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 9 of 46 an individual or representative capacity." Hawaii Med. Assn v. Hawaii Med. Serv. Assn, 113 Hawaii 77, 100-01, 148 P.3d 1179, 1202-03 (2006) (citing Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378-79 (1982)). VI. Thus, "[i]n deciding whether the plaintiff has the requisite interest in the outcome of the litigation, we employ a three- part test: (1) has the plaintiff suffered an actual or threatened injury as a result of the defendant's wrongful conduct; (2) is the injury fairly traceable to the defendant's actions; and (3)would a favorable decision likely provide relief for plaintiff s injury." Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawaii 51, 55, 979 P.2d 1077, 1081 (1999) (citing Bush v. Watson, 81 Hawaii 474, 479, 918 P.2d 1130, 1135 (1996)). Furthermore, "[w]ith respect to the first prong of this test, the plaintiff must show a distinct and palpable injury to himself or herself. The injury must be distinct and palpable, as opposed to abstract, conjectural, or merely hypothetical." Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted) (emphasis added). Because "the test is stated in the conjunctive, [a plaintiff] must satisfy all three prongs to establish its standing." Sierra Club, 100 Hawaii at 250, 59 P.3d at 885. VII. As to the State's argument(2), the parties appear to agree that the central issue as to Plaintiffs' standing is the first prong of the Akinaka test, namely, "has the plaintiff suffered an actual or threatened injury as a result of the defendant's wrongful conduct[.]" 91 Hawaii at 55, 979 P.2d at 1081 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). In its Opening Brief, the State argues that each individual Plaintiff lacks standing. First, the State argues that Kahoohanohano, who although retired, "has not alleged or shown that his 'retirement allowance' or'accrued benefits' ha[ve] actually been impaired or diminished by Act 100." Specifically, the State maintains that Kahoohanohano "admitted that[ ] (1) he was paid his retirement allowance under Chapter 88 of the [HRS] and (2)the ERS has not stopped paying him his retirement allowance because of Act 100." Second, the State similarly contends that Andrade and Efhan have "not alleged or shown that their'accrued benefits' or 'retirement allowance' was actually impaired or diminished by Act 100." The State argues that Efhan "admitted that[ ] (1) she has not retired as an employee of the State or any of the counties; (2) she is a Class C member[]; and (3) she is not entitled to receive payment of any retirement allowance under Chapter 88 of the [HRS]." The State does not provide any specific argument as to Andrade. Next, the State argues that Caravalho, "who has been a [State] employee since March of 1998 . . . [,] was not even eligible to receive a retirement allowance since she does not have 10 years of credited service and has not attained the age of 62 or [obtained] 30 years of credited service and [reached] the age of 55." (11) The State indicates that Caravalho admitted that "(1) she has not retired as an employee of the [State] or any of the counties; (2) she is a Class C member; (3) she does not have 20 years of credited service under [HRS §] 88-272 [(1993)]; and (4) she is not entitled to receive payment of any retirement allowance under Chapter 88 of the [HRS]." Thus, the State maintains that Caravalho "has not alleged or shown that her'accrued benefits' or'retirement allowance' was actually diminished or impaired by Act 100." Finally, the State claims that "SHOPO has not alleged or shown that any of its members' 'accrued benefits' or 'retirement allowance' was actually diminished or impaired by Act 100." The State asserts that "SHOPO admitted[ ] (1)under Chapter 89 of the [HRS], it was not the representative of any employee of the [State]; (2)its members were employed by the counties; and (3)it has no knowledge as to whether or not any state or county retiree has been denied his or her retirement allowance as a result of Act 100." VIII. Plaintiffs respond that(1)they have "standing to sue because [they] allege[d a] threatened injury to concrete interests"; (2) "controlling New York law confers standing"; (3) "other state courts recognize members standing"; and (4) "the State's legal authority is inapt." http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2007/26178.htm 8/12/2008