Bridge Aina Le'a v. Kyle Chock ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIDGE AINA LE’A, LLC, No. 12-15971
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00414-SOM-
BMK
v.
KYLE CHOCK, in his individual and MEMORANDUM*
official capacity; THOMAS P.
CONTRADES, in his individual and
official capacity; VLADIMIR P DEVENS,
in his individual and official capacity;
NORMAND R. LEZY, in his individual
and official capacity; DUANE KANUHA,
in his official capacity; CHARLES
JENCKS, in his official capacity; LISA M.
JUDGE, in her individual and official
capacity; NICHOLAS W. TEVES, Jr., in
his individual and official capacity;
RONALD I. HELLER; JOHN DOES 1-
10; JANES DOES 1-10; DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES
1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-
10; STATE OF HAWAII LAND USE
COMMISSION,
Defendants - Appellants.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
BRIDGE AINA LE’A, LLC, No. 12-16076
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00414-SOM-
BMK
v.
KYLE CHOCK, in his individual and
official capacity; THOMAS P.
CONTRADES, in his individual and
official capacity; NORMAND R. LEZY,
in his individual and official capacity;
VLADIMIR P DEVENS, in his individual
and official capacity; DUANE KANUHA,
in his official capacity; CHARLES
JENCKS, in his official capacity; LISA M.
JUDGE, in her individual and official
capacity; NICHOLAS W. TEVES, Jr., in
his individual and official capacity;
RONALD I. HELLER; JOHN DOES 1-
10; JANES DOES 1-10; DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES
1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-
10; STATE OF HAWAII LAND USE
COMMISSION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawai‘i
Susan Oki Mollway, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 10, 2014
Honolulu, Hawai‘i
Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
In 2011, the State of Hawai‘i Land Use Commission (“LUC”) reclassified a
parcel of land owned by plaintiff Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC (“Bridge”) from urban to
agricultural use. Bridge filed two actions in Hawai‘i state court challenging the
reclassification: a state administrative appeal, and a state civil action against the
LUC and the commissioners in their official and individual capacities alleging a
variety of federal and state claims. Defendants removed the civil action to federal
court. The district court abstained pursuant to Railroad Commission of Texas v.
Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo whether a case meets the requirements for Pullman
abstention. Spoklie v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2005). If the
requirements are met, we review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision
to abstain and stay the proceeding. Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 F.3d
776, 782 (9th Cir. 2014). While this case originally met Pullman’s requirements,
abstention is no longer necessary. After the district court’s decision, and after oral
argument to this court, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that the LUC erred
when it reclassified the parcel as agricultural without following the state’s
procedural requirements under Section 205-4 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. See
DW Aina Le’a Dev., LLC v. Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC, No. SCAP-13-0000091, 2014
WL 6674432, at *2 (Haw. Nov. 25, 2014). The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i
3
affirmed on state law grounds the state circuit court judgment reversing and
vacating the LUC’s final reclassification order. Id.We remand to the district court for appropriate action in light of the Supreme
Court of Hawai‘i’s decision. The district court should decide in the first instance
whether the LUC commissioners sued in their individual capacities are entitled to
some form of official immunity.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
4