plaintiffs “cannot prevail” on their claim the resorts needed environmental assessments due to environmental impacts of the resorts, their argument that the Planning Commission erred in issuing permits without requiring sufficient environmental assessments to be conducted, and their final argument that building of the resorts would have cultural impacts on Native Hawaiians and others.The paper reports that the court had previously denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Summary judgment motions are generally made before trial. A court grants summary judgment where the case does not involve any dispute as to the material facts (a fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties) and if, given the facts and under the relevant law, one side is clearly entitled to judgment.
In contrast, a directed verdict motion is made by a party after the other side has finished presenting its case. Although the newspaper reports that the judge ruled on "what is known as a 'directed verdict' under Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure," the rule was actually amended several years ago and no longer refers to motions for directed verdict. The new rule (HRCP Rule 50), consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 50, refers to motions for "judgment as a matter of law." Under the rule -
If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.In other words, such a motion is granted where there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment.
According to the paper, "[1000 Friends of Kauai attorney Greg] Meyers said plaintiffs attorneys will determine an appeal strategy, likely to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, once they see defendants’ [proposed order] due Aug. 19."
For those keeping score at home, on appeal a trial court's rulings on motions for judgment as a matter of law are reviewed de novo, and the evidence and the inferences which may be fairly drawn therefrom must be considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Correction: An attorney with some connection to the case emailed me and made the point that the proceeding was a non-jury trial. That means the appropriate rule is not HRCP 50 but is instead HRCP 52(c). For those keeping score at home, then, I don't find after a quick, cursory search of Hawaii cases a standard of review the appellate court applies when review Rule 52(c) motions. However the rule is substantially similar to the federal rule, and so here's the Ninth Circuit's take on the issue (from Taylor v. Bakersfield City School Dist., 119 F.3d 7 (9th Cir. 1997)(memorandum opinion)):
We review factual findings made pursuant to a Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c) dismissal under the clearly erroneous standard. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c) Advisory Committee Notes; Johnson v. United States Postal Serv., 756 F.2d 1461, 1464 (9th Cir.1985) (stating test for Rule 41(b), the precursor to Rule 52(c)). We review the district court's ultimate findings pursuant to a Rule 52(c) dismissal de novo. See id. at 1465.
