2006-12-18_Planning_Department_Reply_Brief_re_Calvert

Home

O a Marlene E. Calvert(hereinafter referred to as "Mrs. Calvert")is misplaced. In that case ,that case, the appellants' failure to follow the agency's rules relating to contested case proceedings (i.e., failure to submit a written request for a contested case hearing)resulted in the appellants' failure to participate in a contested case hearing,which is required under HRS § 91-14(a) for judicial review of an agency's decision. See Hui Kako`o Aina Ho`opulapula, 112 Haw. 28, 143 P.3d 1230. Because there was no contested case hearing during which evidence was produced,there was no record on appeal or a final decision for the court to review; therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appellants' appeal. See id. In arriving at its decision, the court relied on the Intermediate Court of Appeals' ("ICA") decision in Simpson v. Dept of Land and Natural Res., 8 Haw. App. 16, 791 P.2d 1267 (1990),which held that a public hearing required by law was not a contested case hearing"where(1)the agency has properly promulgated specific procedures for a contested case hearing and(2) a party has failed to follow such procedures." Hui Kako`o Aina Ho`opulapula at 112 Haw. at 39, 143 P.3d at 1241 (citing Simpson, 8 Haw. App.16, 24-25, 791 P.2d 1267, 1273 (1990)). In the case of Simpson,the petitioner had applied for a mooring permit from the Department of Land and Natural Resources ("DLNR") and participated in a public hearing required by law,but did not request a contested case hearing pursuant to the DLNR's agency rules regarding contested case proceedings. See Simpson, 8 Haw. App. at 18-19, 791 P.2d at 1270-1271. Because there was no final decision from a contested case, the circuit court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the ICA agreed. See Simpson, 8 Haw. App. at 18-20, 791 P.2d at 1270- 3