Shayefar v Kaleleiki, Jr. et al
Filing
68
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS II, IV AND V OF THE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 52) re 52 - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 12/21/2015. "Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED, IN PART." COUNT II: "Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52) as to Count II for quiet title is GRANTED. Plaintiffs have demon strated superior title to the property described in Warranty Deed, Doc. No. 2008-004218, Tax Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104, attached as Ex. V to Pla.'s CSF, ECF No. 53-23, described as: LOT 32, UKUMEHAME AGRICULTURAL SUBDIVISION, PHASE II 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." COUNT IV: "Plaintiffs' Mo tion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52) as to Count IV for ejectment is GRANTED consistent with the finding of quiet title in favor of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall provide the Court with a Proposed Order as to their request for ejectment." COUNT V: "Plaintiffs have not established the parameters of the permanent injunction they seek. Plaintiffs may submit a Proposed Order that sets forth the specific relief they are request ing consistent with the Courts finding of quiet title in favor of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall provide a memorandum setting forth the legal basis for the requested relief." EXPUNGEMENT OF DEED DOC. No. A-51480946: "Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to expunge the quitclaim deed, Doc. No. A-51480946 recorded on February 4, 2014, with the Hawaii State Bureau of Conveyances, pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 507D-7(a) is GRANTED." "The Court ORDERS that Quitclaim Deed, Doc. No. A-51480946, recorded on February 4, 2014, with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances, be expunged as an invalid lien pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 507D-7(a).& quot; (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Sarah-Therece K. Kaleleiki and Von-Allan Hinano Kaleileiki served by first class mail at the addresses of record on December 22, 2015.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Mehrdad Shayefar; Gina
Shayefar;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki;
Sarah-Therece K. Kaleleiki;
John Does 1-50; Jane Does 150; Doe Corporations 1-50;
Doe Partnerships 1-50; Doe
Entities 1-50; Doe
Governmental Units 1-50;
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 14-00322 HG-KSC
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS II, IV AND V OF THE COMPLAINT (ECF
NO. 52)
Plaintiffs Mehrdad and Gina Shayefar are a husband and
wife who assert that they have clear title to a 7.846 acre lot
of undeveloped land located on the island of Maui.
On January
10, 2008, Plaintiffs recorded a warranty deed with the State
of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances for the land.
Plaintiffs have
submitted evidence tracing chain of title to the land from the
original land award issued to Konohiki Kaleleiki through to
them.
1
Defendants Von-Alan Hinano and Sarah-Therece K. Kaleleiki
are brother and sister who claim they have title to the same
7.846 acre lot based on ancestral inheritance.
Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs’ evidence for chain of title is flawed
and is based on a probate proceeding for “Kaleleike” and not
“Kaleleiki.”
Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment based on their evidence of chain of title.
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 GRANTED, IN PART.
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).
2
(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).
(ECF No. 23).
In the Order, the Court ruled that it had
subject 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 June 29, 2015, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 42).
On July 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a SUGGESTION OF DEATH
UPON THE RECORD AS TO SAMUEL HOUPO KALELEIKI, JR.
(ECF No.
44).
On July 13, 2015, the Court issued an ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS II,
IV AND V OF THE COMPLAINT.
(ECF No. 45).
3
On August 25, 2015, the Court held a status conference
with the Parties.
(ECF No. 51).
The Court granted
Plaintiffs’ oral motion to continue the dispositive motions
deadline to allow them to file an amended Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.
(Id.)
On September 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed PLAINTIFFS
MEHRDAD SHAYEFAR AND GINA SHAYEFAR’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS II, IV AND V OF THE COMPLAINT.
(ECF No. 52).
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. 53).
On September 28, 2015, Defendants filed a request for
additional time to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 57).
On September 30, 2015, the Court issued a Minute Order
granting Defendants’ request for additional time.
58).
(ECF No.
The Court also requested that Plaintiffs file an Amended
Affidavit of Colleen H. Uahinui that was attached to their
Concise Statement Facts to clarify issues raised in the
affidavit.
(Id.)
On October 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM in support of their Motion for Partial Summary
4
Judgment along with an Amended Affidavit of Ms. Uahinui.
(ECF
No. 59).
On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed DEFENDANTS’ PRO SE
CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
(ECF No. 60).
On November 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed PLAINTIFFS MEHRDAD
SHAYEFAR AND GINA SHAYEFAR’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS II, IV AND V OF
THE COMPLAINT.
(ECF No. 62).
Also on November 12, 2015, the Court issued a Minute
Order dismissing Samuel Houpo Kaleleiki, Jr. as a defendant
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a) based on the filing of the
Suggestion of His Death Upon the Record.
(ECF No. 63).
On November 25, 2015, a hearing was held on the
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
(ECF No.
52).
BACKGROUND
Historical Background
In 1840, the first constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom
was enacted by King Kamehameha III.
Jon J. Chinen, The Great
Mahele: Hawaii’s Land Division at 7 (1958).
Under the
Constitution of 1840, all land “belonged” to the king but it
5
was not personal property.
Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui, 172
P.3d 983, 990 (Haw. 2007).
Rather, the land “belonged to the
chiefs and the people, and the King, as the head of the chiefs
and the people, managed the land.”
Id.
In 1845, the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles
(“Land Commission”) was established to facilitate the
transition from the traditional Hawaiian landholding scheme to
a more Western system.
Id. at 991.
The Land Commission’s
initial purpose was “to investigate and settle all land claims
of private individuals, whether native or foreign.”
Makila
Land Co., LLC v. Kapu, 156 P.3d 482, 484 (Haw. App. 2006).
The Land Commission’s work led to the Great Mahele of
1848, the division of lands between the king and the chiefs or
konohiki.
Makila Land Co., LLC, 156 P.3d at 484.
The term
“konohiki” originally referred to an agent or a person in
charge of a tract of land on behalf of the king or a chief;
later it came to refer directly to the chief.
John W. Reilly,
The Language of Real Estate in Hawaii, at 182 (1975).
The individual divisions, or maheles, were all recorded
in the Mahele Book and the land was divided between the king
and the chiefs or konohikis.
Chinen, The Great Mahele at 20.
“The Mahele itself did not convey any title to land.
The high
chiefs and the lesser konohikis who participated in The Mahele
6
who were named in the Mahele Book were required to present
their claims before the Land Commission and to receive awards
for the lands quitclaimed to them by Kamehameha III.”
Chinen,
The Great Mahele at 20.
Upon confirmation of a claim, the Land Commission was
required to issue a Land Commission Award.
Jon J. Chinen,
Original Land Titles in Hawaii at 9 (1961).
“Even after receiving a Land Commission Award for a tract
of land, the recipient did not acquire a free and clear title.
He was still required to pay commutation to the government, in
cash or by the surrender of equally valuable lands.”
The Great Mahele at 21.
Chinen,
The Minister of Interior issued a
“Royal Patent” upon the payment of the commutation.
Id.
A
Royal Patent did not confer title, but it quitclaimed the
government’s interest in the land.
Chinen, The Great Mahele
at 13.
The land King Kamehameha III retained for his own
personal use in The Great Mahele became known as “Crown Lands”
and the lands he retained for “the chiefs and people” became
known as “Government Lands.”
Chinen, The Great Mahele at 26.
The lands issued to the chiefs or konohiki were referred to as
“Konohiki Lands.”
Reilly, The Language of Real Estate in
Hawaii at 182.
7
“Following the division of the lands into Crown,
Government, and Konohiki Lands, from time to time portions of
the Government Lands were sold as a means of obtaining revenue
to meet the increasing costs of the Government.
Purchasers of
these lands were issued documents called ‘Grants’ or ‘Royal
Patent Grants.’
These differed from the Royal Patents issued
upon Land Commission Awards.”
Chinen, The Great Mahele at 28-
29.
All lands of the king, the government, and the konohiki
were awarded subject to the rights of native tenants.
Pai
’Ohana v. United States, 875 F.Supp. 680, 686 (D. Haw. 1995).
In 1850, the enactment of the Kuleana Act empowered the Land
Commission to award fee simple title to native tenants for
their plots of land or “kuleana.”1
Id.
“The awarding of these kuleanas to the native tenants
completed the mahele, or division, of the lands within the
Islands into Crown Lands, Government Lands, Konohiki Lands,
and Kuleana Lands, and brought to an end the ancient system of
land tenure in the Hawaiian Kingdom.”
1
Chinen, The Great
“Kuleana” is a Hawaiian term used to describe the
landholding of a native tenant residing or working within a
larger parcel of land known as an ahupuaa. Reilly, The
Language of Real Estate in Hawaii at 182. “Kuleana Lands” are
those tracts of land that were awarded to Native Hawaiians
residing and working on their kuleana. See id.
8
Mahele at 31.
The Land Commission was dissolved on March 31, 1855, and
the ability to confirm an award before the Commission was
foreclosed.
Pai ’Ohana v. United States, 875 F.Supp. 680,
687, n.17, (D. Haw. 1995).
Plaintiffs’ Chain of Title for the Subject Property
Lot 32 in the Ukumehame Subdivision located on Maui
(hereinafter “Subject Property”) is the lot of land that is
subject to this action.
(Subject Property Map, attached as
Ex. A to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-2).
The Subject Property
consists of a portion of Land Commission Award Number 7779 and
bears Tax Map Key designation (2) 4-8-002-104.
(Affidavit of
Colleen H. Uahinui (“Uahinui Aff.”) at ¶¶ 2, 3, 5.A., ECF No.
55-1).
It is undisputed that on September 22, 1853, the Subject
Property, as a part of Land Commission Award Number 7779, was
originally awarded to “Kaleleiki” (hereinafter “Konohiki
Kaleleiki”).2
(Land Commission Award Number 7779, Land
2
The Parties agree that the Subject Property was
originally given to “Kaleleiki” who had the title of
“Konohiki” because he managed the land. Konohiki Kaleleiki
received a portion of land, including the Subject Property, as
part of The Great Mahele and subsequently obtained title to
the land with the issuance of Land Commission Award 7779. See
Dorothy B. Barrere, The King’s Mahele: The Awardees and Their
9
Commission Award Volume 7 at p. 4, attached as Ex. B to Pla.’s
Concise Statement of Facts (“CSF”), ECF No. 53-3; Def.’s Opp.
at p. 6, ECF No. 60).
It is also undisputed that on December 8, 1877, Royal
Patent Number 7017 was issued for Land Commission Award 7779
that quitclaimed the government’s interest in the land.
(Uahinui Aff. at ¶ 5.B, ECF No. 55-1; Amended Affidavit of
Colleen H. Uahinui (“Amend. Uahinui Aff.”) at ¶ 9, ECF No. 591; Royal Patent Number 7017, attached as Ex. C to Pla.’s CSF,
ECF No. 53-4; Def.’s Opp. at p. 3, ECF No. 38; Chinen, The
Great Mahele at 13).
Plaintiffs submitted a chart that documents the chain of
title of the Subject Property from the Land Commission Award
Number 7779 through to Plaintiffs.
(Pla.’s Chart of Chain of
Title, attached as Ex. W-1 to the Declaration of William M.
McKeon (“McKeon Decl.”), ECF No. 53-25).
