2007-07-23_George_Kahoohanohano_et_al_v._State_of_Hawaii_et_al_-_Opinion_of_the_court_by_Justice_Acoba

Home

Kaho'ohanohano v. State Page 6 of 46 On July 2, 2002, the State filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds that(1)Plaintiffs lacked standing; (2)the action was not ripe for adjudication; (3)the claim for declaratory relief was moot; and (4)the action involved a non justiciable political question. Intervenor Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Cross-Appellee City and County of Honolulu (Honolulu County) and Additional Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees/Cross-Appellants County of Kauai (Kauai County), County of Maui (Maui County), and County of Hawaii (Hawaii County)joined the State's motion. On July 29, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class they represented, which the court subsequently granted on March 14, 2003. On August 28, 2002, Honolulu County moved to intervene as a defendant and its motion was subsequently granted by the court. On October 1, 2002, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in order to include two additional class representatives, Efhan and Caravalho. Also on October 1, 2002, Plaintiffs filed two separate motions for partial summary judgment. The first motion sought a declaratory judgment that Act 100 violated article XVI, section 2, and was therefore unconstitutional. The second motion requested an order declaring that Act 100 breached the contractual rights with respect to the ERS. B. On October 8, 2002, Honolulu County filed a motion to join Trustees as a "necessary additional party" and/or in substitution of Plaintiffs as the real party in interest, and sought an order of joinder of Kauai County, Maui County, and Hawaii County as additional defendants. On November 15, 2002, Trustees moved to intervene. Also on November 15, the court held a hearing and orally granted Honolulu County's motion as to the joinder of Kauai County, Maui County, and Hawaii County as additional defendants and Trustees' motion to intervene. On December 17, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to add breach of contract claims against the counties, which was orally granted on January 10, 2003. On December 31, 2002, Honolulu County filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs as not being the real party in interest. Kauai County, Maui County, and Hawaii County joined Honolulu County's motion. On January 7, 2003, an order granting in part and denying in part Honolulu County's October 8, 2002 motion was filed, and Kauai County, Maui County, and Hawaii County were joined as parties. On January 10, 2003, the State filed a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs and Trustees on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims against the State were barred by (1)the doctrine of sovereign immunity and (2)the two-year statute of limitations set forth in HRS § 661-5 (1993); and (3) as a matter of law, Act 100 was constitutional and Plaintiffs cannot establish that the act is contrary to or violative of article XVI, section 2 of the Hawaii Constitution. The State also argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs were not employees of the State and, therefore, lacked privity of contract with the State. On January 28, 2003, Trustees filed their complaint against the State challenging the constitutionality of Act 100 and alleging that the act unlawfully diminished and impaired ERS funds, risked the actuarial soundness of the ERS, denied the ERS members protection of the funds, and interfered with the discretion of Trustees in the investment and reinvestment of ERS funds. C. On February 27, 2003, the court held a hearing on the State's July 2, 2002 motion to dismiss, and Honolulu County's December 31, 2002 motion to dismiss. With respect to the State's motion, the court stated: http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2007/26178.htm 8/12/2008