Smallwood v. City and County of Honolulu
| Decision Date | 14 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 27285.,27285. |
| Citation | 185 P.3d 887,118 Haw. 139 |
| Parties | Craig SMALLWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Carl Foytik, on the briefs, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Don S. Kitaoka, Deputy Corporation Counsel, on the briefs, for Defendant-Appellee.
Plaintiff-Appellant Craig Smallwood (Smallwood) appeals from a Judgment filed on February 23, 2005 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) in Civil No. 04-1-2315-12.1 The Circuit Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee City and County of Honolulu (City) upon the Circuit Court's February 23, 2005 Order Granting City's Motion to Dismiss Smallwood's Complaint (Order Granting Dismissal). The Circuit Court based its dismissal of the Complaint on two findings: (1) that the claims set forth in the Complaint were previously adjudicated in Smallwood v. City, Civil No. 04-1-0974-05 (Prior Litigation) and, therefore, the Complaint constituted an impermissible "collateral attack" on a prior judgment; and (2) that the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over certain claims set forth in the Complaint because Smallwood failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to those claims.
On appeal, Smallwood argues that the Circuit Court erred in finding that the Complaint constituted a collateral attack on the judgment in the Prior Litigation. Smallwood does not challenge on appeal the Circuit Court's second finding that it lacked jurisdiction over certain claims in the Complaint based on Smallwood's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The judgment in the Prior Litigation: (1) dismissed without prejudice a prior complaint by Smallwood against City; and (2) dismissed with prejudice certain claims for injunctive relief that were actually adjudicated on the merits in that case. Smallwood's Complaint herein does not seek to indirectly set aside, invalidate, avoid, or impeach the judgment in the Prior Litigation through an independent action seeking an alternative form of relief or result. Therefore, we hold that the filing of the Complaint did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the prior judgment. The Circuit Court's ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over certain of Smallwood's claims was not an adjudication on the merits and, accordingly, the Circuit Court's dismissal with prejudice must have been based on the erroneous application of the collateral attack doctrine. We vacate the Judgment and Order Granting Dismissal and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
The Prior Litigation was initiated on May 26, 2004, with Smallwood's pro se filing of an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Against the Issuance of Permits (and for Preliminary Injunction) (Prior Injunctive Relief Motion), rather than a complaint. Smallwood served the Prior Injunctive Relief Motion on City. Haseko (Ewa), Inc. (Haseko), the developer whose project would have been impeded by the injunctive relief, intervened and opposed the Prior Injunctive Relief Motion.2 After three days of evidentiary hearings, the Prior Injunctive Relief Motion was denied. On September 14, 2004, the circuit court entered an Order Denying Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Against Issuance of Permits (and for Preliminary Injunction) in the Prior Litigation (Prior Order Denying Injunctive Relief).
Two and one-half months after the Prior Injunctive Relief Motion was filed, and after two of the three hearing days on that motion, Smallwood filed pro se a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Prior Litigation, on behalf of himself and various Doe Plaintiffs, naming City, Haseko, and various Doe Defendants. No summons was issued. The Complaint in the Prior Litigation included a ten-paragraph introduction, thirty-one paragraphs of "facts and allegations" and prayed for various relief related to the removal of a retaining wall bordering the Ocean Pointe Development along Papipi Road in `Ewa Beach, as well as compensatory and punitive damages to Smallwood and others for injuries that allegedly stemmed from the development project.
On August 30, 2004, Haseko filed (in the Prior Litigation) a Motion to Dismiss and/or, in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement and to Strike Portions of the Complaint. On August 31, 2004, City filed a Joinder. Haseko's Motion to Dismiss and City's Joinder came on for hearing on September 29, 2004 and October 25, 2004. At the October 25, 2004 hearing in the Prior Litigation, the colloquy between the court and counsel included (highlights added):
THE COURT: Well, this case has had an interesting procedural backdrop. Haseko intervened. There was never even an initial complaint regarding Haseko. There's never been a summons. Many of the claims here purport to be sort of on the — like a class action, without any of the real allegations described.
