HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 078 Draft 01 2006-2008
COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII
RESOLUTION NO. ~ 0?
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CORPORATION COUNSEL, AND HIS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THE
INDIVIDUALLLY NAMED PARTIES, WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE COUNTY OF
HAWAII, TO REPRESENT THEM IN THE CIVIL ACTION ENTITLED MATTHEW
MARTIN, ET AL. v. REEDMAHUNA, ETAL., CIVILNO. CV06-00640 DAE/KSC.
WHEREAS, Jay Kimura ("Kimura"), Sandra Freitas ("Freitas") and Reed Mahuna
("Mahuna") (hereinafter collectively known as "County Defendants") are being sued in the case
entitled Matthew Martin, et al. v. Reed Mahuna, et al., Civil No. CV06-00640 DAE/KSC; and
WHEREAS, according to the First Amended Complaint filed in Matthew Martin, et al. v.
Reed Mahuna, et al., Civil No. CV06-00640 DAE/KSC, County Defendants are being sued in
their individual capacities; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2006, the Hawaii County Police Commission found
whatever involvement Mahuna might have had in this matter was done in the performance of his
duty as an officer, pursuant to Sections 52D-8 and 52D-9, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended;
and
WHEREAS, whatever involvement Kimura and Freitas have had in this matter were done
within the scope and course of duties as the Prosecuting Attorney and Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, respectively, for Defendant County of Hawaii ("County"); and
WHEREAS, the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of the State of
Hawaii has rendered the opinion that one attorney of multiple parties in such actions is improper
unless those parties waive the potential conflicts involved or unless the governmental entity
agrees to indemnify all the individual parties for all damages, including punitive damages; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the County finds that the acts alleged in the First Amended
Complaint, if occurred, were done in good faith and the probability of punitive damages being
assessed is small; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the County finds that the payment of punitive damages serves
a public purpose because it encourages public service, minimizes the costs of hiring a cadre of
attorneys for the County and County Defendants, and assures that a plaintiff can collect on his or
her judgment, if any; and
-1-
WHEREAS, the Council of the County further finds that for this reason, it is in the public
interest to indemnify the individually named defendants, that is, Kimura, Freitas and Mahuna, in
this action for all damages that may be assessed, including punitive damages, so that the
Corporation Counsel, and his authorized representatives, can represent the County and the
individually named parties, that is, Kimura, Freitas and Mahuna, who are employees of the
County; and
WHEREAS, the representation by the Corporation Counsel, and his authorized
representatives, of such individually named parties, that is, Kimura, Freitas and Mahuna, is not
an admission of liability by the Council of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY, that
the Corporation Counsel, and his authorized representatives, are authorized to enter into an
agreement with the individually named parties, that is, Kimura, Freitas and Mahuna, who are
employees of the County, to carry out the purpose of this resolution, to be executed and provided
by law.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the County is authorized to sign the
above-noted agreement on behalf of the County pursuant to Hawaii County Charter.
Dated at Kona ,Hawaii, this 22nd day of February , 2007.
INTRODUCED BY:
COUNCIL MEMB R C OF HAWAII
COUNTY COUNCIL ROLL CALL VOTE
County of Hawaii
Hilo, Hawaii AYES NOES ABS EX
FORD
I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the H[GA X
vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of HOFFMAN g
the County ofHawai`ion February 22, 2007 [KEDA X
JACOBSON X
ATTEST:
[VAEOLE X
PILAGO X
YAGONG g
YOSHIMOTO
5 0 4 0
Reference C-54.1/Waived FC
Q.f,(/ ~ ~ ttiA.-.
CO Y CLERK CHAIRMAN P S IN FFIC RESOLUTION NO. 78 V7
2