CourtListener 10876539

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-JUN-2026
08:25 AM
Dkt. 45 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

KEKAI KEAHI and JENNIFER KAMAHO#I MATHER,
individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
DAWN CHANG, Chairperson of the Commission on
Water Resource Management and Commission on
Water Resource Management, State of Hawai#i,
Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, and Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

This appeal stems from a lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs-
Appellants Kekai Keahi and Jennifer Kamaho#i Mather (together,
Plaintiffs) against Defendants-Appellees Dawn N.S. Chang (Chang),
Chairperson, Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM or the
Commission), and CWRM, State of Hawai#i (together, Defendants) in
connection with the redeployment of First Deputy1/ M. Kaleo Manuel
(Manuel) in August 2023. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit
(Circuit Court)2/ dismissed Plaintiff's August 21, 2023 Complaint
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) as moot.

1/
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 174C-6(a) establishes the position
of "first deputy to the chairperson of the commission on water resource
management ('deputy for water resource management') who shall be in addition
to any other first deputy to the chairperson as the chairperson of the board
of land and natural resources." We refer to the position as "First Deputy."
2/
The Honorable John M. Tonaki presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Plaintiffs appeal from the March 12, 2024 Final
Judgment (Judgment) entered in favor of Defendants by the Circuit
Court. Plaintiffs also challenge the Circuit Court's December 8,
2023 Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint
. . ., and Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Filed
September 18, 2023, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify Deputy
Attorney General and to Order the Appointment of Separate,
Screened Deputy Attorney General for Defendant Commission on
Water Resource Management Filed September 25, 2023.
On appeal, Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that
the Circuit Court erred in dismissing the Complaint as moot.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Plaintiffs' contentions as follows.

I. Background

The Complaint alleged: (1) on August 16, 2023, Chang,
in her capacity as Chairperson of the Department of Land and
Natural Resources (DLNR), issued a public statement that "the
Commission Deputy,"3/ i.e., Manuel, was being redeployed to
another division of DLNR; (2) "[n]o meeting of the Commission
where the transfer, discharge or other personnel action regarding
the Deputy was noticed pursuant to HRS § 92-7"; (3) "[n]o meeting
of the Commission where the . . . personnel action regarding the
deputy occurred where members of the public, including
Plaintiffs, were given the opportunity to provide written or oral
testimony"; (4) "[n]o open meeting of the Commission where the
. . . personnel action regarding the deputy occurred where the
Commission voted to close the meeting to the public pursuant to
HRS §§ 92-4 or 92-5"; and (5) to the extent the Commission's
personnel powers can be delegated to one of its members, "no
administrative rule has been promulgated pursuant to HRS § 91-3

3/
Where the Complaint used the term "Deputy" or "deputy," it is not
clear whether Plaintiffs were referring to Manuel, the position of First
Deputy, or both.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

that delegates the Commission's authority to any of its member or
another."
The Complaint asserted three claims based on these
allegations: (1) for violation of the Sunshine Law, HRS chapter
92 (Count I); (2) for a determination that the Sunshine Law is
applicable in these circumstances (Count II); and (3) for
"illegal rulemaking" (Count III). (Capitalization altered.)
The Complaint asked that the court:

(1) Void the final action of transferring or
discharging the Deputy on or about August 16, 2023;
(2) Determine the transferring or discharging of the
Deputy is a Commission action that must occur pursuant to
the Sunshine Law at a[n] open meeting;

(3) Determine any delegation of Commission authority
to transfer or discharge the Deputy was a rule that was
required to be adopted pursuant to HRS § 91-3, that no
administrative rule was so promulgated and any actions taken
are void and that any proposed promulgation of
administrative rules must comply with the Sunshine Law;

(4) For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
enjoining Defendants, and their employees, agents, servants,
and representatives, and any other persons acting in concert
with them, under their authority, or with their approval,
from any conduct in furtherance of their transfer or
discharge of the Deputy until Defendants fully comply with
the Charter and all applicable laws[.]

