Laserfiche WebLink
4� <br /> dismissed. Bertelmann v. Lucas, et al., 31 Haw. 71, 72(Hawai'i Ten. <br /> 1929). <br /> 7. Abatement generally refers to a procedural or jurisdictional issue that can <br /> be cured. Shelton Eng'g Contractors, 51 Haw. at 249. <br /> 8. Abatement may still be raised as grounds for a motion to dismiss. <br /> Matsushita v. Container Home Supply, Inc., 6 Haw. App. 439, 445 (1986). <br /> 9. The parties in Civil No. 00-1-181K and Civil No. 05-1-15K are the same. <br /> 10. Civil No. 00-1-181 K is an eminent domain action based on County <br /> Resolution 266-00. Civil No. 05-1-15K is an eminent domain action based <br /> on County Resolution 31-03. As the basis for these two County <br /> Resolutions are substantially different from each other,and have been <br /> voted on by two "different" County Councils over four years apart,the <br /> Court concludes that Civil No. 00-1-181K and Civil No. 05-1-15K are <br /> separate claims for the purposes of abatement. <br /> 11. Civil No. 00-1-181K prays for the condemnation of 2.90 acres of the <br /> Defendants' land. Civil No. 05-1-15K prays for the condemnation of 3.348 <br /> acres of the Defendants' land. As there is nearly a half acre difference <br /> (0.448 acres) in the prayer for relief in the two eminent domain cases,the <br /> Court concludes that Civil No. 00-1-181K and Civil No. 05-1-15K request <br /> different relief for the purposes of abatement. <br /> The Motion to Dismiss based on abatement made by the Coupe's during trial is <br /> denied. <br /> See 1stAmd.COL 6-11. (R.O.A., 00-1-181K,V.41/00507 and 05-1-15K, V.27/01031.) <br /> On September 27, 2007, the trial court also entered its First Amended Final Judgment <br /> ("First Amended Final Judgment")that stated at pages 4 and 6 (R.O.A., 00-1-181K, V.41/00507 <br /> and 05-1-15K,V.27/01031): <br /> I. Civil No. 00-1-181K; B. C&J Coupe Family Limited Partnership <br /> Counterclaims; Count 6 [Abatement] <br /> There is no abatement. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of County of Hawaii <br /> and 1250 Oceanside Partners, and against C&J Coupe Family Limited Partnership <br /> because the claims are substantially different, based on different resolutions that <br /> were passed by separate and different County Councils over four years apart, pray <br /> for different relief, and do not fall under the doctrine of abatement. <br /> II. Civil No. 05-1-15K; B. C&J Coupe Family Limited Partnership <br /> Counterclaims; Count 2 [Abatement] <br /> 9 <br />