Bridge Aina Le'A, LLC v. Haw. Land United Statese Comm'n, Civ. No. 11-00414 SOM-KJM

Decision Date20 December 2018
Docket NumberCiv. No. 11-00414 SOM-KJM
PartiesBRIDGE AINA LE'A, LLC, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF HAWAII LAND USE COMMISSION; VLADIMIR P. DEVENS, in his individual and official capacity; KYLE CHOCK, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS CONTRADES, in his individual and official capacity; LISA M. JUDGE, in her individual and official capacity; NORMAND R. LEZY, in his individual and official capacity; NICHOLAS W. TEVES, JR., in his individual and official capacity; RONALD I. HELLER, in his individual and official capacity; DUANE KANUHA, in his official capacity; CHARLES JENCKS, in his official capacity; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 2-10; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
ORDER MODIFYING AND ADOPTING AS MODIFIED THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
I. INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiff Bridge Aina Le'a ("Bridge") and Defendant State of Hawaii Land Use Commission (the "LUC") have filed separate objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendations ("F&R") to grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff Bridge's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. See ECF Nos. 428, 429, 431.

In the F&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this court deny Bridge any attorneys' fee award because Bridge is not entitled to fees under the private attorney general doctrine, and because the LUC's sovereign immunity bars any award of attorneys' fees. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Bridge be awarded $15,085.51 of its requested costs, including $1,429.10 in copying costs.

Bridge objects to the denial of its request for attorneys' fees and argues that it is entitled to the remainder of its requested costs. The LUC objects to the award of copying costs, arguing that it should be limited to $725.15.

Having reviewed the F&R in light of the parties' objections, this court concludes that the LUC's waiver of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity extends to attorneys' fees and that therefore this court has jurisdiction over Bridge's request. However, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Bridge does not meet the requirements for recovery under the private attorney general doctrine. The court also adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Bridge be awarded $15,085.51 in costs.

The court therefore adopts the F&R with modified reasoning on whether the LUC's sovereign immunity bars an award of attorneys' fees. The court denies Bridge's request for attorneys' fees and awards Bridge $15,085.51 in costs. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing.

II. BACKGROUND.

The factual and procedural background of this case has been discussed at length in the court's previous orders. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 131, 283, 318, 404. For the purposes of this order, the court adopts the F&R's background section, finding that it sets forth the relevant facts and noting that neither party raised any objections related to that section. See ECF No. 428, PageID #s 11303-06. Because the parties and the court are familiar with the background of this case, this court describes only those events relevant to the F&R and to Bridge's Motion.

This case arises out of a decision by the LUC to reclassify a parcel of land owned by Bridge from urban use to agricultural use. See ECF No. 1. Bridge filed a Complaint in state court, asserting eleven counts against the LUC and some of its commissioners for violations under the United States Constitution, the Hawaii constitution, and various Hawaii laws. See ECF No. 1-2. The Complaint was then removed to this courtbased on federal question jurisdiction. See ECF No. 1. The case was stayed for several years pending the resolution of related state-court proceedings. See ECF No. 48.

Following the completion of the state-court proceedings and this court's partial grant of the LUC's motion for summary judgment, Bridge had two takings claims that were tried to a jury. See ECF No. 131, PageID # 3112. On March 23, 2018, the jury found in favor of Bridge, concluding that the LUC's decision to reclassify the land constituted a taking under both the Lucas and Penn Central analyses. See ECF Nos. 372, 373. On March 30, 2018, the court awarded Bridge $1 in nominal damages.1 See ECF No. 375. Bridge then filed the present Motion on April 13, 2018.2 ECF No. 384.

The F&R was filed on August 31, 2018, and both parties filed their objections shortly thereafter. ECF Nos. 428, 429, 431. This court requested supplemental briefs on the scope of the LUC's sovereign immunity in federal court, and the parties filed their supplemental briefs on December 3, 2018. ECF Nos. 434, 436, 437.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

Congress has empowered magistrate judges, upon referral of dispositive pretrial motions by district judges, to conduct hearings and issue findings and recommendations regarding dispositive pretrial motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (promulgating rule). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a district judge to similarly refer a post-judgment motion for attorneys' fees "as if it were a dispositive pretrial matter," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(D), and such motions are customarily referred to magistrate judges in this district under Local Rule 54.3(h).

A district judge reviews a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations prior to ruling on the motion, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). If a party timely objects to portions of the findings and recommendations, the district judge reviews those portions of the findings and recommendations de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Local Rule 74.2. The district judge may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge. Local Rule 74.2. The district judge also has discretion to receive further evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Local Rule 74.2; see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (explaining that a district judge has widediscretion in deciding whether to allow new evidence). The de novo standard requires the district court to consider a matter anew and arrive at its own independent conclusions, but a de novo hearing is not ordinarily required. See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Boulware, 350 F. Supp. 2d 837, 841 (D. Haw. 2004); Local Rule 74.2.

The district judge may accept the portions of the findings and recommendations to which the parties have not objected as long as it is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See United States v. Bright, Civ. No. 07-00311 ACK/KSC, 2009 WL 5064355, at *3 (D. Haw. Dec. 23, 2009); Stow v. Murashige, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1127 (D. Haw. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note.

IV. ANALYSIS.

Bridge objects to the portions of the F&R that recommended denial of its request for an award of attorneys' fees, totaling $662,227,03, and to the portions recommending denial of $47,724.55 of its requested costs. See ECF No. 429. The LUC filed cross-objections, arguing that the Magistrate Judge's recommended award of $1,429.10 in copying costs should be reduced to $725.15. See ECF No. 431.

Having performed a de novo review of the portions of the F&R to which the parties objected, the court adopts theMagistrate Judge's recommendations to deny Bridge's request for attorneys' fees and to award Bridge $15,085.51 in costs. However, as an initial matter, the court modifies the Magistrate Judge's reasoning with respect to whether the LUC's sovereign immunity bars an award of attorneys' fees.

A. This Court Is Not Barred from Awarding Attorneys' Fees to Bridge Because the LUC Waived Its Sovereign Immunity by Removing the Case.

Bridge objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the LUC's sovereign immunity bars an award of attorneys' fees. See ECF No. 429, Page ID # 11347; ECF No. 428, PageID # 11324. The Magistrate Judge based its conclusion on the LUC's statement in a motion in limine that "removal to this Court 'waived Eleventh Amendment immunity but not any other aspect of sovereign immunity.'" ECF No. 428, PageID # 11325 (quoting ECF No. 191-1, PageID # 4609). This court concludes that the LUC's waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to attorneys' fees and that the LUC's sovereign immunity is not a jurisdictional bar to an award of attorneys' fees by this court.

The Eleventh Amendment provides that "[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. Const. amend. XI. Under the Eleventh Amendment, a state is immune fromlawsuits for monetary damages or other retrospective relief brought in federal court by its own citizens or citizens of other states. Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437 (2004); Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 105-06 (1984). Federal court actions against agencies or instrumentalities of a state, such as the LUC, are also barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Sato v. Orange Cty. Dep't of Educ., 861 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2017); Blount v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 559 F. App'x 623, 623 (9th Cir. 2014). Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply if Congress exercises its power under the Fourteenth Amendment to override Eleventh Amendment immunity, or if a state consents to federal suit. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-68 (1989); Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99.

States have Eleventh Amendment immunity to takings claims seeking just compensation, meaning that federal courts lack jurisdiction over such claims. See Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT