185 F.Supp.3d 1247
D. Haw.2016Background
- DeRosa (plaintiff) owned a Kapalua Golf Villas condo and kept a dog, Jake, registered as an emotional support animal (ESA); Golf Villas governing documents (Kapalua Declaration and House Rules) included a no-pets provision.
- AOAO (Association) and its manager (Certified/Associa) enforced the no-pets rule after learning of the dog in 2011, sent warnings, requested documentation, denied accommodation after submitted materials, and threatened fines/liens; DeRosa filed HCRC/HUD complaints in 2011–2012.
- DeRosa alleges retaliation, discrimination, breach of contract, bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence claims, racketeering, and violations of Hawai‘i statutes and administrative rules; he seeks damages and declaratory relief.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; court treated some arguments as motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and considered statute-of-limitations and summary-judgment issues for others.
- Court granted summary judgment or dismissed with prejudice on multiple claims (bad faith, prima facie tort, selective enforcement, breach of fiduciary duty; IIED, NIED, negligence, gross negligence, Haw. Rev. Stat. §514B-105, racketeering, and §514B-9), but denied summary judgment as to breach of contract and declined to resolve Haw. Rev. Stat. §515-16(1) claim, leaving those for further motion practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bad-faith tort / separate tort for breach of good faith | DeRosa asserts AOAO acted in bad faith in enforcing rules | Defendants say Hawai‘i does not recognize a separate bad-faith tort outside special relationships | Court: claim fails; dismissed with prejudice (no special-relationship basis) |
| Prima facie tort | DeRosa seeks relief for intentional harm outside standard torts | Defendants say Hawai‘i wouldn’t recognize prima facie tort here | Court: dismissed with prejudice (limited to Giuliani-type facts) |
| Selective enforcement (Restatement & §§514B-9/10) | DeRosa alleges selective enforcement of governing documents | Defendants say no recognized cause under Hawai‘i law | Court: dismissed with prejudice (no recognized cause) |
| Breach of fiduciary duty | DeRosa contends AOAO/board owed fiduciary duty to members | Defendants: fiduciary duty is to association/officers, not to individual owners | Court: claim fails; dismissed with prejudice |
| Tort claims (IIED, NIED, negligence, gross negligence, §514B-105) | DeRosa alleges emotional/financial harm from enforcement and retaliation | Defendants assert time-bar/limitations and insufficiency | Court: summary judgment for defendants — claims time-barred or insufficient |
| Racketeering (Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 842 / extortion) | DeRosa alleges extortion/racketeering based on threats and liens | Defendants say lacking requisite intent and elements (obtaining control/depriving property) | Court: summary judgment for defendants — insufficient evidence of intent/elements |
| Breach of contract re: pet prohibition and §514B-156 | DeRosa: §514B-156 requires pet prohibitions be in bylaws; House Rules/Declarations unenforceable; AOAO breached contract by enforcing them | Defendants: §514B-156 doesn’t bar no-pet rules outside bylaws and may not apply to pre-2006 documents | Court: genuine issues of fact (applicability of §514B-156 and §514B-22(2)); summary judgment DENIED as to breach of contract |
| Claim under Haw. Rev. Stat. §515-16(1) (retaliation/protected activity) | DeRosa alleges retaliation for opposing remediation and filing HCRC complaints | Defendants did not brief this specific claim in motion | Court: not decided on merits; leave to file dispositive motion allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2014) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard guidance)
- Best Place, Inc. v. Penn Am. Ins. Co., 920 P.2d 334 (Haw. 1996) (implied covenant of good faith and limits on bad-faith recovery)
- Francis v. Lee Enters., Inc., 971 P.2d 707 (Haw. 1999) (limiting bad-faith tort to insurance or special fiduciary relationships)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1985) (elements for civil RICO/pattern of racketeering activity)
- TSA Int’l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 990 P.2d 713 (Haw. 1999) (state RICO interpretation and elements of an enterprise/pattern)