542 F.Supp.3d 1099
D. Haw.2021Background
- Plaintiff Hitoshi Yoshikawa owns waterfront property in Kaneohe containing a nonconforming shoreline structure; he hired an architect (Schmit) and contractor (AGT/Talboys) and obtained a building permit after DPP review.
- City building inspector Troy Seguirant conducted unusually frequent inspections, then issued a May 2016 Notice of Violation/Stop Work; DPP’s Acting Director Challacombe later issued a letter finding revised plans consistent with ordinances and DPP issued an amended permit in March 2017.
- Seguirant issued a March 2017 Notice of Order and an April 2017 NOV/Stop Work; the BBA heard the appeal and ultimately upheld the violations in a BBA Order issued in 2018.
- Plaintiff alleges Seguirant acted with racial animus (derogatory “Haole” remarks), interfered with Plaintiff’s contractual relationships, and that the City failed to train/supervise and mis-sent the BBA Order (preventing a timely agency appeal).
- Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint asserts §1981, §1983 (procedural due process, equal protection, ratification, inaction/delay), and state-law negligent retention/supervision claims; the City and Seguirant moved to dismiss.
- Court disposition: §1981 claim survives as to Seguirant but is dismissed as to the City (Monell deficiency); procedural-due-process claim survives as to the City but is dismissed as to Seguirant; equal-protection, ratification, inaction/delay, and the state negligent claims are dismissed with prejudice (various deficiencies).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 1981 claim (interference with contracts) | Seguirant discriminated against Plaintiff’s "Haole" architect/contractor and impaired contractual rights via repeated inspections and NOVs | Seguirant/City: plaintiff fails to plead impairment, but-for causation, and municipal policy for City liability | Claim plausible against Seguirant (denied dismissal); §1981 dismissed with prejudice as to City for failure to allege Monell policy/custom |
| Procedural due process (§1983) | BBA delay and mailing BBA Order to wrong address deprived Yoshikawa of meaningful appellate review (statutory 30-day appeal) | City: no protected property interest in continuing illegal construction; process was adequate; Seguirant: not responsible for BBA mailing | Due-process claim survives against City (denied dismissal); dismissed with prejudice against Seguirant (no connection to BBA mailing) |
| Equal protection (class-of-one) | Excessive inspections (nine v. typical 2–3) show intentional differential treatment without rational basis | Defendants: plaintiff not similarly situated because his project violated municipal law; issue preclusion binds that finding | Dismissed with prejudice against both defendants for failure to identify similarly situated comparators |
| Municipal liability / ratification / policy of inaction; negligent retention/supervision | City ratified Seguirant (DPP director signed/failed to rescind NOV); City had policy of inaction (no BBA deadlines), failed to train/supervise/avoid conflicts | City: no facts showing policymaker knew of discriminatory basis, no deliberate indifference, and no causation; negligent theories fail because acts were within scope or lack antecedent knowledge | Ratification, inaction/delay, negligent retention, negligent supervision claims dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead policymaker knowledge, deliberate indifference, causation, or out-of-scope tortious acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility and ruling out legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Twombly pleading standard for plausibility)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for discrimination proof)
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006) (requirement to identify an impaired contractual relationship under §1981)
- Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (2020) (but-for causation standard for §1981)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due-process balancing: notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection standard)
- Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1992) (municipal liability for policy of inaction/delay)
- Wedges/Ledges of Cal., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 24 F.3d 56 (9th Cir. 1994) (procedural requirements can create protected property interests)
- Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992) (ratification: final policymaker may create municipal liability)
- Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (deliberate indifference is a stringent standard for municipal fault)
- Dairy Rd. Partners v. Island Ins. Co., 92 Hawai‘i 398, 992 P.2d 93 (2000) (Hawai‘i standard for negligent supervision under Restatement §317)