Yoshimura v. Takahashi

• Decision Date: 11 March 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 19-00686 JAO-RT
• Citation: 446 F.Supp.3d 644
• Parties: Tracy YOSHIMURA, Plaintiff, v. Glen I. TAKAHASHI, City Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu; Moana Yost; City and County of Honolulu; John Does 1–10; Jane Does 1–10; Doe Governmental Entities 1–10, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

446 F.Supp.3d 644

Tracy YOSHIMURA, Plaintiff,

v.Glen I. TAKAHASHI, City Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu; Moana Yost; City and County of Honolulu; John Does 1–10; Jane Does 1–10; Doe Governmental Entities 1–10, Defendants.

CIVIL NO. 19-00686 JAO-RT

United States District Court, D. Hawai‘i.

Signed March 11, 2020

Keith M. Kiuchi, Honolulu, Hi for Plaintiff.

Moana A. Yost, Jessica Yan-Kay Wong, Department of the Corporation Counsel, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants Glen I. Takahashi, City and County of Honolulu.

Robert M. Kohn, Department of the Corporation Counsel, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant Moana Yost.

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS GLEN I. TAKAHASHI, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU AND THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AND (2) DEEMING MOOT DEFENDANT MOANA YOST'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Jill A. Otake, United States District Judge

In this action, Plaintiff Tracy Yoshimura ("Plaintiff") seeks an order requiring Defendants City and County of Honolulu ("the City"), Glen I. Takahashi ("Takahashi") (collectively, "Defendants"), and Defendant Moana Yost ("Yost") to accept electronic signatures, pursuant to the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ("E-SIGN Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq. , in support of his petition to impeach Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro ("Kaneshiro"). Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Yost moves to dismiss as she is an improper party and because she did not violate the E-SIGN Act.

For the reasons articulated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 11, and DEEMS MOOT Yost's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief. ECF No. 10.

BACKGROUND

A. State Court Proceedings

1. Circuit Court—First Petition

On December 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Impeachment of Prosecuting Attorney Keith M. Kaneshiro Pursuant to Sec. 12-203 of the Honolulu City Charter in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i ("First Circuit Court"). ECF No. 11-4.¹ Plaintiff obtained the over 800 electronic signatures attached to the Petition through Change.org. Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 8.

On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Petition for Impeachment of Prosecuting Attorney Keith M. Kaneshiro Pursuant to Sec. 12-203 of the Honolulu City Charter ("First Amended Petition" or "Petition"). ECF No. 11-5. Plaintiff subsequently filed an Ex Parte Motion for Status Conference on the First Amended Petition. ECF No. 11-6.

In a memorandum filed on April 23, 2019, Plaintiff argued that the E-SIGN Act and Hawai'i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 489E-7 of Hawaii's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act required the City to accept the electronic signatures supporting his Petition. ECF No. 11-8 at 3–4. Plaintiff surmised that Hawaii's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act was likely passed in response to the enactment of the E-SIGN Act. Id. at 3 n.1.

At an April 24, 2019 status conference, the Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree, Judge of the First Circuit Court, State of Hawai'i, identified the two issues presented in Plaintiff's memorandum: (1) "are electronic signatures allowable for this impeachment petition," and (2) "is the voter's address required." ECF No. 11-10 at 3:3–5. Indeed, throughout the proceedings, the validity of electronic signatures remained a primary issue. At a June 24, 2019 motion hearing, Plaintiff's counsel argued that Judge Crabtree needed to decide "whether or not electronic signatures are acceptable or not." ECF No. 11-19 at 25:3–6.

Judge Crabtree issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (1) Denying Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend Petition and to Name City Clerk as a Respondent in a Declaratory Judgment Complaint, Filed May 6, 2019; (2) Denying Respondent Keith M. Kaneshiro's Cross-Motion to Strike Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend Petition and to Name City Clerk as a Respondent in a Declaratory Judgment Complaint, Filed on May 17, 2019; and (3) Dismissing Case for Lack of Jurisdiction ("FOFCOL"). ECF No. 11-21. In pertinent part, he ruled that:

8. The court finds and concludes it is not unreasonable or discriminatory for the City to take the position that fraudulent or questionable signatures are a valid concern for online petitions to impeach duly elected public officials. See Perotka v. Cronon [Cronin], 117 Haw 323 (2008).

