965 F. Supp. 2d 1157
D. Haw.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Waimea residents) allege that Pioneer’s open-air GMO testing and poor soil‑conservation practices on leased fields caused fugitive dust and pesticide drift damaging property and health since ~2000; Gay & Robinson, Inc. and Robinson Family Partners (Robinson Defendants) leased the land to Pioneer.
- Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting negligence (failure to use due care; failure to investigate/warn), negligence per se, strict liability, trespass, nuisance, negligent/intentional misrepresentation, and landlord‑liability theories; they invoked county Ordinance 808, state pesticide and air pollution statutes, and seek damages and injunctive relief.
- Robinson Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them for failure to state a claim (landlord non‑liability for tenant’s torts, no private right of action under the statutes, inadequate misrepresentation allegations). Defendants also moved to dismiss or limit claims as time‑barred under Hawai‘i statutes of limitation.
- Court applied federal pleading standards (Twombly/Iqbal) and Hawai‘i law on accrual/discovery (Yamaguchi, Hays) and on tolling doctrines (continuing tort; fraudulent concealment).
- Rulings: negligence‑per‑se claim (Count III) and landlord‑liability as a standalone claim (Count VIII) dismissed with prejudice; portions of Counts I, II, IV, V, VI pre‑December 13, 2009 dismissed without prejudice (statute limits); portions of Counts I, II, V, VI, VII against Robinson Defendants dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead facts supporting landlord liability or misrepresentation by the lessor; misrepresentation claims based on 2000 and 2002 communications time‑barred, but claim tied to December 2011 letter survives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landlord liability for tenant’s conduct (Counts I, II, V, VI) | Robinson is liable where it knew before or learned after leasing that tenant’s practices were dangerous and could stop them | General rule: lessor not liable for lessee’s torts absent knowledge at time of letting that tenant would necessarily act tortiously or other special circumstances | Claims against Robinson Defendants for these counts dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead facts showing such knowledge/control; plaintiffs may amend |
| Negligence per se / private enforcement of statutes (Count III) | Violations of statutes and Ordinance 808 evidence negligence and may be pleaded separately | Hawai‘i law: violation of statute is evidence of negligence, not an independent cause; the cited statutes/ordinance do not create private causes of action | Count III dismissed with prejudice (no separate negligence‑per‑se/private‑action); statutory violations may be used as evidence in other claims |
| Misrepresentation (Count VII) | Misrepresentations in Oct. 2000 letter, 2002 conservation plan, and Dec. 2011 letter induced reliance; plaintiffs only discovered nonperformance in 2011 | Misrepresentation claims based on 2000/2002 communications accrued then and are time‑barred; plaintiffs saw continuing harm and did not rely to their detriment | Misrepresentation claims based on 2000 and 2002 communications dismissed without prejudice as time‑barred; claim based on Dec. 2011 letter survives |
| Statute of limitations and tolling (continuing tort, fraudulent concealment) | Ongoing drift of pollutants is a continuing tort; discovery of enforcement violations in 2011 tolled accrual; fraudulent concealment tolled earlier claims | Plaintiffs knew or should have known by June 2000 (Waimea Petition) of damage and causal source; continuing tort doctrine limits recovery to two years before suit; fraudulent concealment not pled with requisite affirmative concealment | Court applies continuing‑tort doctrine: Counts I, II, IV, V, VI limited to damages and acts on/after Dec. 13, 2009; fraudulent concealment rejected; time‑bar issues mostly sustained as described above |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and dismissal standard)
- Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212, 685 P.2d 794 (1984) (violation of statute is evidence of negligence, not negligence per se)
- Yamaguchi v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 65 Haw. 84, 648 P.2d 689 (1982) (accrual under discovery rule: knowledge of negligent act, damage, and causal connection)
- Hays v. City & County of Honolulu, 81 Haw. 391, 917 P.2d 718 (1996) (application/limits of discovery rule and accrual)
- Au v. Au, 63 Haw. 210, 626 P.2d 173 (1981) (fraudulent concealment tolling requires affirmative concealment of cause of action)