Mottl v. Miyahira, No. 23603.

• Decision Date: 25 May 2001
• Docket Number: No. 23603.
• Parties: Michael MOTTL, Rod Tam, Chris Halford, David Miller, Diane Ferreira, and University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Neal MIYAHIRA, in his capacity as Director of Finance of the State of Hawai`i and Benjamin J. Cayetano, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Hawai`i, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

23 P.3d 716

95 Haw. 381

Michael MOTTL, Rod Tam, Chris Halford, David Miller, Diane Ferreira, and University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Neal MIYAHIRA, in his capacity as Director of Finance of the State of Hawai`i and Benjamin J. Cayetano, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Hawai`i, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 23603.

Supreme Court of Hawai`i.

May 25, 2001.

T. Anthony Gill (Wade C. Zukeran with him on the brief; Gill & Zukeran) on the briefs, Honolulu, for the plaintiffs-appellants Michael Mottl, Rod Tam, Chris Halford, David Miller, Diane Ferreira, and University of Hawaii Professional Association.

Brian Aburano (Russell A. Suzuki on the brief), Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs, for the defendants-appellees Neal Miyahira and Benjamin J. Cayetano.

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, RAMIL, and ACOBA, JJ.

Opinion of the Court by LEVINSON, J.

The plaintiffs-appellants Michael Mottl, Rod Tam, Chris Halford, David Miller, Diane Ferreira, and the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly ("UHPA") [collectively, "the plaintiffs"] appeal from the first circuit court's final judgment filed on July 20, 2000, in favor of Earl I. Anzai, the predecessor of the defendant-appellee Neal Miyahira, in his capacity as then-director of finance of the State of Hawai`i,<sup>1</sup> and the defendant-appellee Benjamin J. Cayetano, in his capacity as the governor of the State of Hawai`i. The plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, pursuant to which the final judgment was entered, inasmuch as: (1) the statute on which the circuit court relied, Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 37-37 (1993 & Supp.2000),² was inapplicable to the stipulated facts; (2) the circuit court misread HRS § 37-37; (3) the circuit court misconstrued a statement in the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as a "judicial admission"; and (4) the circuit court overlooked applicable legal authority cited by the plaintiffs in reaching its ultimate conclusion. Miyahira and Cayetano argue that: (1) the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the present action; (2) the case is moot; (3) their decision to reduce the University of Hawaii's allotment of funds appropriated for it in the fiscal year 1998 was within their constitutional and statutory authority; and (4) the plaintiffs conceded in their pleadings that the reduction was legal.

We agree with Miyahira and Cayetano that the plaintiffs lack standing to assert the claims for relief at issue in this matter. Accordingly, we need not and do not reach the merits of the plaintiffs' appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court's judgment in favor of Anzai and Cayetano and against the plaintiffs and remand the case to the circuit court with instructions to enter an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of Hawai`i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai`i 51, 55, 979 P.2d 1077, 1081 (1999)

.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 23, 1998, UHPA, which is a labor union representing University of Hawai`i faculty members, and Alexander Malahoff, Linda Currivan, Diane Ferreira, Hugh Folk, Vincent Linares, and David Miller,<sup>3</sup> each of whom was a University of Hawai`i faculty member, [collectively the "federal plaintiffs"] filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the district of Hawai`i [hereinafter, the "federal action"] against Cayetano and Sam Callejo, in his capacity as the comptroller of the State of Hawai`i, [hereinafter, the "federal defendants"] for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to prevent the implementation of the "payroll lag act."⁴ See University of Hawaii Professional Assembly v. Cayetano, 183 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir.1999)

. On May 6, 1998, the federal plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. See University of Hawaii Professional Assembly v. Cayetano, 16 F.Supp.2d 1242, 1244 (D.Haw.1998). On June 16, 1998, the federal court granted the motion.⁵

Id. at 1248. The federal defendants moved for a stay of the preliminary injunction, which was denied. See Cayetano, 183 F.3d at 1101.

The parties stipulated to the sequence of events that followed the issuance of the preliminary injunction as follows:

10. On June 25, 1998, following the issuance of the preliminary injunction, President [of the University of Hawai`i Kenneth] Mortimer wrote to Governor Cayetano, requesting the release to the [University of Hawai`i] of the money that had previously been restricted.

11. On or about July 9, 1998, the [University of Hawai`i] met with Governor Cayetano and Budget Director Anzai regarding how to deal with the just-expired fiscal quarter.

