Shayefar v Kaleleiki, Jr. et al
Filing
45
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS II, IV AND V OF THE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 29 ). Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 7/10/2015. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registe red to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Samuel Houpo Kaleleiki, Jr.;
)
Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki;
)
Sarah-Therece K. Kaleleiki;
)
John Does 1-50; Jane Does 1-50; )
Doe Corporations 1-50; Doe
)
Partnerships 1-50; Doe Entities )
1-50; Doe Governmental Units 1- )
50;
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Mehrdad Shayefar; Gina
Shayefar;
Civ. No. 14-00322 HG-KSC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
COUNTS II, IV AND V OF THE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 29)
On January 10, 2008, Plaintiffs recorded a warranty deed
with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances for 7.846 acres of
undeveloped land located on the island of Maui in the State of
Hawaii.
On February 4, 2014, Defendant Samuel Houpo Kaleleiki, Jr.
recorded a quitclaim deed as to the same 7.846 acres of land,
conveying his interest to his children Defendants Von-Alan Hinano
Kaleleiki and Sarah-Therece K. Kaleleiki.
Defendants are Native
Hawaiians who claim they are direct lineal descendants of the
1
original grantee of the land in dispute.
Defendants assert they
have inherited the property from their ancestors.
Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on three of the seven claims in
their Complaint.
Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on Count II
for quiet title, on Count IV for ejectment, and Count V for
remedies including a permanent injunction.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts
II, IV, and V of the Complaint is DENIED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 14, 2014, Plaintiffs Mehrdad Shayefar and Gina
Shayefar filed a Complaint.
(ECF No. 1).
On August 14, 2014, Defendants Samuel Houpo Kaleleiki, Jr.,
Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki, and Sarah-Therece K. Kaleleiki,
proceeding pro se, filed DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 12(b).
(ECF No. 15).
On October 6, 2014, a hearing was held on the Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 22).
On October 7, 2014, the Court issued an ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 12(b).
No. 23).
(ECF
In the Order, the Court ruled that it had subject
2
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Complaint, that venue was
proper, and that Plaintiffs had stated claims upon which relief
could be granted.
(Id.)
On January 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS II, IV AND V OF THE COMPLAINT.
(ECF
No. 29).
On the same date, Plaintiffs filed their SEPARATE CONCISE
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
COUNTS II, IV AND V OF THE COMPLAINT.
(ECF No. 30).
On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Errata to their
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 31).
The Errata
included the electronic signature of Plaintiffs’ attorney.
(ECF
No. 31-1).
On February 2, 2015, the Court issued a briefing schedule
for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
32).
(ECF No.
Defendants were given until February 26, 2015, to file an
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
(Id.)
Defendants did not file an Opposition by February 26,
2015.
On March 9, 2015, Defendant Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki,
proceeding pro se, filed a document with various attachments
entitled: VON-ALAN H KALELEIKI EXHIBITS “1-PALAPALA SILANUI ROYAL
PATON 7017.L.C.A,w 7779. EXHIBITS “2-1839 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
AND CONSTITUTION OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM. EXHIBITS 3-MAUI COUNTY
3
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FEA REPORT MAY 10th 2005.
EXHIBITS 4-MAP OF
PROJECT SITE UKUMEHAME. EXHIBIT 5-CEDE LANDS TRUST, SECTION 5(F)
OF THE ADMISSIONS ACT. EXHIBITS 6-PUBLIC LAW-103-150 APOLOGY
BILL. ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS CONTINUATION REQUEST.”
(ECF No. 33).
In the filing, Defendant Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki stated that
Defendant Samuel Houpo Kaleleiki, Jr. had died, impacting the
other Defendants emotionally and he requested a continuance.
(Id.)
Defendant’s filing also requested additional time to
retain counsel.
(Id.)
On March 12, 2015, the Court issued a Minute Order to
address Defendant Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki’s filing.
35).
(ECF No.
The Court explained that Defendant Von-Alan Hinano
Kaleleiki’s filing was difficult to understand and could not be
construed as an Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment because it failed to comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56 and District of Hawaii Local Rules 7.4-7.6 and
56.1.
(Id.)
The Court granted the request for a continuance to
allow the Defendants time to both secure an attorney and to give
the attorney time to prepare an appropriate Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
(Id.)
