Freddy Nobriga Enterprises, Inc. v. State, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
129 Haw. 123
Haw. App.2013Background
- DHHL roundup and sale of Nobriga cattle occurred on Hawaiian Home Lands around Humuula-Piihonua, with about 115 of 181 cattle belonging to Nobriga constituting the disputed portion.
- Parker Ranch held GL199 and GL200 leases; Nobriga obtained a one-year extension of GL199 and a related RP 287 was issued in June 2003 to grant access to about 5,000 acres, with a bond and forfeiture terms.
- DHHL’s master plan aimed to convert land to homesteads and to advance planting projects, which required clearing cattle from the leased lands.
- Cattle on GL199/GL200 lands were forfeited or relocated; some escaped to RP 287 lands, with subsequent roundups conducted on GL201 lands.
- Nobriga filed an eight-count complaint alleging constitutional takings, trespass, conversion, IIED, negligence, civil conspiracy, punitive damages, and breach/unjust enrichment; DHHL counterclaimed for trespass, conversion, and breach.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment on several counts and sua sponte on Count III (conversion); remaining claims were dismissed by stipulation in 2007.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on Nobriga’s conversion claim was proper against DHHL | Conversion shown by taking/selling Nobriga cattle without consent | DHHL ownership/entitlement based on asserted obligations and RP 287; no genuine issue on ownership | Conversion claim against DHHL must be reconsidered; reversal on this issue |
| Whether summary judgment on Counts I, IV, VI, VII was proper | Opposes immunity and seeks relief on constitutional and tort claims | Kane and Chinn entitled to qualified immunity for these claims | Counts IV, VI, VII (tort/constitutional) affirmed as to immunity; KS not reversible on these counts |
| Whether the circuit court erred in failing to consider Nobriga's deposition excerpts | Unsatisfied, unsworn deposition excerpts should be admitted in opposition to summary judgment | Excerpts unsworn and unauthenticated; properly excluded | Court did not err in excluding unsworn deposition excerpts |
| Whether Kane and Chinn were entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claim | Actions violated due process statute and rights; not protected by immunity | Actions taken under color of office and with proper purpose; immunity applies | Kane and Chinn not entitled to qualified immunity on due process claim |
| Whether the takings claim against DHHL was properly resolved | Taking without just compensation under Hawaii and U.S. constitutions | Public purpose; compensated/remedies available; proper procedure not required under all circumstances | Takings claim reversed/remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Tsuru v. Bayer, 25 Haw. 693 (Haw. 1920) (elements of conversion)
- Brown v. City and County of Honolulu, 91 Hawai'i 1, 979 P.2d 586 (Haw. 1999) (due process in impounding property; notice/hearing requirements; clearly established rights)
- Medeiros v. Kondo, 55 Haw. 499, 522 P.2d 1269 (Haw. 1974) (two-prong qualified immunity standard for tort claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (two-prong test for qualified immunity; clearly established law)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (initial order of constitutional rights and clearly established law test)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (U.S. 2005) (public purpose in takings doctrine)
- Midkiff v. Hawai'i Housing Auth., 467 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1984) (public purpose in takings cases; condemnation authority)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1952) (intent irrelevant to conversion element)
- Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1984) (public purpose; takings framework)