Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agritourism

No Private Right of Action Exists to Enforce State Land Use Statutes

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd., 194 P.3d 1126 (Haw. Ct. App. 2008), the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i held that no private right of action existed to enforce HRS chapter 205 or the Moloka'i Community Plan, and therefore dismissed the plaintiffs' claims alleging violations of those statutory and local land use provisions for lack of standing.

Background

Molokai Ranch sought to develop fifteen commercial campgrounds on agricultural lands. Id. at 1127. Maui County officials believed that it was a permissible use of the lands, so the Ranch obtained building permits and began construction. Id. Plaintiffs brought an action against the Ranch and Maui County officials seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, and they requested that the circuit court vacate the Ranch's building permits. Id. at 1128. The court found in favor of the defendants, determining that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' statutory land use claim because the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies, and also that the planned project did not violate the requirements of the Moloka'i Community Plan, and the plaintiffs appealed. Id.

Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that the circuit court erred in dismissing their statutory land use claim for lack of jurisdiction, and that the planned project violated HRS chapter 205 and the Moloka'i Community Plan as a matter of law. Id. at 1129.

Analysis and Holdings

The appellate court held that no private cause of action existed to enforce state statutory land use laws for violations of HRS chapter 205, reasoning that other similar states included provisions expressly authorizing private causes of action whereas this one did not; therefore, it found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their statutory land use claim. Id. at 1147. The court found no indication of legislative intent to create a private right of action, and explained that such a right would be inconsistent with the underlying purposes of HRS chapter 205 (to preserve, protect and encourage development). Id. at 1150-51. Following the same reasoning, the court further determined that no private cause of action existed to enforce the Moloka'i Community Plan. As a result, the court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the defendants. Id. at 1154.

The case was decided on October 21, 2008.