On May 26, 2015, Defendant Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki,
proceeding pro se, filed DEFENDANT PRO SE VON-ALAN HINANO
KALELEIKI’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT.
(ECF No. 38).
4
On June 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Reply.
(ECF No.
39).
On June 26, 2015, Defendants Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki and
Sarah-Therece K. Kaleleiki, proceeding pro se, filed MEMORANDUM
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
(ECF No. 41).
On June 29, 2015, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 42).
On July 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed SUGGESTION OF DEATH UPON
THE RECORD AS TO SAMUEL HOUPO KALELEIKI, JR.
(ECF No. 44).
BACKGROUND
The Parties Recorded Deeds for the Property at Issue
The following facts are undisputed:
On January 10, 2008, Plaintiffs Mehrdad and Gina Shayefar
recorded a warranty deed for Tax Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104,
with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances.
(Warranty Deed,
Doc. No. 2008-004218, Tax Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104, attached
as Ex. WM-1 to the Declaration of William M. McKeon (“McKeon
Decl.”), ECF No. 30-4).
The warranty deed states that it conveys
a 7.846 acre lot in the Ukumehame agricultural subdivision from
West Maui Investors, LLC to Plaintiffs.
(Id.)
The lot is
described as:
LOT 32, UKUMEHAME AGRICULTURAL SUBDIVISION, PHASE II
5
BEING PORTIONS OF GRANT 4973 TO WALTER GIFFARD AND
ROYAL PATENT 7017, LAND COMMISSION AWARD 7779, APANA 4
TO KALELEIKI
SITUATED AT UKUMEHAME, LAHAINA, ISLAND OF MAUI, HAWAII
(Id.) (hereinafter “Lot 32”).1
Plaintiffs obtained title insurance and a litigation
guarantee for the Lot 32 property.
(Policy of Title Insurance
issued by First American Title Insurance Company, dated January
10, 2008, attached as Ex. MS-1 to the Declaration of Mehrdad
Shayefar (“Shayefar Decl.”), ECF No. 30-2; Litigation Guarantee,
dated June 10, 2014, attached as Ex. JK-1 to the Declaration of
1
Lot 32 is described in the recorded warranty deed as
follows: “Beginning at the north corner of this parcel of land,
being along the east side of Pohaku ’Aeko Street (Roadway Lot R2) of Ukumehame Agricultural Subdivision, Phase II, the
coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government
Survey Triangulation Station ‘KILEA’ being 4,974.78 feet South of
10,683.21 feet East and thence running by azimuths measured
clockwise from true South:
1.
273° 25'
178.20 feet along Lot 31 of Ukumehame
Agricultural Subdivision, Phase II to a 3/4"
pipe (fnd);
2.
305° 52' 20"
426.13 feet along the Government Land of
Ukumehame;
3.
30° 00'
821.85 feet along Lot 33 of Ukumehame
Agricultural Subdivision, Phase II;
4.
93° 25'
140.00 feet along the north side of Paeki’i
Place (Roadway Lot R-2) of Ukumehame
Agricultural Subdivision, Phase II;
5.
Thence along the intersection of Paeki’i Place (Roadway Lot
R-2) and Pohaku ’Aeko Street (Roadway Lot R-2), on a curve
to the right with a radius of 30.00 feet, the chord azimuth
and distance being 138° 25' 42.43 feet;
6.
183° 25'
933.64 feet along the east side of Pohaku
’Aeko Street (Roadway Lot R-2), of Ukumehame
Agricultural Subdivision, Phase II to the
point of beginning and containing an area of
7.846 acres.
6
Jamie Kaneta, ECF No. 30-8).
On February 4, 2014, Defendant Samuel Houpo Kaleleiki, Jr.
(“Defendant Samuel Kaleleiki, Jr.”) recorded a quitclaim deed
that includes the same Tax Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104, along
with additional property, with the State of Hawaii Bureau of
Conveyances.
(Quitclaim Deed, Doc. No. A-51480946, Tax Map Key
Nos. (2) 4-8-002:104, (2) 4-8-002:118 &, 90, attached as Ex. WM-4
to the McKeon Decl., ECF No. 30-7).