9. Petitioner argues the City must accept digital signatures pursuant to HRS 489E-7, which among other things provides that if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law. Per the same 4/23/19 letter from Corporation Counsel, the City's position is that it is not required to accept digital signatures for impeachment petitions, because HRS 489E-18(c) gives it the discretion to allow or not allow digital signatures. The court concludes this discretionary "carve out" in 489E-18(c) expressly applies to government entities, so in essence HRS 489E-18(c) can trump HRS 489E-7 when a government entity is involved.

10. In view of HRS 489E-18(c), and given the City's concern with both a) hand-written versus electronic signatures, and b) ability to verify a signature is from a duly registered voter, the court respectfully rejects Petitioner's argument that the City must accept digital signatures without residential addresses for impeachment petitions pursuant to HRS 489E-7.

....

13. Here, the proposed Second Amended Petition has the same defects as the two earlier petitions as described above. Since the court concludes the City has the discretion to reject the electronic signatures in this case, and since the proposed Second Amended Petition suffers from the same defects as the prior petitions, the court therefore concludes the proposed petition is futile, and the motion to amend is therefore denied.

14. Since there is no valid petition for impeachment before the court that complies with Section 12-203 of the city charter, as determined by the City's discretionary and valid requirements regarding actual signatures from demonstrably duly registered voters, the court hereby dismisses this case for lack of jurisdiction.

ECF No. 11-21.

Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the FOFCOL, contending that: (1) the court was "required to accept electronic signatures under HRS § 489E-7 and under the [E-SIGN Act] ( 15 U.S.C. § 7001, et[ ] seq.)," and (2) the City's "asserted exception to HRS § 489E-7 does NOT apply because the City did not adopt any rules to implement this exception and failed to follow the rule-making requirements of Chapter 91 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes." ECF No. 11-22 at 2. In the memorandum in support of the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argued that the E-SIGN Act preempts state law and that "the City is required to make a determination, both under the ESIGN Act and Chapter 489E, under what circumstances it will accept electronic records and signatures." Id. at 38–39. Plaintiff ultimately requested that Judge Crabtree "hold that the ESIGN Act and Chapter 489E require that electronic signatures ... be accepted and the City cannot, without following the rule-making requirements of the [Hawai'i Administrative Procedures Act], reject electronic signatures for a petition or other legal transactions and documents." Id. at 43. He also commented that when he first requested information from the City, Yost (who was and is a Deputy Corporation Counsel assigned to address the Petition) "should have conducted the necessary legal research regarding the validity of electronic signatures, including looking at BOTH the ESIGN Act and Chapter 489E." Id.

Kaneshiro responded that the E-SIGN Act does not apply to state agencies or municipalities and that it had no applicability to the case because it only covers "transaction[s] in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce." ECF No. 11-23 at 6–7 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 7001 ).

Judge Crabtree denied the motion for reconsideration:

Petitioner's Motion is hereby DENIED in its entirety. The Court still does not have jurisdiction for the reasons previously stated. Further, everything argued in the Motion was or could have been raised earlier. The Court has nevertheless considered the arguments raised in the Motion and is not persuaded on the merits, for the reasons argued in Respondent's Memorandum in Opposition.

ECF No. 11-26 at 2–3. Final judgment entered on November 15, 2019. ECF No. 11-27.

2. Hawai'i Supreme Court

On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Hawai'i Supreme Court. ECF No. 11-28. In his statement of reasons for issuing the writ, Plaintiff primarily argued that " HRS § 489E-7 Clearly Requires the Acceptance of Electronic Signatures, and HRS § 489E-18(a) and the ESIGN Act Require the City to Make a Determination of The Extent to Which it Will Send and Accept Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures." Id. at 20.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ECF No. 11-29.

3. Hawai'i Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA")

Following the denial of his Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Plaintiff appealed the FOFCOL and the order denying his motion for reconsideration to the ICA. ECF No. 11-30.

4. Circuit Court—Second Petition

While pursuing relief with the appellate courts, Plaintiff filed another petition in the First Circuit Court. ECF No. 11-31. Plaintiff reasserted the issue of whether electronic signatures can support the petition, and again contended that the E-SIGN Act preempts state law and posited that the City must determine the circumstances under which it will accept electronic records and signatures pursuant to the E-SIGN Act and HRS Chapter 489E. Id. at 11–13.

B. Current Proceedings

Plaintiff commenced this action on December 27, 2019, asserting a declaratory judgment claim (Count I) and an...