Plaintiffs have provided the court records for Probate
Proceeding Number 518 from the Second Judicial Circuit Court
for the Kingdom of Hawaii.
(Probate Records for Probate
Proceeding Number 518, The Estate of Kaleleike, from the
Second Judicial Circuit for the Kingdom of Hawaii, attached as
Lands at p. 190 (1994); See Chinen, Original Land Title in
Hawaii at p. 13; Chinen, The Great Mahele at 20.
10
Ex. D to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-5).
Probate Proceeding Number
518 was for “the Estate of Kaleleike”.3
(Id. at p. 1).
Probate Proceeding Number 518 was conducted by courts for the
Kingdom of Hawaii between 1871 and 1874.
(Id. pp. 1-128).
Plaintiffs assert that as a result of Probate Proceeding
Number 518, the Subject Property, as a portion of Land
Commission Award Number 7779 and Royal Patent Number 7017, was
conveyed to the heirs of Konohiki Kaleleiki.
(Id. at p. 100;
Uahinui Aff. at ¶ 5.C.1—7, ECF No. 55-1; Amend. Uahinui Aff.
at ¶¶ 11-17, ECF No. 59-1).
Plaintiffs provided evidence tracing the chain of title
of the Subject Property from the conveyance in 1874 to the
four heirs as determined by the Probate through to West Maui
Investors, LLC in February 2006.
(Uahinui Aff. at ¶¶ 5.C.,
E.—P., ECF No. 55-1; Amend. Uahinui Aff. At ¶¶ 11-17, ECF No.
59-1)4.
3
The records for Probate Proceeding Number 518 are
handwritten and contain repeated inconsistent spellings of
“Kaleleiki.” For example, the caption on the first page of
the documents refers to “Kaleleiki.” (Probate Proceeding 518
at p. 3, ECF No. 53-5). The order issued on October 30, 1872,
refers to the deceased as “Kaleleike.” (Id. at p. 22).
4
Plaintiffs provided the Warranty Deed from KEOKI to
WIDEMANN dated January 25, 1881, attached as Ex. E to Pla.’s
CSF, ECF No. 53-6;
Warranty Deed from KAMOKUMAIA and KAILAKANOA to WIDEMANN,
dated December 20, 1880, attached as Ex. H to Pla.’s CSF, ECF
No. 53-9;
11
Plaintiffs filed a Warranty Deed dated January 10, 2008,
that conveyed the Subject Property from West Maui Investors,
LLC to Plaintiffs.
(Warranty Deed dated January 10, 2008,
attached as Ex. V to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-23).
Defendants’ Claim to Title
Defendants claim they are descendants of Konohiki
Kaleleiki who was awarded Land Commission Number 7779.
(Def.’s Opp at ¶¶ 28-32, ECF No. 60).
Defendants appear to
argue that they have inherited the property through their
Deed from WIDEMANN to OLOWALU COMPANY dated August 19,
1882, attached as Ex. F to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-7;
Deed from KAPAHUKEA AINOA to OLOWALU COMPANY dated
October 20, 1896, attached as Ex. I to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 5310;
Deed from OLOWALU COMPANY to PIONEER MILL COMPANY dated
December 31, 1931, attached as Ex. G to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No.
53-8;
Deed from PIONEER MILL COMPANY to DEVON CORP., ONE-FOURFIVE NORTH, SUGAR WAY LTD., PACIFIC RIM LAND, INC., HAYNES II,
FARRINGTON, dated December 5, 1994, attached as Ex. J to
Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-11;
Multiple Deeds from DEVON CORP., ONE-FOUR-FIVE NORTH,
SUGAR WAY LTD., PACIFIC RIM LAND, INC., HAYNES II, FARRINGTON
to between October 26, 1995 and January 21, 2003, attached as
Exs. K, L, M, N, O, P, Q to Pla.’s CSF, ECF Nos. 53-12—18;
Quitclaim Deeds from SUGAR WAY LTD, HAYNES II,
FARRINGTON, KEAN, UKUMEHAME QUARRY to U. DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Dated December 14, 2005 as amended on February 10, 2006,
attached as Exs. R, S to Pla.’s CSF, ECF Nos. 53-19—20;
Quitclaim Deeds from U. DEVELOPMENT, INC. To WEST MAUI
INVESTORS, LLC dated January 27, 2006, as amended on February
10, 2006, attached as Exs. T, U to Pla.’s CSF, ECF Nos. 5321—22.
12
ancestors.
(Id.)
Defendants dispute the validity of the 1874 decision in
Probate Proceeding Number 518 that conveyed the parcel of
property at issue here.
(Def.’s Opp. at ¶¶ 2-15, ECF No. 60).
Probate Proceeding Number 518 lasted from 1871 until 1874 in
the courts of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
Probate Proceeding
Number 518 was concerned with the heirs of Konohiki Kaleleiki,
the original awardee of Land Commission Award 7779.
The Defendants claim that Probate Proceeding Number 518
was for a person named “Kaleleike” and not for their ancestor
“Kaleleiki.”
Defendants maintain that the probate proceeding
incorrectly attributed land that belonged to their ancestor
“Kaleleiki” to an entirely different person named “Kaleleike,”
but offer no support for the theory.
Defendants’ allegations that the land of “Kaleleiki” was
incorrectly attributed to a person named “Kaleleike” was never
raised in the probate proceeding.
The controversy in the
probate proceeding was about who were the rightful, legitimate
heirs of the deceased Konohiki Kaleleiki.
The Defendants do not offer any alternate chain of title
that would provide a chain of title that leads to them.
13
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.
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
14
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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
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. Serv., 809 F.2d at
15
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.
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).
16
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 must bring forward prima facie evidence of title.
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. v. Silva, 248 P.2d 1207, 1214 (Haw.