It's just very hard to figure out what exactly is going on. And in light of the procedural background, in light of the complaint as it presently is worded, and the fact that there's been no summons, the court grants the motion to dismiss. It will be without prejudice if Mr. Smallwood or his counsel, you, Mr. Foytik, can — you're free to refile a new action, I guess is what I'm saying, appropriately if you care to.
Hang on.
The — the — if the — if the case is dismissed without prejudice, all the — all the rulings in the case go away. That there's — there's no — there's no judgment on the case. There's no — there's no consideration of the case on its merits if they're — if it's dismissed without prejudice.
On November 9, 2004, the court in the Prior Litigation entered an Order Granting Haseko's Motion to Dismiss the Prior Litigation and City's Joinder therein (Prior Order Granting Dismissal). In the Prior Order Granting Dismissal, the court ordered that Smallwood's Complaint "setting forth claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, property damage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, trespass, failure to obtain either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, use of intimidation, threats and violence to suppress opposition to development, for administrative irregularity, and for punitive damages is dismissed without prejudice." (Emphasis added.)
On November 18, 2004, the court in the Prior Litigation entered a Judgment on the Prior Order Denying Injunctive Relief, and the Prior Order Granting Dismissal (First Judgment). On January 24, 2005, the court in the Prior Litigation entered a First Amended Judgment, with certain clerical corrections, as follows (Amended Judgment):
(1) In favor of Intervenor-Defendant Haseko (Ewa), Inc., and Defendant City and County of Honolulu, and against Plaintiff Craig Smallwood, on the claim for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory Judgement (sic), filed August 9, 2004, and Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Against Issuance of Permits (and for Preliminary Injunction), filed September 14, 2004, as to Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief to restrain issuance of permits to Haseko (Ewa) Inc., remove the wall on Haseko (Ewa) Inc.'s Ewa property and otherwise terminate construction by Haseko (Ewa) Inc. at the subject location.
(2) In favor of Intervenor-Defendant Haseko (Ewa), Inc., and Defendant City and County of Honolulu, and against Plaintiff Craig Smallwood, on the claim for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory Judgement (sic), filed August 9, 2004, as to Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief.
(3) [In favor of Haseko and City and against Smallwood] ... on the claim for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint ... for property damage.
(4) [In favor of Haseko and City and against Smallwood] ... on the claim for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint ... for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
(5) [In favor of Haseko and City and against Smallwood] ... on the claim for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint ... for nuisance.
(6) [In favor of Haseko and City and against Smallwood] ... on the claim for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint ... for trespass.
(7) [In favor of Haseko and City and against Smallwood] ... on the claim for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint for ... [failure to obtain an EA or EIS].
(8) [In favor of Haseko and City and against Smallwood] ... on the claim for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint ... [alleging] intimidation, threats and violence to suppress opposition to development.
(9) [In favor of Haseko and City and against Smallwood] ... on the claim for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint ... [alleging] administrative irregularity.
(10) [In favor of Haseko and City and against Smallwood] ... on the claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McShane v. Dep't of Parks & Recreation
...final judgment on the merits was rendered in the prior action. Santos, 64 Haw. at 653, 646 P.2d 962; Smallwood v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 118 Haw. 139, 185 P.3d 887, 894 (Ct. App. 2008). If any of these elements are not met, claim preclusion cannot apply. 1. Final Judgment on the Merits......
-
Langer v. Rice
...matter, Florida law regarding res judicata is generally in accord with Hawai'i law. See Smallwood v. City and County of Honolulu, 118 Hawai'i 139, 146-47, 185 P.3d 887, 894-95 (App. 2008); Tortorello v. Tortorello, 113 Hawai'i 432, 439, 153 P.3d 1117, 1124 (2007) (setting forth elements of ......
-
In re Hawai‘i Elec. Light Co.
...is implicated when an independent suit seeks to impeach a judgment entered in a prior suit." Smallwood v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 118 Hawai‘i 139, 150, 185 P.3d 887, 898 (App. 2008). This court has similarly stated that "[a]ppellate courts in Hawai‘i have typically only applied the colla......
-
Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs & Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
...Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 2456, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) ); Smallwood v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 118 Hawai‘i 139, 185 P.3d 887, 901 (App.2008) (citation omitted). See generally 50 C.J.S Judgments § 1051 (2014) (“A judgment dismissing an action ‘with......