City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP

• Decision Date: 22 July 2022
• Docket Number: CAAP-22-0000135
• Parties: CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU AND HONOLULU BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SUNOCO LP; ALOHA PETROLEUM LLC; EXXON MOBIL CORP.; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY; SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC; BHP GROUP LIMITED; BHP GROUP PLC; BP AMERICA INC.; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP.; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; AND DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, and CHEVRON CORP.; CHEVRON USA INC., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU AND HONOLULU BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SUNOCO LP; ALOHA PETROLEUM LLC; EXXON MOBIL CORP.; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY; SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC; BHP GROUP LIMITED; BHP GROUP PLC; BP AMERICA INC.; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP.; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; AND DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, and CHEVRON CORP.; CHEVRON USA INC., Defendants-Appellants.

No. CAAP-22-0000135

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

July 22, 2022

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO 1CCV200000380)

Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

Upon consideration of the "Motion to Dismiss Appeal" filed by Plaintiffs-Appellees City and County of Honolulu and Honolulu Board of Water Supply (collectively City) on June 7, 2022, the papers in support and in opposition, and the record, it appears that:

1. On March 16, 2022, Defendants-Appellants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (collectively Chevron) filed a notice of appeal from the "Order Denying Chevron Defendants' Special Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to California's Anti-SLAPP Law" (Order Denying Anti-SLAPP Motion) entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit on February 15, 2022;

2. City contends that the court lacks jurisdiction over Chevron's appeal because the circuit court has not entered a final, appealable judgment, and the Order Denying Anti-SLAPP Motion is not independently appealable;

3. Chevron argues that appellate jurisdiction exists because: (a) the circuit court certified the Order Denying Anti-SLAPP Motion for interlocutory appeal under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(b)(2016); and (b) the collateral order doctrine applies;

4. HRS § 641-1(b) applies only "[u]pon application made within the time provided by the rules of court"; Chevron's motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal addressed only the circuit court's orders entered March 29, 2022, and March 31, 2022; the record does not contain an application by Chevron for certification of the February 15, 2022 Order Denying Anti-SLAPP Motion for interlocutory appeal; thus, the circuit court acted beyond its authority when it sua sponte included the Order Denying Anti-SLAPP Motion in its ruling on Chevron's motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal and "Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal";

5. A portion of the Order Denying Anti-SLAPP Motion qualifies for appellate review under the collateral order doctrine; Chevron's Anti-SLAPP Motion argued (among other things) that Chevron was immune from suit under California's anti-SLAPP law; the circuit court conclusively determined that Chevron was

...