App. 2011).
Plaintiff need not have perfect title, but must
prove a substantial interest in the property and title
superior to that of defendants.
Id. (citing Maui Land &
Pineapple Co., Inc. v. Infiesto, 879 P.2d 507, 513 (Haw.
1994)).
Plaintiffs seek to quiet title for the Subject Property:
Lot 32 in the Ukumehame Subdivision located on the island of
Maui.
Plaintiffs assert they purchased the property on
January 10, 2008, from West Maui Investors, LLC.
Plaintiffs
recorded a warranty deed for the Subject Property bearing Tax
Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104, with the State of Hawaii Bureau
17
of Conveyances.
(Warranty Deed dated January 10, 2008, Doc.
No. 2008-004218, Tax Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104, attached as
Ex. V to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-23).
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
BEING PORTIONS OF GRANT 4973 TO WALTER GIFFARD AND
ROYAL PATENT 7017, LAND COMMISSION AWARD 7779, APANA
4 TO KALELEIKI
SITUATE AT UKUMEHAME, LAHAINA, ISLAND OF MAUI,
HAWAII
(Id.)5
5
The Subject Property 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 R-2) 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;
18
A.
Plaintiffs’ Chain of Title
1.
1853: Land Commission Award 7779 to Kaleleiki
The Subject Property consists of land that on September
22, 1853, was originally awarded to Konohiki Kaleleiki in Land
Commission Award Number 7779.
(Land Commission Award Number
7779, Land Commission Award Volume 7 at p. 4, attached as Ex.
B to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-3).
Land Commission Award Number 7779 comprised Apana 1
through 4, located in the Ahupuaa of Ukumehame on the Island
of Maui.
(Uahinui Aff. at ¶ 5.A, ECF No. 55-1; Amend. Uahinui
Aff. at ¶ 8, ECF No. 59-1).
The Parties agree that Konohiki Kaleleiki died intestate
and did not convey any portion of land he was awarded in Land
Commission Award Number 7779 before he died.
(Uahinui Aff. at
¶ 5.C, ECF No. 55-1; Def.’s Opp. at ¶ 10, ECF No. 60).
2.
1871: Probate Proceeding Number 518
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs states that in
November 1870, Konohiki Kaleleiki, the original awardee of
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.
19
Land Commission Award 7779, died in Kaunakakai, Molokai.
(Uahinui Aff. at ¶ 5.C, ECF No. 55-1).
Following the death of Konohiki Kaleleiki, in August
1871, Probate Proceeding Number 518 was opened in the District
Court of the Circuit Courts of the Kingdom of Hawaii to
determine the heirs of Konohiki Kaleleiki’s estate, including
the heirs to Land Commission Award 7779.6
(Uahinui Aff. at ¶
5.C, ECF No. 55-1; Records of Probate Number 518, The Estate
of Kaleleike, from the Second Circuit Court of the State of
Hawaii, attached as Ex. D to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-5).
6
The title of Probate Proceeding Number 518 refers to the
Estate of “Kaleleike”. (See Certificate from the Second
Circuit Court for the Judiciary of the State of Hawaii stating
that the documents are for “Probate Case Number 518, The
Estate of Kaleleike”, at p. 1, attached as Ex. D to Pla.’s
CSF, ECF No. 53-5).
The records for Probate Proceeding Number 518 are
handwritten and contain inconsistent spellings of “Kaleleiki.”
The caption on the first page of the documents refers to
“Kaleleiki”. (Probate Proceeding 518 at p. 3, ECF No. 53-5).
The order issued on October 30, 1872, refers to the
deceased as “Kaleleike”. (Probate Proceeding 518 at p. 22,
ECF No. 53-5).
The caption on the document dated June 19, 1873, refers
to “Kaleleiki.” (Probate Proceeding 518 at p. 56, ECF No. 535).
The document in the proceeding that lists the disposition
of property, including the 2 apana in Ukumehame that include
the Subject Property, dated October 9, 1871, refers to
“Kaleleiki.” (Probate Proceeding 518 at pp. 106-07, ECF No.
53-5).
It is unclear if the caption on the final order in
Probate Proceeding Number 518, dated September 28, 1874, ends
in an “i” or an “e” in the deceased’s name. (Probate
Proceeding 518 at p. 110, ECF No. 53-5).
20
The nature of the controversy in Probate Proceeding
Number 518 was who were the rightful, legitimate heirs to
Konohiki Kaleleiki.
59-1).
(Amended Uahinui Aff. ¶¶ 10-17, ECF No.
Probate Proceeding Number 518 contested by a number of
individuals with 26 witnesses testifying at trial.
(Records
of Probate Number 518, attached as Ex. D to Pla.’s CSF, ECF
No. 53-5; Uahinui Aff. at ¶ 5.C, ECF No. 55-1).
Probate
proceedings lasted over three years and the judgment was
modified based on the death of one of the heirs.
(Uahinui
Aff. at ¶ 5.C, ECF No. 55-1; Amended Uahinui Aff. at ¶¶ 16,
ECF No. 59-1).
On September 28, 1874, the final report for Probate
Proceeding Number 518 was entered with all of the land that
formed part of the Kaleleiki estate divided as follows:
1/2 of the estate to Keoki;
1/6 of the estate to Kamokumaia;
1/6 of the estate to Kailakano;
1/6 of the estate to Kapahukea.
(Uahinui Aff. at ¶ 5.C.7, ECF No. 55-1; Ex. D at p. 110;
Amended Uahinui Aff. at ¶ 17, ECF No. 59-1).
3.