On September 15, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) (Motion to Dismiss). On September 18,
2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on all
claims (MSJ). Then, on September 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a
motion to disqualify Defendants' counsel from representing both
Chang and CWRM, and for an order appointing separate, screened
counsel for CWRM (Motion to Disqualify).
In their November 21, 2023 opposition to the MSJ,
Defendants asked the Circuit Court to take judicial notice that
Manuel had been returned to his position as First Deputy as of
October 9, 2023. Defendants contended that this new fact
rendered the case moot.
Following a November 29, 2023 hearing, the Circuit
Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on mootness grounds,

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

ruling that, "[a]s [Manuel] has returned to his position, there
is no live controversy for the Court to rule on and the case has
been rendered moot." The Circuit Court thus "decline[d] to
provide an opinion of the applicability of the Sunshine Law and
whether the First Deputy position is subject to removal in a
Sunshine Law meeting." The court further determined: "As the
case is moot, the [MSJ] is denied, the Motion to Dismiss is
granted, and the Motion to Disqualify is moot." The Judgment
followed.
On appeal, Plaintiffs assert four points of error,
contending that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) dismissing as
moot Plaintiffs' "HRS § 92-12 challenge," which appears to be
their shorthand for the determinations they seek regarding their
Sunshine Law and illegal rulemaking claims; (2) "denying summary
judgment for [Plaintiffs] as to Count I or Count II of the
[C]omplaint"; (3) "denying summary judgment as to Count III of
the [C]omplaint"; and (4) denying Plaintiffs' Motion to
Disqualify.

II. Discussion

Plaintiffs appear to acknowledge that their request for
a court order voiding Manuel's redeployment was rendered moot
when he was returned to his position as First Deputy. Plaintiffs
contend:

However, [Plaintiffs] also sought the court's determination
that transfer or discharge of the Deputy is a Commission
action subject to the Sunshine Act and any delegation of
Commission authority to transfer or discharge the Deputy to
the CWRM chair is a rule required to be adopted pursuant to
the Hawai#i Administrative Procedure Act, HRS Chapter 91
("HAPA"). Defendants' voluntary decision to return Manuel
to his position as First Deputy did not moot [Plaintiffs']
other substantive requests for relief.

(Emphases added; citation omitted.) Plaintiffs rely in part on
HRS § 92-12(c), which permits any person to file suit in the
circuit court "for the purpose of requiring compliance with or
preventing violations of [HRS chapter 92, Part I, regarding
public agency meetings] or to determine the applicability of
[Part I] to discussions or decisions of the public body."

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Plaintiffs also rely on the supreme court's decision in
Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest, Inc. v. City & Cnty.
of Honolulu, 144 Hawai#i 466, 445 P.3d 47 (2019). There,
the plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief against
the City and County of Honolulu and its Police Commission,
including "declaratory relief interpreting the Sunshine Law's
open meeting requirement, HRS § 92-3, and criminal penalties
provision, HRS § 92-13." Id. at 472, 445 P.3d at 53. The
plaintiff alleged in part that the Police Commission had
misinterpreted the Sunshine Law by concluding that it was
required to enter into an executive session to discuss a
personnel matter, and by concluding that its members would be
subject to criminal prosecution if they discussed the matter in
open session. Id. The circuit court dismissed these claims as
moot because there was no dispute that the Police Commission had
properly met in executive session to protect privacy interests
and to preserve the attorney-client privilege, even if it was not
required to do so to discuss the personnel matter. Id. at
473–74, 445 P.3d at 54–55. The supreme court vacated the
dismissal, ruling that there was still a "live controversy"
regarding interpretation of the Sunshine Law, and error by the
circuit court in "overlook[ing] the parties' genuine dispute and
. . . not acknowledg[ing] that declaratory relief would prevent
future harm to the public interest." Id. at 475-76, 445 P.3d at
56-57.
For their part, Defendants contend that the Circuit
Court properly dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive
relief, but should have ruled on the merits of their claims for
declaratory relief, i.e., Defendants acknowledge that the court
erred in dismissing the latter claims as moot. Defendants
recognize that "Civil Beat seems to resolve [Plaintiffs'] first
point of error, allowing [them] to pursue their claims for
declaratory relief under the Sunshine Law." (Footnotes omitted.)
Defendants argue, however, that Plaintiffs' unlawful rulemaking
claim under HRS § 91-3 was properly dismissed as moot.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

