Official website of the City and County of Honolulu
  You are here:  Main / Customer Services / Public Communications Division / 2013 / 05/24/13 Judge Rules In Favor Of City, Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Stored Property Ordinance In "De-Occupy Honolulu" Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                                     May 23, 2013

Contact: Jesse Broder Van Dyke 768-6928


 On Tuesday, May 21, United States District Court Judge J. Michael Seabright issued an order in “De-Occupy Honolulu v. City & County of Honolulu” denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and an order granting in part the City’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.   

 The ruling allows the City to continue enforcing the Stored Property Ordinance. 

 Mayor Kirk Caldwell applauded Judge Seabright’s orders. 

 “Sidewalks are built for everyone in the community to walk across safely, not for individuals to block for their own use,” said Mayor Caldwell. “The city will continue to enforce the Stored Property ordinance and park closure hours, and we look forward to enforcing Bill 7 when the rule making process is completed by the end of the next month.”

 In his 20-page order denying De-Occupy Honolulu’s motion for preliminary injunction, Judge Seabright indicated that the Plaintiffs’ injunction and constitutional challenge to the City’s Stored Property Ordinance is not likely to succeed on the merits. 

 In his 34-page order granting in part the City’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, the judge rejected, among other things, Plaintiffs’ claim that the City violated King Kamehameha’s “Law of the Splintered Paddle.”  The Court also rejected Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment “takings” claim against the City.  In granting the City’s Motion to Dismiss these claims, the Court noted that Plaintiffs would not be permitted to amend the complaint, as any amendment to these claims would be “futile.”

 Judge Seabright granted the City’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ “conspiracy,” “negligent supervision and training,” and “fraud” claims, but gave Plaintiffs until June 10 a third amended complaint on these claims.  The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages against the City. 

 The City’s attorneys will continue to aggressively defend the City and former City employees in connection with the claims that remain pending in the case.