1881-1931: Conveyances from the Probate
Determined
Heirs through to Pioneer
Mill Company
21
Plaintiffs provided evidence that in 1881 and 1882, three
of Konohiki Kaleleiki’s heirs, Keoki, Kamokumia, and
Kailakano, conveyed their combined 5/6 interest in Land
Commission Award 7779 to Hermann A. Widemann.
(Warranty Deed
from KEOKI to WIDEMANN dated January 25, 1881, attached as Ex.
E to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-6;
Warranty Deed from KAMOKUMAIA
and KAILAKANOA to WIDEMANN, dated December 20, 1880, attached
as Ex. H to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-9).
Plaintiffs submitted documents to demonstrate that on
August 19, 1882, Olowalu Company obtained the 5/6 interest in
Land Commission Award from Widemann.
(Deed from WIDEMANN to
OLOWALU COMPANY dated August 19, 1882, attached as Ex. F to
Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-7).
Plaintiffs provided evidence that Olowalu Company
received the remaining 1/6 interest in Land Commission Award
7779 on October 30, 1896, when Kapahukea conveyed her 1/6
interest to Olowalu Company.
(Deed from KAPAHUKEA AINOA to
OLOWALU COMPANY dated October 20, 1896, attached as Ex. I to
Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-10).
Plaintiffs submitted records that on December 31, 1931,
Olowalu Company conveyed its entire interest in the land
subject to Land Commission Award 7779 to Pioneer Mill Company,
Limited.
(Deed from OLOWALU COMPANY to PIONEER MILL COMPANY
22
dated December 31, 1931, attached as Ex. G to Pla.’s CSF, ECF
No. 53-8).
4.
1931-2006: Conveyances from Pioneer Mill Company
through to West Maui Investors,
LLC.
Plaintiffs put forth evidence that on December 5, 1994,
Pioneer Mill Company, Limited conveyed interest in land,
including the Subject Property in this case, to a number of
entities who in turn obtained the entitlements and approvals
necessary to subdivide the land into the Ukumehame
Agricultural Subdivision and each conveyed their interest in
the land, to U. Development, Inc. on December 14, 2005.
(Uahinui Aff. ¶5.H-N, Deed from PIONEER MILL COMPANY to DEVON
CORP., ONE-FOUR-FIVE NORTH, SUGAR WAY LTD., PACIFIC RIM LAND,
INC., HAYNES II, FARRINGTON, dated December 5, 1994, attached
as Ex. J to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-11; Deeds on October 26,
1995 and January 21, 2003, attached as Exs. K, L, M, N, O, P,
Q to Pla.’s CSF, ECF Nos. 53-12—18; Quitclaim Deeds conveying
land including the Subject Property to U. DEVELOPMENT, INC.
dated December 14, 2005 and amended on February 10, 2006,
attached as Exs. R, S to Pla.’s CSF, ECF Nos. 53-19—20).
Plaintiffs submitted a deed as evidence that on January
27, 2006, U. Development, Inc. conveyed its interest in the
23
land, including the Subject Property, to West Maui Investors,
LLC.
(Quitclaim Deeds from U. DEVELOPMENT, INC. To WEST MAUI
INVESTORS, LLC dated January 27, 2006 and amended on February
10, 2006, attached as Exs. T, U to Pla.’s CSF, ECF Nos. 5321—22).
5.
2008: Conveyance from West Maui Investors, LLC
to
Plaintiffs
On January 10, 2008, West Maui Investors, LLC conveyed
the Subject Property to Plaintiffs by warranty deed.
(Warranty Deed dated January 10, 2008, Doc. No. 2008-004218,
Tax Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104, attached as Ex. V to Pla.’s
CSF, ECF No. 53-23).
Plaintiffs have submitted prima facie evidence of title
to the Subject Property by tracing ownership forward from the
initial land grant in 1853 through to their 2008 warranty
deed.
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., 248 P.3d at 1213; Maui Land
& Pineapple, 879 P.2d at 511-12.
B.
Defendants’ Challenges to Plaintiffs’ Claim to Title
To rebut the Plaintiffs’ showing of a substantial
interest in the subject property, the Defendant must prove
that their title is superior to Plaintiffs’.
Algal Partners,
L.P. v. Santos, Civ. No. 13-00562 LEK-BMK, 2014 WL 1653084, *5
24
(D. Haw. Apr. 23, 2014); see Kaupulehu Land LLC v. Heirs and
Assigns of Pahukula, 2013 WL 6507551, *3-5 (Haw. App. Dec. 11,
2013).
A defendant need not prove that he has perfect title to
prevent plaintiff from quieting title at the summary judgment
stage, but must raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
which party has superior title.
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. v.
Silva, 248 P.3d 1207, 1213 (Haw. App. 2011).
To defeat the Plaintiffs’ motion, the nonmoving party
“may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce
specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery
material, to show that the dispute exits.”
Bhan v. NME
Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991).
The
opposing party must do more than simply assert that they
dispute the material facts.
Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764,
783 (9th Cir. 2002).
1.
Defendants’ Argument Based on Inconsistent
Spellings in the Records for Probate Proceeding
Number 518
Defendants dispute the validity of Probate Proceeding
Number 518, which occurred more than 140 years ago, based on
inconsistency in the spelling of “Kaleleiki” in the records.
(Def.’s Opp. at ¶¶ 2-15, ECF No. 60).
25
The Defendants claim
that Probate Proceeding Number 518 was not for their ancestor
“Kaleleiki,” who was the original awardee of Land Commission
Award 7779.
Defendants assert an entirely different person
named “Kaleleike” was subject to Probate Proceeding Number 518
that lasted from 1871 until 1874 in the courts of the Kingdom
of Hawaii.
Defendants argue that Probate Proceeding Number
518 incorrectly attributed land that was owned by ”Kaleleiki”
to a person named “Kaleleike” but offer no evidence for their
claim.
