Dw Aina Le'a Development, LLC v. State of Hawaii Land Use Comm, 918 F.3d 602

DW Aina Le‘a Development (DW) invested >$28M developing 1,060 acres in South Kohala after a 1989 Land Use Commission reclassification from agricultural to urban, subject to affordable-housing conditions.
The Land Use Commission issued a show-cause and ultimately (April 25, 2011) reclassified the land back to agricultural; DW alleges this constituted a regulatory taking without just compensation.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court later vacated the Commission’s reclassification in related proceedings (Bridge Aina Le‘a), but DW’s own inverse-condemnation claim accrued on April 25, 2011.
DW sued the State (federal and state takings claims) on February 23, 2017 (more than five years after accrual); the State removed and moved to dismiss as time‑barred.
The district court dismissed, applying two-year Hawai‘i statutes of limitation (Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 657-7 or 661-5) and rejecting DW’s reliance on the six-year catch-all (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-1(4)).
The Ninth Circuit certified to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court the dispositive question: which Hawai‘i statute of limitations governs a constitutional takings/inverse-condemnation claim against the State?

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicable statute of limitations for a takings (inverse condemnation) claim under Haw. Const. art. I, § 20	Six-year "catch-all" statute (§ 657-1(4)) applies because no specific statute governs inverse-condemnation claims	Two-year statute for claims against the State (§ 661-5) or two-year statute for injury to persons/property (§ 657-7) applies	Ninth Circuit could not predict Hawai‘i Supreme Court outcome and certified the question to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (states immune from § 1983 suits)
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1985) (federal courts borrow state statute of limitations for analogous federal claims)
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1985) (state limitations periods may be applied to federal claims where compatible with federal policy)
DW Aina Le‘a Development, LLC v. Bridge Aina Le‘a, LLC, 339 P.3d 685 (Haw. 2014) (Hawai‘i Supreme Court decision vacating Commission reclassification in related proceedings)
Kaho‘ohanohano v. State, 162 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007) (constitutional claims are not "founded upon" a statute and thus may not fall under Chapter 661 limitations)
Au v. Au, 626 P.2d 173 (Haw. 1981) (§ 657-1(4) is a catch‑all that does not apply where a specific limitation governs)
Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009) (intermediate court referenced § 661-5 in inverse-condemnation context)
Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1991) (treats statute-of-limitations borrowing for federal constitutional claims)
T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 908 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2018) (predicting state law when highest court has not spoken)
Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1974) (support for certifying state-law questions to state supreme courts)