BRIDGE AINA LE'A V. KYLE CHOCK, No. 12-15971 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIDGE AINA LE’A, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-15971 D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00414-SOMBMK v. KYLE CHOCK, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS P. CONTRADES, in his individual and official capacity; VLADIMIR P DEVENS, in his individual and official capacity; NORMAND R. LEZY, in his individual and official capacity; DUANE KANUHA, in his official capacity; CHARLES JENCKS, in his official capacity; LISA M. JUDGE, in her individual and official capacity; NICHOLAS W. TEVES, Jr., in his individual and official capacity; RONALD I. HELLER; JOHN DOES 110; JANES DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 110; STATE OF HAWAII LAND USE COMMISSION, MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellants. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. BRIDGE AINA LE’A, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-16076 D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00414-SOMBMK v. KYLE CHOCK, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS P. CONTRADES, in his individual and official capacity; NORMAND R. LEZY, in his individual and official capacity; VLADIMIR P DEVENS, in his individual and official capacity; DUANE KANUHA, in his official capacity; CHARLES JENCKS, in his official capacity; LISA M. JUDGE, in her individual and official capacity; NICHOLAS W. TEVES, Jr., in his individual and official capacity; RONALD I. HELLER; JOHN DOES 110; JANES DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 110; STATE OF HAWAII LAND USE COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i Susan Oki Mollway, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 10, 2014 Honolulu, Hawai‘i Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. In 2011, the State of Hawai‘i Land Use Commission (“LUC”) reclassified a parcel of land owned by plaintiff Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC (“Bridge”) from urban to agricultural use. Bridge filed two actions in Hawai‘i state court challenging the reclassification: a state administrative appeal, and a state civil action against the LUC and the commissioners in their official and individual capacities alleging a variety of federal and state claims. Defendants removed the civil action to federal court. The district court abstained pursuant to Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a case meets the requirements for Pullman abstention. Spoklie v. Montana, 411 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2005). If the requirements are met, we review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to abstain and stay the proceeding. Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776, 782 (9th Cir. 2014). While this case originally met Pullman’s requirements, abstention is no longer necessary. After the district court’s decision, and after oral argument to this court, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that the LUC erred when it reclassified the parcel as agricultural without following the state’s procedural requirements under Section 205-4 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. See DW Aina Le’a Dev., LLC v. Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC, No. SCAP-13-0000091, 2014 WL 6674432, at *2 (Haw. Nov. 25, 2014). The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i 3 affirmed on state law grounds the state circuit court judgment reversing and vacating the LUC’s final reclassification order. Id. We remand to the district court for appropriate action in light of the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i’s decision. The district court should decide in the first instance whether the LUC commissioners sued in their individual capacities are entitled to some form of official immunity. VACATED AND REMANDED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