"A case is moot if it has lost its character as a
present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if courts
are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law."
Civil Beat, 144 Hawai#i at 476, 445 P.3d at 57 (quoting
Kaho#ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai#i 302, 332, 162 P.3d 696, 726
(2007)). In other words, "a case is moot if the reviewing court
can no longer grant effective relief." Kaho#ohanohano, 114
Hawai#i at 332, 162 P.3d at 726 (emphasis and brackets omitted)
(quoting Kemp v. State of Hawai#i Child Support Enf't Agency, 111
Hawai#i 367, 385, 141 P.3d 1014, 1032 (2006)).
We conclude that the Circuit Court did not err in
dismissing Count I of the Complaint, in which Plaintiffs alleged
that CWRM violated the Sunshine Law, and "ask[ed] that the action
of 're-deploying', transferring, or discharging the Commission's
deputy be declared void and a nullity." Manuel's return to the
First Deputy position in October 2023 rendered this claim moot
because the Circuit Court could no longer grant Plaintiffs
effective relief, i.e., it could not undo Manuel's redeployment
from the position he had already returned to.4/ Plaintiffs seem
to acknowledge this (see supra) and do not argue that any
exceptions to mootness apply.
The Circuit Court erred, however, in dismissing Count
II of the Complaint, in which Plaintiffs realleged that CWRM
violated the Sunshine Law, and sought "a determination from th[e
Circuit] Court, pursuant to HRS § 92-12(c), declaring the
Commission is required to conduct such an open meeting and
provide such notice before any such action may be taken."5/ As in
Civil Beat, there is still a live controversy over the correct
interpretation of the Sunshine Law in the alleged circumstances,
and declaratory relief, if warranted, "would present future harm

4/
For similar reasons, Manuel's return to the First Deputy position
mooted Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief enjoining Defendants "from
any conduct in furtherance of" the earlier redeployment.
5/
Plaintiffs similarly asked the court to "[d]etermine the
transferring or discharging of the Deputy is a Commission action that must
occur pursuant to the Sunshine Law at a[n] open meeting[.]"

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

to the public interest." 144 Hawai#i at 476, 445 P.3d at 57.
Indeed, Defendants acknowledge that the Circuit Court should have
ruled on the merits of this claim. See supra.
The Circuit Court also erred in dismissing Count III of
the Complaint, in which Plaintiffs essentially alleged that any
delegation of CWRM authority to the CWRM chair to transfer or
discharge the First Deputy was an illegal rule. Plaintiffs asked
for a determination that any such delegation was a rule that was
required to be, but was not, adopted pursuant to HRS § 91-3, and
that any such rule be voided. Plaintiffs argue that in the
absence of CWRM action to remove or reinstate Manuel, "the CWRM
Chair either acted with delegated authority to take these actions
under a rule that had not been promulgated under HRS § 91-3, or
acted without this authority - and in the process deprived the
public of their right to know and participate in the conduct of
public policy pursuant to HRS chapter 92." Defendants, on the
other hand, argue that CWRM never had the power to redeploy the
First Deputy, could not have delegated such power to Chang, and
thus there was no rule for the Circuit Court to void. This
argument, however, goes to the merits of Plaintiffs' claim and
essentially sidesteps the declaratory relief they seek from the
Circuit Court regarding the alleged illegal rulemaking by CWRM.
See HRS §§ 91-3, 91-7. There is still a live controversy here
regarding the relief sought in Count III.
Plaintiffs' remaining contentions concern the merits of
the MSJ and the Motion to Disqualify. Because the Circuit Court
dismissed the Complaint due to mootness, it did not reach the
merits of those motions, and we need not address Plaintiffs'
related contentions at this stage.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, the March 12, 2024
Final Judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part. The
dismissal of the Complaint due to mootness is affirmed as to
Count I and vacated as to Counts II and III. The case is

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent
with this Summary Disposition Order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 17, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Lance D. Collins Presiding Judge
(Law Office of Lance D.
Collins)
Bianca Isaki /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
(Law Office of Bianca Isaki) Associate Judge
Ryan D. Hurley
(Law Office of Ryan D. Hurley,
LLLC) /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Associate Judge

Kaliko#onâlani D. Fernandes,
Solicitor General of Hawai#i,
and
Thomas J. Hughes,
Deputy Solicitor General,
for Defendants-Appellees.