Anthony Ranken & Associates
ANTHONY L. RANKEN 3348
SAMUEL P. SHNIDER 10098
222 N. Church Street
Wailuku, HI 96793
Phone: (808) 244-7011
Fax: (808) 244-7022

Electronically Filed
SECOND CIRCUIT
2CCV-19-0001012
28-OCT-2019
06:44 PM

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
MICHAEL P. VICTORINO, MAYOR
)
OF THE COUNTY OF MAUI &
MOANA M. LUTEY, CORPORATION )
)
COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF
)
MAUI,
)
Defendants.
ANGUS L.K. MCKELVEY, JOANNE
JOHNSON WINER, ARCHIE
KALEPA, KEʻEAUMOKU KAPU,
and MAUI TOMORROW
FOUNDATION, INC.

CIVIL NO._________________________
(other civil action)
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COME NOW Plaintiffs herein, ANGUS L.K. MCKELVEY, JOANNE
JOHNSON WINER, ARCHIE KALEPA, KEʻEAUMOKU KAPU, and MAUI
TOMORROW FOUNDATION, INC., and for their complaint against the abovenamed defendants, allege and aver as follows:

 PARTIES
1. Plaintiff MAUI TOMORROW FOUNDATION, INC. (Maui Tomorrow) is a
501(c)(3) non-profit environmental advocacy organization dedicated to the
protection of the island of Maui's precious natural areas and prime open space for
recreational use and aesthetic value. Maui Tomorrow serves as a watchdog for
enforcement of Hawaii's environmental and land use laws. Maui Tomorrow
supporters and the general public access natural areas on and off shore for camping,
shore fishing, net fishing, snorkeling, spearfishing, surfing, standup paddle
boarding, kayaking, and a range of other water related recreational and cultural
activities. Since 1990, Maui Tomorrow has promoted the concept of ecologically
sound development and is concerned with land-based activities that affect the
health of offshore reef ecosystems. Maui Tomorrow believes these impacts are
unnecessary and are inconsistent with ecologically sound development. Maui
Tomorrow’s ability to serve the Maui community, to carry out its advocacy mission,
and to preserve and improve the quality of life for future generations all depend on
appropriate environmental review and public processes.
2. Plaintiff ANGUS L.K. MCKELVEY is an individual and life-long resident of
West Maui who is deeply involved in the community. Plaintiff has personal
knowledge of the Lahaina injection wells issue in its entirety as both a community
member, and as the elected representative for state house District 10, where said
injection wells are located, for the past sixteen years.
3. Plaintiff JOANNE JOHNSON WINER is a taxpaying citizen of Maui,
Hawaii. As a former member of the Maui County Council (hereinafter “Council” or
“County Council”) she is concerned about protecting the proper role and the
authority of the Council in County government decisions. As a resident of the
affected area (Lahaina side) of Maui she is directly and personally affected by the
injection wells and the resulting diminution of water quality and damage to the

2

 coral reefs in the region.
4. Plaintiff ARCHIE KALEPA is a lifelong resident of the district of Lahaina,
Hawai‘i. He has lived in West Maui for his entire life, and his family has lived in
Lahaina for six generations. He is a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner, whose
traditional and customary practices include navigational voyaging, diving, fishing,
surfing, paddling, and other ocean-going and nearshore gathering practices. Mr.
Kalepa is a retired lifeguard, fisherman, professional surfer, and all-around
waterman. He has regularly accessed surf breaks, nearshore fisheries, and
paddling, gathering, and camping areas along the coast of West Maui. He counts
among his cultural practices the protection of Maui’s nearshore resources, reefs, and
beaches, for future generations to come.
5. Plaintiff KEʻEAUMOKU KAPU is a resident of Maui who resides in
Kauaʻula above Lahaina, and is a traditional cultural consultant and community
organizer. He states: “Our issue with the Mayor’s decision is that the lack of
accountability for our resources does not guarantee the ability of my future
generations in passing generational knowledge when it comes to the rights to
gather our medicinal fauna from the sea. This decision also affects the right to
harvest for our kupuna that are not able to harvest for themselves. Finally, the lack
of consultation with native Hawaiians that have never been considered should be a
separate issue from the broader community."
6. Defendant MICHAEL P. VICTORINO, MAYOR OF THE COUNTY OF MAUI
(“the Mayor”) is the Mayor of the County of Maui, State of Hawaii and is named as
a defendant herein in that capacity.
7. Defendant MOANA M. LUTEY, CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE
COUNTY OF MAUI (“Corporation Counsel”) is Corporation Counsel for the County
of Maui and is named as a defendant herein in that capacity.

