Click on images to see documents.
It appears then that even without discounting their 343 arguments, petitioners did not make the case that a TRO blocking Superferry from Nawiliwili Harbor was appropriate. The court does not explain its reasoning in the order, but my guess is the judge simply didn't agree with 1,000 Friends that the harms they alleged were all that imminent or irreparable. It is impossible to read from this how the court might rule on the next motion, for a preliminary or permanent injunction, except to say that findings that result in the failure of a TRO motion are also often detrimental to a subsequent preliminary injunction motion.“Without ruling on the issue of jurisdiction in accordance with HRS Sec. 343-7 (a), Petitioners’ Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.”
By the nature of the relief, injunction arguments come up fast. My sense was petitioners' attorneys were not as prepared as they would like to have been. And a hearing on a motion for preliminary or permanent injunctive relief is generally more involved that that for a TRO and will more resemble a full blown trial with the parties putting on evidence - the Court is thinking it will take a day to a day and a half - and, still, there's not much time to prepare.
superferry
1 comments:
We lost because of a file date and sticking to that date is what made the decision for the Judge easy,
Every time the superferry enters Hawaiian waters be it Kauai, Maui, ect it is "the most recent act of aggression" under the TRO complaint you filed with the court. The date of the most resent "ACT" is when the clock starts for 120 days. I am deeply committed to the environment and Kauai in particular. Please refile the complaint and surely you will get the TRO as Maui did. Also do know that any citizen can and probably will do the same in filing a simple TRO against the supperferry "DOT".
Aloha
Rodney
Hanalei
Post a Comment