The more than 140 year-old records from the probate
proceeding are handwritten and contain spelling
inconsistencies referring to the deceased as either
“Kaleleike” or “Kaleleiki” at various points in the
proceedings.
(Records of Probate Number 518, The Estate of
Kaleleike, from the Second Circuit Court of the State of
Hawaii, attached as Ex. D to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-5; Pla.’s
Reply at p. 5, ECF No. 62; Uahinui Reply Aff. at ¶¶ 3-4, ECF
No. 62-1; “Kaleleiki” used in the captions for Probate
Proceeding 518 at p. 3, p. 56, ECF No. 53-5; “Kaleleike” used
in the title of the proceeding and in the order dated October
30, 1872 in Probate Proceeding 518 at pp. 1, 22, ECF No. 535).
The Defendants claim that Probate Proceeding 518 did not
26
convey the Subject Property at issue here.
2, ECF No. 60).
(Def.’s Opp. at ¶
Contrary to Defendants’ claim, the
Plaintiffs’ evidence and the records from Probate Proceeding
518 indicate that the Subject Property was a portion of the
Land Commission Award 7779 that was awarded to the judicially
determined heirs in the probate proceeding.
(Records of
Probate Number 518, The Estate of Kaleleike, from the Second
Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii, at p. 100 listing “2
Apana Ukumehame, Lahaina” attached as Ex. D to Pla.’s CSF, ECF
No. 53-5; Pla.’s Reply at pp. 5-9, ECF No. 62, Affidavit of
Colleen H. Uahniui attached to Reply (“Uahinui Reply Aff.”) at
¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 62-1; see Dorothy B. Barrere, The King’s
Mahele: The Awardees and Their Lands at p. 190 (1994) (finding
that Land Commission Award 7779 was subject to Probate
Proceeding Number 518)).
Page 100 of the probate records for Probate Number 518
consists of an inventory and accounting of real property that
formed the estate of “Kaleleiki”.
(Records of Probate Number
518, at p. 100, attached as Ex. D to Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 535).
It is unclear in the final handwritten order in Probate
Proceeding Number 518, dated September 28, 1874, if the
caption referring to “Kaleleiki” ends in an “i” or an “e” in
27
the deceased’s name.
No. 53-5)).
(Probate Proceeding 518 at p. 110, ECF
The inconsistent spellings do not invalidate the
findings in the probate proceeding.
Lance and Linda Neibauer
Joint Trust v. Kurgan, 2014 WL 7251526, *3 (D. Or. Dec. 16,
2014) (finding that a scrivener’s error does not create a
genuine issue of fact); Spartalian v. Citibank, N.A., 2013 WL
5437347, *4 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2013) (finding that misspelling
of the author of the notice letter did not raise a issue of
fact as to the legal effect of the letter); Daub v. Eagle Test
Systems, Inc., 2006 WL 3782877, *3 n.4 (N.D. Cal. Dec, 21,
2006).
There is no support for Defendant’s argument that Probate
Proceeding Number 518 was for a person other than Konohiki
Kaleleiki.
The Defendants agree that Konohiki Kaleleiki
received the Subject Property in The Great Mahele.
There is
no evidence that another person named “Kaleleike” received any
property in The Great Mahele.
See Barrere, The King’s Mahele:
The Awardees and Their Lands at p. 190 (finding that Land
Commission Award 7779 for “Kaleleiki” was subject to Probate
Proceeding Number 518).
2.
Defendants Do Not Provide Any Alternate Chain of
Title
On September 28, 1874, the final report for Probate
28
Proceeding Number 518 awarded the estate of Kaleleiki to his
heirs which were determined to be Keoki, Kamokumaia,
Kailakano, and Kapahukea.
(Uahinui Aff. at ¶ 5.C.7, ECF No.
55-1; Ex. D at p. 113; Amended Uahinui Aff. at ¶ 17, ECF No.
59-1).
A federal court should generally give preclusive effect
to a foreign court’s finding as a matter of comity.
Click
Entertainment, Inc. v. JYP Entertainment Co., Ltd., 2012 WL
1980788, *6 (D. Haw. May 31, 2012) (citing United States v.
Kashamu, 656 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2011); Paramedics
Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda v. GE Medical Sys. Info.
Techs., Inc., 369 F.3d 645, 654 (2d Cir. 2004)).
The Court will not relitigate the 1874 decision of the
Kingdom of Hawaii Courts as to the heirs of Konohiki
Kaleleiki.
The courts of the Kingdom of Hawaii in Probate
Proceeding 518 made judicial findings as to the heirs entitled
to inherit the Subject Property and Defendants have not
demonstrated that the decision is not entitled to preclusive
effect in this Court.
Kashamu, 656 F.3d at 683; Huelo Hui, LP
v. Kiili, 301 P.3d 1267, *2-4 (Haw. App. 2013) (upholding a
probate proceeding conducted by the Kingdom of Hawaii courts).
The Defendants do not offer any alternate chain of title
to Konohiki Kaleleiki, the original awardee of the Subject
29
Property.
Unlike Plaintiffs, Defendants have not provided any
evidence tracing ownership forward from the initial land grant
through to any of their ancestors.
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.,
248 P.3d at 1213.
Defendants do not claim any relation to the judicially
determined heirs of Kaleleiki: Keoki, Kamokumaia, Kailakano,
and Kapahukea.
(Affidavit of Von-Alan Hinano Kaleleiki,
attached as Ex. T to Def.’s Opp., ECF No. 60-20; Affidavit of
Defendant Sarah-Therese K. Kaleleiki attached as Ex. U to
Def.’s Opp. ECF No. 60-21).
Defendants have not presented any evidence that they were
conveyed an interest in the Subject Property.