The quitclaim deed states
that it conveys Defendant Samuel Kaleleiki, Jr.’s “right, title
and interest” to property located in the Ukumehame Agricultural
Subdivision, including Lot 32, to Defendant Von-Alan Hinano
Kaleleiki (“Defendant Von-Alan Kaleleiki”) and Defendant SarahTherece K. Kaleleiki (“Defendant Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki”).
(Id.)
Facts in Dispute
Defendants Von-Alan Kaleleiki and Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki
state that Lot 32 is located within a large parcel of land that
was awarded to their ancestor by Land Commission Award Number
7779 in 1848.
41).
(Def.’s Opp. filed June 26, 2015, at p. 4, ECF No.
Defendants claim they are “direct lineal descendants of the
original grantee Aleiamai Kaleleiki who fathered Kahaunaele
Kaleleiki birth mother of Samuel Kekuaokaalaaualailiahi Houpo
Samuel Kaleleiki, father of Hopou Samuel Kaleleiki Jr. father of
7
Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki and Sarah Therece K. Kaleleiki.”
(Id.)
Defendants have represented that none of their ancestors
ever sold the land and claim that the Kaleleiki family “has
maintained their presence in these lands for all time to present
day.”
(Def.’s Opp. filed on May 26, 2015 at p. 3, ECF No. 38).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
To defeat
summary judgment there must be sufficient evidence that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.
Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir.
1997).
The moving party has the initial burden of “identifying for
the court the portions of the materials on file that it believes
demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.”
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809
F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
The moving party, however, has no
burden to negate or disprove matters on which the opponent will
have the burden of proof at trial.
The moving party need not
produce any evidence at all on matters for which it does not have
the burden of proof.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
8
The moving party
must show, however, that there is no genuine issue of material
fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
That burden is met by pointing out to the district court
that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving
party’s case.
Id.
If the moving party meets its burden, then the opposing
party may not defeat a motion for summary judgment in the absence
of probative evidence tending to support its legal theory.
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 282
(9th Cir. 1979).
The opposing party must present admissible
evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(e); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044,
1049 (9th Cir. 1995).
“If the evidence is merely colorable, or
is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.”
Nidds, 113 F.3d at 916 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)).
The court views the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Martin, 872
F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1989).
Opposition evidence may consist
of declarations, admissions, evidence obtained through discovery,
and matters judicially noticed.
477 U.S. at 324.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex,
The opposing party cannot, however, stand on
its pleadings or simply assert that it will be able to discredit
the movant’s evidence at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); T.W. Elec.
9
Serv., 809 F.2d at 630.
The opposing party cannot rest on mere
allegations or denials.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Gasaway v.
Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 957, 959-60 (9th Cir.
1994).
When the non-moving party relies only on its own
affidavits to oppose summary judgment, it cannot rely on
conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data to create an
issue of material fact.
Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138
(9th Cir. 1993); see also National Steel Corp. v. Golden Eagle
Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 496, 502 (9th Cir. 1997).
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, the district court observes that the
Defendants Von-Alan and Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki are proceeding
pro se.
Defendants have stated that Defendant Samuel Kaleleiki,
Jr. has died and a Suggestion of Death was filed.
(ECF No. 44).
A pro se litigant’s pleadings are construed more liberally
than pleadings drafted by counsel.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972); Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th
Cir. 2004).
Leniency toward the pro se litigant is given when he
technically violates a procedural rule but “a pro se litigant is
not excused from knowing the most basic pleading requirements.”
Am. Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104,
1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000); Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th
Cir. 1986).
10
Count II:
Quiet Title
Section 669-1(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes provides a
cause of action for quiet title.
The statute states that an
“[a]ction may be brought by any person against another person who
claims, or who may claim adversely to the plaintiff, an estate or
interest in real property, for the purpose of determining the
adverse claim.”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 669-1(a).
In an action to quiet title, the burden is on the plaintiff
to prove title to the land in dispute.
Makila Land Co., LLC, v.
Kapu, 156 P.3d 482, 484 (Haw. App. 2006).
The plaintiff has the
burden to prove either that he has paper title to the property or
that he holds title by adverse possession.
Maui Land & Pineapple
Co., Inc. v. Infiesto, 879 P.2d 507, 512-13 (Haw. 1994).
