Arakaki v. Cayetano
| Decision Date | 31 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-16269.,02-16269. |
| Citation | 324 F.3d 1078 |
| Parties | Earl F. ARAKAKI; Evelyn C. Arakaki; Sandra P. Burgess; Edward U. Bugarin; Patricia A. Carroll; Robert M. Chapman; Brian L. Clarke; Michael Y. Garcia; Toby M. Kravet; Thurston Twigg-Smith; Roger Grantham; James I. Kuroiwa, Jr.; Frances M. Nichols; Donna Malia Scaff; Jack H. Scaff; Allen H. Teshima, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Josiah L. Hoohuli; Patrick L. Kahawaiolaa; Virgil E. Day; Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., Intervenors-Appellants, and Maui Loa, Intervenor, v. Benjamin J. CAYETANO, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Hawaii; United States of America, Defendants, and Neal Miyahira, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Budget and Finance of the State of Hawaii; Glenn Okimoto; Gilbert Coloma-Agaran; James J. Nakatani; Seiji Naya; Brianminaai; Haunani Apoliona; Rowena Akana; Donald G. Cataluna; Linda Dela Cruz; Clayton Hee; Colette Y. Machado; Charles Ota; Oswald Stender; John D. Waihee, IV; Raynard C. Soon; Wanda Mae Agpalsa; Henry Cho; Thomas P. Contrades; Rockne Freitas; Herring Kalua; Milton Pa; John A.H. Tomoso, Defendants-Appellees, and Anthony Sang, Sr.; Hui Kako'o Aina Ho'Opulapula; Blossom Feiteira; Dutchy Saffery; State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Association, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Walter R. Schoettle and Emmett E. Lee Loy, Honolulu, HI, for the appellants.
Charleen M. Aina, Deputy Attorney General, Sherry P. Broder, Robert G. Klein, McCorriston, Miller, Mukai, MacKinnon, LLP, Honolulu, HI, for the defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-00139-SOM(KSC).
Before: HUG, ALARCÓN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Josiah Hoohuli and other native Hawaiians (collectively "Hoohuli") seek to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the provision of benefits by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA"), the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ("DHHL"), and the Hawaiian Homes Commission ("HHC") to native Hawaiians1 and Hawaiians.2 Hoohuli, lessees of Hawaiian homestead lands or applicants for such leases, seek intervention on the grounds that they have an interest in continuing to receive benefits as native Hawaiians, and an interest to stop the provision of benefits to Hawaiians by limiting the eligibility to only native Hawaiians.
We address whether the district court erred in denying Hoohuli's motion to intervene as a matter of right.
On March 4, 2002, Plaintiffs Arakaki et al. (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a civil action against the State of Hawaii and various state agencies, challenging the constitutionality of race-based privileges. This suit follows closely on the heels of the Supreme Court's recent Rice v. Cayetano decision, which held that limiting voter eligibility to elect the trustees to the OHA to members of the racial classifications Hawaiian and native Hawaiian violated the Fifteenth Amendment. 528 U.S. at 499, 120 S.Ct. 1044.
Plaintiffs challenge the exclusive benefits given to Hawaiians and native Hawaiians by the OHA, the HHC, and the DHHL. Plaintiffs allege the provision of such benefits is racially discriminatory and violates the Equal Protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also allege that, as beneficiaries of § 5(f) of the Hawaii Admission Act's public land trust, the State and HHC/DHHL discriminate against them, which constitutes a breach of trust. Pub. L. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4, § 5(f) (1959) ("Admission Act"). Plaintiffs asserted standing as taxpayers, and as beneficiaries of the public land trust established by Congress in § 5(f).
On March 18, 2002, the district court granted proposed defendants-intervenors State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Association ("SCHHA"), and Anthony Sang, Sr.'s ("Sang") Motion to Intervene. The SCHHA is an organization of native Hawaiian HHC homestead lessee associations; Sang is a lessee.
On March 25, 2002, Hoohuli filed its motion to intervene. Hoohuli alleged two interests justifying intervention: (1) to ensure continued receipt of benefits for native Hawaiians; and (2) to limit the class of eligible beneficiaries to only native Hawaiians, at the exclusion of the broader Hawaiian class. Additionally, Hoohuli sought to raise as a defense to its receipt of benefits that, absent discrimination by the United States, it should be entitled to tribal status, and its benefits scrutinized under rational basis review pursuant to Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974). A magistrate judge denied this motion on May 2, 2002. Hoohuli timely appealed to the district court.
On May 8, 2002, the district court dismissed for lack of standing Plaintiffs' breach of the public land trust claims. It ruled that Plaintiffs' claim for relief, invalidating the stated purpose of § 5(f), rather than alleging an actual breach of the trust created by § 5(f), amounted to a generalized grievance. Since Plaintiffs were not proceeding on the basis of any direct injury, they lacked standing to complain. The district court held that the only claims remaining were Plaintiffs' equal protection challenges asserted as taxpayers against the direct expenditures of tax revenues by the legislature. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of this order was denied on June 18, 2002. Plaintiffs have not appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit.