Makila Land
Co., LLC v. Dizon, 2013 WL 1091721, *3 (Haw. App. March 15,
2013).
Defendants have not provided any evidence to demonstrate
that they are heirs to Konohiki Kaleleiki or any of the
judicially determined heirs to his property in Probate
Proceeding Number 518.
3.
Defendants’ Additional Claims
Defendants make a number of arguments regarding their
rights as provided by the Kingdom of Hawaii, rather than the
laws of the State of Hawaii.
(Def.’s Opp. at p. 2-6, ECF No.
30
60).
Both Hawaii state courts and federal courts have found
that the Kingdom of Hawaii is not now 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).
The arguments regarding Defendants’ current rights
“provided for by Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom” are foreclosed.
Id.
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”).
Defendants’ remaining arguments are conclusory statements
that the Plaintiffs’ “title is defective” or that the
transactions were “fraudulent.”
Defendants’ uncorroborated
allegations and “self-serving testimony” do not create a
genuine issue of material fact.
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island
Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002).
Defendants have not established that they have title to
the Subject Property that is superior to Plaintiffs’ title.
31
In earlier filings, Defendants have submitted a quitclaim
deed that was recorded by their father Samuel Houpo Kaleleiki,
Jr. on February 4, 2014, in the State of Hawaii Bureau of
Conveyances as Document No. A-51480946.
(Quitclaim Deed, Doc.
No. A-51480946, Tax Map Key Nos. (2) 4-8-002:104, (2) 4-8002:118 &, 90, attached as Ex. WM-4 to the McKeon Decl., ECF
No. 30-7).
There is no evidence that Defendant Samuel
Kaleleiki, Jr. possessed any interest in the Subject Property
on February 4, 2014 that would have been conveyed to
Defendants Von-Alan Kaleleiki or Sarah-Therece Kaleleiki by
the quitclaim deed.
Hustace v. Kapuni, 718 P.2d 1109, 1112
(Haw. App. 1986).
Plaintiffs’ title is superior to the claims to title by
Defendants.
Maui Land & Pineapple Co., 879 P.2d at 513.
Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Count II for quiet title is GRANTED.
Count IV:
Ejectment
Under Hawaii law, a claim for ejectment requires the
plaintiff to demonstrate that he has ownership and title to
the property at issue.
Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Matsuyoshi,
339 P.3d 534, *1, (Haw. App. Nov. 19, 2014) (citing State by
Price v. Magoon, 858 P.2d 712, 718-19 (Haw. 1993)).
32
A
plaintiff must recover upon the strength of his own title and
not upon any weakness in the defendant’s title.
Fong Hing v.
O. Yamaoka, 31 Haw. 436, 1930 WL 2890, at *1 (Haw. 1930).
Plaintiffs have established that they own and possess
title to Subject Property pursuant to the warranty deed
recorded on January 10, 2008.
(Warranty Deed, Doc. No. 2008-
004218, Tax Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104, attached as Ex. V to
the Pla.’s CSF, ECF No. 53-23).
There are no genuine issues of material fact as to the
validity of the Plaintiffs’ title.
Defendants’ conclusory
arguments that Plaintiffs’ title is defective are not
supported by any evidence and do not raise a genuine issue of
material fact for trial.
Kondaur Capital Corp., 339 P.3d at
*2.
Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Count IV for ejectment is GRANTED consistent with the finding
of quiet title in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs shall provide the Court with a Proposed Order
as to their request for ejectment.
Count V:
Request for Remedies and Injunctive Relief
Plaintiffs move for summary judgment as to Count V in
their Complaint.
Count V in Plaintiffs’ Complaint is labeled
33
Preliminary Injunction/Permanent Injunction.
Plaintiffs’
Motion as to Count V is a request for remedies and not summary
judgment as to a cause of action.
A court may grant injunctive relief at the summary
judgment stage when there are no genuine issues of material
fact.
S.E.C. v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 655 (9th Cir. 1980);
Moore’s Fed. Practice 3d § 65.21[4], [6].
Plaintiffs assert in their Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment that if they prevail on summary judgment for their
quiet title and ejectment claims, they are entitled to an
injunction to prevent Defendants from claiming title to their
property and from entering their property.
(Pla.’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment dated September 10, 2015, at p. 13,
ECF No. 52-1).
A preliminary injunction is available to preserve the
relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits
can be held.
(1981).
Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395
A preliminary injunction dissolves automatically when
final judgment is entered.
U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank
N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1093-95 (9th Cir. 2010).
A preliminary
injunction is not procedurally appropriate for Plaintiffs as
they have prevailed on summary judgment as to their quiet
title and ejectment claims.
Golden Gate Hotel v. City & Cnty.
34
of San Francisco, 836 F.Supp. 707, 709 (N.D. Cal. 1993).
The Court construes Plaintiffs’ request for summary
judgment as to Count V in their Complaint as seeking a
permanent injunction.
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell,
480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987).
A.
Permanent Injunction
Pursuant to the Erie doctrine, federal courts exercising
diversity jurisdiction in an action based on state law apply
the same rules that state courts would apply to all
substantive issues but apply federal law to procedural issues.
Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-80 (1938).
Federal courts apply the federal standard to evaluate the
merits of a request for a permanent injunction unless the
state law standard provides for a different result.
Guaranty
Trust Co. of New York v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109 (1945); Sims
Snowboards, Inc. v. Kelly, 863 F.2d 643, 646-47 (9th Cir.
1988); Compass Bank v. Hartley, 430 F.Supp.2d 973, 978 n.9 (D.
Ariz. 2006).
Under federal procedural law, a plaintiff seeking a
permanent injunction must demonstrate: (1) that he has
suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at
law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate
35
for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of
hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy at
equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would
not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
eBay Inc. v.
MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
The Hawaii state law standard for permanent injunctive
relief is similar to the federal standard and evaluates
whether: (1) the plaintiff has prevailed on the merits of the
claim; (2) the balance of irreparable damage favors the
issuance of a permanent injunction; and (3) the public
interest supports granting such an injunction.
Pofolk
Aviation Hawaii, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp. for State, 339 P.3d
1056, 1062 (Haw. App. 2014).
Here, the federal standard applies because application of
the state law standard would not change the result.
See Kane
v. Chobani, Inc., 2013 WL 3776172, *3 (N.D. Cal. July 15,
2013).
It is unclear from Plaintiffs’ Motion the scope of the
permanent injunction they seek.
Plaintiffs do not request
specific injunctive relief in their current Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.
(Pla.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
filed on September 10, 2015, at p. 13, ECF No. 52-1).
The
Court is not required to comb through the record to find the
36
basis for Plaintiffs’ claim.
Forsberg v. Pac. Northwest Bell
Telephone Co., 840 F.2d 1409, 1418 (9th Cir. 1988).
It is the
party’s responsibility to bring the issue to the attention of
the Court in the motion before it.
Id.
Plaintiffs stated in their previous Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment that they seek injunctive relief to prevent
Defendants from interfering with their “Property and Common
Elements.”
(Pla.’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment filed
on January 29, 2015 at pp. 21-24, ECF No. 29-3).
Plaintiffs have not established the parameters of the
injunction they seek.
Plaintiffs may submit a Proposed Order that sets forth
the specific relief they are requesting consistent with the
Court’s finding of quiet title in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs shall provide a Memorandum setting forth the legal
basis for the requested relief.
B.
Expungement of Nonconsenual Lien Pursuant to Haw.
Rev. Stat. § 507D-7(a)
As an additional remedy, Plaintiffs request that the
Court expunge the quitclaim deed filed by Samuel Kaleleiki,
Jr. with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances on February
4, 2014.
(Quitclaim Deed, Doc. No. A-51480946, Tax Map Key
Nos. (2) 4-8-002:104, (2) 4-8-002:118 &, 90, attached as Ex.
37
WM-4 to the McKeon Decl., ECF No. 30-7).
Any party with an interest in real property, which is
subject to an invalid instrument that has been filed with the
Hawaii State Bureau of Conveyances, may file a petition to
contest the validity of the lien.
4(a).
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 507D-
A court shall expunge the instrument that has been
recorded with the Hawaii State Bureau of Conveyances if the
instrument is invalid and creates an encumbrance on or affects
title or ownership of property.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 507D-7(a).
The Hawaii State Legislature explained in Haw. Rev. Stat.
§ 507D-1 that the statute to expunge invalid nonconsensual
common law liens is necessary because the bureau of
conveyances does not have the discretionary authority to
refuse to record instruments so long as those instruments
comply with certain minimal format requirements.
Plaintiffs claim that the quitclaim deed filed by Samuel
Kaleleiki, Jr. is a nonconsensual common law lien that should
be expunged pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 507D-7(a).
The Court agrees that quitclaim deed, Doc. No. A-51480946
filed with the Hawaii State Bureau of Conveyances on February
4, 2014 is an invalid nonconsensual law lien against the
Subject Property.
Plaintiffs have quieted title to the Subject Property and
38
Defendants have not demonstrated that they have any interest
in the Subject Property.
See Olson, 2012 WL 39140, *6
(granting the plaintiff’s request to expunge deeds filed by
the defendants against his property pursuant to Haw. Rev.
Stat. § 507D-7 because the defendants’ arguments that they had
inherited title to the property had been rejected).
Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment to
expunge the quitclaim deed, Doc. No. A-51480946 recorded on
February 4, 2014, with the Hawaii State Bureau of Conveyances,
pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 507D-7(a) is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No.
52) is GRANTED, IN PART.
COUNT II:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No.
52) as to Count II for quiet title is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated superior title to the
property described in Warranty Deed, Doc. No. 2008-004218, Tax
Map Key No. (2) 4-8-002:104, attached as Ex. V to Pla.’s CSF,
ECF No. 53-23, described as:
LOT 32, UKUMEHAME AGRICULTURAL SUBDIVISION, PHASE II
BEING PORTIONS OF GRANT 4973 TO WALTER GIFFARD AND
ROYAL PATENT 7017, LAND COMMISSION AWARD 7779, APANA
4 TO KALELEIKI
39
SITUATED AT UKUMEHAME, LAHAINA, ISLAND OF MAUI,
HAWAII.
COUNT IV:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No.
52) as to Count IV for ejectment is GRANTED consistent with
the finding of quiet title in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs shall provide the Court with a Proposed Order
as to their request for ejectment.
COUNT V:
Plaintiffs have not established the parameters of the
permanent injunction they seek.
Plaintiffs may submit a Proposed Order that sets forth
the specific relief they are requesting consistent with the
Court’s finding of quiet title in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs shall provide a memorandum setting forth the legal
basis for the requested relief.
EXPUNGEMENT OF DEED DOC. No. A-51480946:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to
expunge the quitclaim deed, Doc. No. A-51480946 recorded on
February 4, 2014, with the Hawaii State Bureau of Conveyances,
pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 507D-7(a) is GRANTED.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
40
The Court ORDERS that Quitclaim Deed, Doc. No. A51480946, recorded on February 4, 2014, with the State of
Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances, be expunged as an invalid lien
pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 507D-7(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
Honolulu, Hawaii, December 21, 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 1-50; Doe Entities 1-50; Doe Governmental Units
1-50; Civ. No. 14-00322 HG-KSC; ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 52)
41
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?