At the summary judgment stage in a quiet title action, “the
burden is on the plaintiff to prove title in and to the land in
dispute, and absent such proof, it is unnecessary for the
defendant to make any showing.”
Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui,
172 P.3d 983, 1012 (Haw. 2007) (quoting Maui Land & Pineapple,
879 P.2d at 513)).
Plaintiffs seek to quiet title for Lot 32 based on their
recorded warranty deed.
A.
Plaintiffs Claim Title to Lot 32 by Warranty Deed
Plaintiffs have offered evidence that they recorded a
11
warranty deed for Lot 32, dated January 10, 2008, with the State
of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances, as Document No. 2008-004218.
(Warranty Deed, Doc. No. 2008-004218, Tax Map Key No. (2) 4-8002:104, attached as Ex. WM-1 to the McKeon Decl., ECF No. 30-4).
The warranty deed states that West Maui Investors, LLC grant
and convey Lot 32 to Plaintiffs, as tenants by the entirety.
(Warranty Deed at p. 1, ECF No. 30-4).
Plaintiffs also obtained title insurance and a litigation
guarantee. (Policy of Title Insurance issued by The Talon Group,
dated January 10, 2008, attached as Ex. MS-1 to Shayefar Decl.,
ECF No. 30-2; Litigation Guarantee, dated June 10, 2014, attached
as Ex. JK-1 to the Kaneta Decl., ECF No. 30-8).
Plaintiffs have not provided evidence establishing chain of
title to Lot 32.
Plaintiffs seek to rely on recitals in the
warranty deed for purposes of establishing their proof of title.
(Pla.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at pp. 17-18, ECF No.
29-3).
B.
Defendants Von-Alan and Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki Claim
Title to Lot 32 by Inheritance and Quitclaim Deed
A defendant need not prove that he has perfect title to
prevent plaintiff from quieting title at the summary judgment
stage.
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. v. Silva, 248 P.3d 1207, 1213-
15 (Haw. App. 2011).
A defendant may defeat a motion for summary
judgment for quiet title by raising a genuine issue of material
12
fact as to which party has superior title.
1.
Id.
Defendants’ Evidence as to their Title to Lot 32
Defendants assert that they inherited title to Lot 32 from
their Native Hawaiian ancestors.
Defendant Von-Alan Kaleleiki
explained in his Declaration that their ancestor was a “konohiki”
or person who managed land on behalf of a chief or the king.
(Declaration of Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki at ¶¶ 2, 5, 6, ECF No.
38-1).
Defendant stated that King Kamehameha III of the Kingdom
of Hawaii conveyed land to Konohiki Kaleleiki in 1843.
(Def.’s
Opp. filed May 26, 2015 at p. 2, ECF No. 38).
The Opposition states that Konohiki Kaleleiki received title
to land on Maui pursuant to Land Commission Award Number 7779 and
Royal Patent Number 7017.
(Id. at p. 3).
Defendants claim
Konohiki Kaleleiki paid commutation for the land and received
title free and clear.
(Id. at pp. 2-4).
Defendants assert that
the land conveyed to Konohiki Kaleleiki pursuant to Land
Commission Award Number 7779 and Royal Patent Number 7017,
includes the land claimed by Plaintiffs as Lot 32, designated as
(Id. at p. 2-6).
Tax Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104.
Defendants Von-Alan and Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki state that
they are “direct lineal descendants of the original grantee” to
the Land Commission Award Number 7779.
26, 2015, at p. 4, ECF No. 41).
(Def.’s Opp. filed June
Defendants claim the land was
13
never sold and that any title Plaintiffs claim to have been given
pursuant to their warranty deed is defective.
Defendants Von-Alan and Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki submitted a
number of exhibits in support of their Opposition.
Defendants
submitted a document titled “Claim 7779” (See Ex. 1 to Def.’s
Opp., ECF No. 38-3) in addition to two documents in Native
Hawaiian language, purporting to be Land Commission Award Number
7779 conveying land to “Kaleleiki.”
(See Exs. 6 and 7, attached
to Def.’s Opp., ECF Nos. 38-8, 38-9).
Defendants also submitted a document titled “7017 Palapala
Sila Niu” in Native Hawaiian language, purporting to be Royal
Patent Number 7017, to demonstrate commutation was paid on the
land.
