will apply. First, there must have been a delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim, and that delay must have been unreasonable under the circumstances."Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates, 91 Hawaii 478, 490, 985 P.2d 1045, 1057 (1999); Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. 314, 320, 640 P.2d 294, 300 (1982). The court will entertain a suit if it has been"brought without undue delay after plaintiff knew of the wrong or knew of facts and circumstances sufficient to impute such knowledge to him"and the time lapse has not"resulted in prejudice to the defendant." Small v. Badenhop, 67 Haw. 626, 640, 701 P.2d 647, 656-657(1985). Examples of such prejudice are changes in the value of the subject matter, changes in defendant's position, and intervening rights 29