12. At the meeting, the [University of Hawai`i], through President Mortimer and Vice President [Eugene] Imai, asked Governor Cayetano to lift the restriction of the fourth quarter [fiscal year] 1998 allotment, since the anticipated savings from the lag had not been achieved, due to the federal injunction. [Vice President] Imai was concerned that unless the restriction were lifted, the [University of Hawai`i] would be in essence committed to spending [approximately] 6.2 million dollars more than had been released to it, and there was a potential for violating HRS § 37-42.⁶

13. Budget Director Anzai opposed lifting the restriction, since that would have created an alteration in his financial plan, and a reduction in the State's general fund balance.

14. Furthermore, although the State revenues were somewhat above expectations, and the restricted funds could have been restored to the [University of Hawai`i] budget, Budget Director Anzai considered restoration of the [University of Hawai`i] budget undesirable, since the administration had higher priorities if restrictions were to be lifted, such as Head Start.

15. Also, Budget Director Anzai considered that the [University of Hawai`i] could encumber monies and direct them to different ends.

16. On July 14, 1998, Governor Cayetano informed President Mortimer in writing that he had decided not to restore the money that had been restricted in anticipation of the payroll lag.

17. As a result of Governor Cayetano's decision not to lift the restriction in the [University of Hawaii's] fourth quarter allotment, the [University of Hawai`i] had to react to the 6.2 million dollar budgetary shortfall in that quarter.

18. The [University of Hawai`i] had "encumbered" [fiscal year] 1998 monies to pay for various charges incurred in 1998. Following Governor Cayetano's refusal to release the restriction, the [University of Hawai`i], with the encouragement of Budget Director Anzai, had to "unencumber" about 6.4 million [dollars] of [fiscal year] 1998 money, use it to pay faculty salary due on June 30, 1998, and then encumber about 6.4 million [dollars] of [fiscal year] 1999 money to pay for the unpaid [fiscal year] 1998 charges.

19. An encumbrance is a commitment of money from an appropriation to the payment of particular bills.

. . . .

23. [Vice President] Imai expected, based on a letter from Governor Cayetano and followup discussions with his staff, that there would be an emergency appropriation in [fiscal year] 1999 to cover what had become a shortage in [fiscal year] 1999, due to shifting of [fiscal year] 1998 expenses to [fiscal year] 1999.

24. The Legislature did not make an emergency appropriation to the [University of Hawai`i].

On October 26, 1998, the plaintiffs filed the present complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the first circuit court. The plaintiffs stated in the complaint that they sought "to restore to the University of Hawaii a sum of money which was deducted from it by [Anzai and Cayetano] in violation of state law." The plaintiffs were identified as: (1) UHPA, a labor organization and the collective bargaining agent of the faculty of the University of Hawai`i; (2) Michael Mottl, David Miller, and Diane Ferreira, who were University of Hawai`i faculty members and directors of UHPA; (3) Rod Tam, who was a member of the Hawai`i State Senate; and (4) Chris Halford, who was a member of the Hawai`i State House of Representatives.

The complaint alleged: (1) a violation of the principle of separation of powers implicit in the Hawai`i Constitution by reducing, without authority, the budgetary allocation to the University of Hawai`i below the amount legislatively appropriated; and (2) a violation of HRS ch. 37 by (a) failure to restore to the University of Hawai`i an amount sufficient to pay the faculty paychecks on June 30, 1998 when the federal injunction precluded implementation of the payroll lag, (b) causing monies encumbered in fiscal year 1998 for the purchase of supplies, services, and other purposes to be diverted to the payment of salaries, and (c) causing the University of Hawaii's budget in fiscal year 1999 to be impaired by the cost shifted from the fiscal year 1998. The complaint prayed for a declaration that Anzai and Cayetano had violated the law and for an injunction directing them "to add to the Fiscal Year 1999 [University of Hawai`i] budget an amount sufficient to offset the improper cut imposed on the Fiscal Year 1998 budget."

On April 4, 2000, the parties filed their factual stipulation. On May 15, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that HRS ch. 37 required Anzai and Cayetano to remove the restriction of the University of Hawaii's allotment for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998 when the payroll lag was enjoined. They emphasized that, in order to prevent the executive branch's unfettered discretion and potential for abuse in altering legislative appropriations, the statutory provisions for the reduction of appropriated expenditures should be narrowly construed and precisely delimited. They pointed out that HRS ch. 37 affords the University of Hawai`i special autonomy in setting its own quarterly allotments, reflecting the legislature's intent to limit the executive...