On June 13, 2002, the district court denied Hoohuli's motion to intervene, both as a matter of right and permissively. The district court first held that since Plaintiffs' public land trust claims were dismissed, Hoohuli had no significantly protectable interest in those claims at this time. The district court ruled that Hoohuli's intervention to assert additional claims of breaches of public land trusts, specifically that benefits should be limited to only native Hawaiians, was not raised by existing parties and clearly separable from Plaintiffs' remaining equal protection challenge. The district court also noted that nothing prevented Hoohuli from filing its own breach of trust suit against the State to claim benefits should be allocated to only native Hawaiians.
Next, the district court addressed Hoohuli's motion to intervene in Plaintiffs' equal protection claims. The district court observed that Hoohuli had a significantly protectable interest in the manner in which its tax dollars are used. A ruling in Plaintiffs' favor would impair Hoohuli's interest in the continued receipt of homestead leases. Hoohuli's interest in limiting benefits to native Hawaiians, however, was not encompassed by the issues before the court. Additionally, Hoohuli failed to demonstrate that the State defendants would not adequately represent their interests. The court ruled that Defendants and Hoohuli have the same ultimate objective, and that to date, Defendants have demonstrated that they will vigorously oppose Plaintiffs' challenges to the provision of benefits to native Hawaiians. The court rejected Hoohuli's proffered justification that Defendants are inadequate because they will not argue as a defense that the Department of the Interior is engaging in unconstitutional race discrimination by excluding native Hawaiians in the definition of "Indian tribe."
The district court denied Hoohuli's request for permissive intervention because it sought to interject new issues into this action beyond the scope of Plaintiffs' claims. Hoohuli's participation would unnecessarily complicate the litigation, and existing Defendants, including native Hawaiian lessees, would vigorously seek to uphold the provision of these benefits.3
Jurisdiction is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The district court's decision regarding intervention as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) is reviewed de novo. Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir.2001).
Rule 24 traditionally receives liberal construction in favor of applicants for intervention. Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir.1998). Courts are guided primarily by practical and equitable considerations. Id.
Rule 24(a)(2) gives a person the right to intervene:
[u]pon timely application ... (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
A party seeking to intervene as of right must meet four requirements: (1) the applicant must timely move to intervene; (2) the applicant must have a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be situated such that the disposition of the action may impair or impede the party's ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant's interest must not be adequately represented by existing parties. Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 409. Each of these four requirements must be satisfied to support a right to intervene. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir.1997).
When a plaintiff's action is narrowed by court order, the court may consider the case as restructured in ruling on a motion to intervene. United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 399 (9th Cir.2002).
Hoohuli seeks to intervene to support in part and to challenge in part Plaintiffs' public land trust beneficiary claim created by § 5(f) of the Admission Act. Hoohuli joins in the view that provision of leasehold benefits to Hawaiians is illegal, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Case No. 11-cv-00293-JCS
...that representation of its interests 'may be' inadequate." Citizens for Balanced Use, 647 F.3d at 898 (citing Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003)). "The 'most important factor' to determine whether a proposed intervenor is adequately represented by a present party to th......
-
Am. Independence Mines v. United States Dep't of Agriculture
...to protect that interest; and (4) "the applicant's interest must not be adequately represented by existing parties." Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir.2003) (citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Here, Valley County's motion to intervene was filed prior to the mot......
-
Park & Planning v. Washington Grove
...Comm'rs, 493 F.3d 570, 577 (5th Cir.2007) (citing Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir.1996)); Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001)); South Dakota ex rel. Barnett v. U.S......
-
Center for Biological Diversity v. Brennan
...the burden of showing that all of the requirements for intervention have been met. See Alisal, 370 F.3d at 919; Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1017, 124 S.Ct. 570, 157 L.Ed.2d 430 (2003). However, Rule 24 is construed liberally in favor of p......
-
2011 Ninth Circuit environmental review.
...(405) Even so, the Ninth Circuit analyzed the first three requirements and found that Appellants had met them. (406) Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. (407) Id. (408) League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1305 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations and......
-
CHAPTER 4 DEFENDING FEDERAL DECISIONS AND PERMITS: PRACTICAL TACTICS FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY
...under some law and ... there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and claim at issue." Arakai v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9%gth%g Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted); see also City of Stillwell, Oklahoma v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 79 F.3d 1038, 1042 (10%gth%g Ci......
-
CHAPTER 5 THE ROLE OF THE PROJECT PROPONENT IN THE NEPA PROCESS
...under some law and ... there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and claim at issue." Arakai v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted); see also City of Stillwell, Oklahoma v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 79 F.3d 1038, 1042 (10th Cir. 1996)......
-
Creating Space For Community Representation in Police Reform Litigation
...in the litigation that is likely to be impaired or impeded by the litigation. FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a). 151. See, e.g., Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9th Cir. 2003); Proof Brief for the United States as Appellee at 14 & n.2, United States v. City of Detroit, No. 03-2343 (6th Cir. A......