(See Ex. 10, attached to Def.’s Opp., ECF No. 38-12).
Defendants submitted a number of historical documents in
support of their assertion that Konohiki Kaleleiki received title
to the property in dispute pursuant to Land Commission Award
Number 7779 and Royal Patent Grant Number 7017.
(See Copy of
Sworn Testimony of the Kings Lands stating “Kaleleiki, sworn, I
have seen his land interest in Lahaina and Ukumehame of Wailuku,
Maui,” attached as Ex. 2 to Def.’s Opp., ECF No. 38-4; Document
No. 385 from the Department of Interior of the Hawaiian Kingdom
titled “Names of the Lands on Maui, and the Konohikis, and the
Amount of the Tenths,” attached as Ex. 3 to Def.’s Opp., ECF No.
38-5; Mahele Book pages 103-104, 224-225, attached as Ex. 4 to
14
Def.’s Opp., ECF No. 38-6; Native Testimony of Kamakakehau,
attached as Ex. 5 to Def.’s Opp., ECF No. 38-7; Letter from
Nahaolelua, dated June 17, 1869, attached as Ex. 8, ECF No. 3810).
Defendants Von-Alan and Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki claim they
currently hold title to Lot 32 because their father, Defendant
Samuel Kaleleiki, Jr. conveyed his inherited interest in the
property to them.
Defendants’ claim is supported by the
quitclaim deed recorded on February 4, 2014, in the State of
Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances that conveyed Defendant Samuel
Kaleleiki, Jr.’s interest in Lot 32 to Defendants Von-Alan and
Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki.
(Quitclaim Deed, Doc. No. A-51480946,
Tax Map Key Nos. (2) 4-8-002:104, (2) 4-8-002:118 &, 90, attached
as Ex. WM-4 to the McKeon Decl., ECF No. 30-7).
2.
Defendants’ Arguments Regarding their Current
Rights Provided by the Kingdom of Hawaii are
Foreclosed
Defendants Von-Alan and Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki have made a
number of arguments regarding their rights as provided by the
Kingdom of Hawaii, rather than the laws of the State of Hawaii.
Both Hawaii state courts and federal courts have found that
the Kingdom of Hawaii is not an existing sovereign state.
State
v. French, 883 P.2d 644, 650 (Haw. App. 1994); United States v.
Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993).
15
The arguments regarding Defendants’ current rights “provided
for by Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom” are foreclosed.
Opp. at p. 2, ECF No. 38).
(Def.’s
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of
Appeals has specifically recognized that the laws of the State of
Hawaii apply to Native Hawaiians.
Nishitani v. Baker, 921 P.2d
1182, 1190 (Haw. App. 1996) (“We reject the first concept—that
Defendants, as ‘birth descendants of Native Hawaiians,’ are not
subject to the government and court of the State of Hawaii”).
3.
Defendants Have Raised Genuine Issues of Material
Fact Regarding Title to Lot 32
Defendants Von-Alan and Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki have raised
genuine issues of material fact regarding the title to Lot 32.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Defendants,
there is evidence of the initial land grant to “Kaleleiki,”
pursuant to Land Commission Award 7779 and Royal Patent Number
7017.
Defendants claim they are direct lineal descendants to the
original grantee.
sold.
Defendants allege that the land has never been
Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that the
Kaleleiki’s ever sold the land.
Plaintiffs have not provided
evidence of chain of title.
Here, the Court is unable to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.
Plaintiffs must put forward proof with
respect to the superiority of their title to Lot 32.
Plaintiffs
have not provided any evidence tracing ownership forward from the
16
initial land grant through to Plaintiffs’ warranty deed.
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., 248 P.3d at 1213.
Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
Honolulu, Hawaii, July 10, 2015.
/s/ Helen Gillmor
Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge
Mehrdad Shayefar; Gina Shayefar v. Samuel Houpo Kaleleiki, Jr.;
Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki; Sarah-Therece K. Kaleleiki; John Does
1-50; Jane Does 1-50; Doe Corporations 1-50; Doe Partnerships 150; Doe Entities 1-50; Doe Governmental Units 1-50; Civ. No. 1400322 HG-KSC; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 29)
17
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?