3

 JURISDICTION
8. All of the events, activities and circumstances that give rise to this action
took place in the County of Maui, State of Hawaii, within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
9. This action is brought under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 632-1 as an action for
declaratory relief.
10. Plaintiffs further seek injunctive relief as detailed below.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11. On April 16, 2012, the Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al. filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii ("District Court"),
Civil No. 12-198 BMK, against the County of Maui, alleging violations under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, entitled
Hawaii Wildlife Fund et al. v. County of Maui (“LWRF Lawsuit”).
12. On January 23, 2015, and June 25, 2015, the District Court granted
Plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment in the LWRF Lawsuit.
13. To avoid incurring expenses and the uncertainty of a judicial determination
of the parties' respective rights and liabilities, the County Council approved a
Settlement Agreement by Resolution 15-75 (“2015 Settlement Agreement").
14. The 2015 Settlement Agreement was lodged with the District Court on
September 24, 2015, and following federal government review pursuant to
40 C.F.R. §135.5, the District Court entered the Settlement Agreement and Order
and entered its Judgment on November 17, 2015.
15. Pursuant to the terms of the 2015 Settlement Agreement and Order, the
Parties agreed that the County reserved the right to appeal the rulings of the
District Court to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and on to the United States
Supreme Court.
16. The County of Maui appealed the District Court's decision to the Ninth

4

 Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 15-17447, and the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the appeal on February 1, 2018.
17. The County of Maui filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court on August 27, 2018, and on February 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme
Court granted the County of Maui's petition. (Supreme Court case no. 18-260)
18. Corporation Counsel received from Plaintiffs' counsel and transmitted to the
County Council's Governance, Ethics, and Transparency Committee, "Confidential
Settlement Communication - FRE 408," dated April 26, 2019 (with amendments
made on May 9, 2019) (hereinafter “2019 Proposed Settlement”).
19. On August 16, 2019, the Maui News published an opinion piece by Mayor
VICTORINO in which he acknowledged the Maui County Council's authority to
settle the case, referring to "rhetoric aimed at persuading our lawmakers to
withdraw from the Supreme Court.”
20. At the County Council meeting of September 20, 2019, five months after
deliberations about the 2019 Proposed Settlement commenced, the Corporation
Counsel for the first time questioned the County Council's authority to settle the
case. The County Council considered the concerns raised by the Corporation
Counsel, but did not find them persuasive.
21. On September 25, 2019, the Council passed Resolution No. 19-158, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Resolution No. 19-158 had the following
essential terms:
a. Approving settlement of the case under the terms set forth in the 2019
Proposed Settlement as amended in open session before the
reconvened September 3, 2019 meeting of the Governance, Ethics, and
Transparency Committee on September 6, 2019;
b. Authorizing the Mayor to execute a Release and Settlement Agreement
on behalf of the County in the case;
c. Authorizing the Director of Finance to satisfy said settlement of the

5

 case; and
d. Ordering that certified copies of the resolution be transmitted to the
Mayor, the Director of Finance, the Director of Environmental
Management, and the Corporation Counsel.
22. After the passage of Resolution 19-158, Council Chair Kelly King sent a
memorandum to Corporation Counsel MOANA M. LUTEY directing her as follows:
On behalf of your client, the Maui County Council, may I please
request the Department of the Corporation Counsel promptly:
1. Execute a settlement agreement consistent with Resolution 19-158;
and
2. Take other necessary action, including filing papers with the
United States Supreme Court and, as needed, other actions, to
resolve the case consistent with Resolution 19-158.
23. On October 3, 2019, Corporation Counsel LUTEY sent a memorandum to
Council Chair Kelly King refusing to execute the settlement until the Mayor and
the County Council concurred on acceptance of the settlement terms. The
memorandum argued that based on the division of powers in the County Charter,
some aspects of the settlement required the Mayor’s approval, while others required
the Council’s approval, and still others required the concurrence of both.
24. Mayor VICTORINO has since stated publicly that he will not give his
approval to the settlement terms.
25. Corporation Counsel LUTEY has refused to direct the withdrawal of the
pending appeal of the LWRF Lawsuit from the United States Supreme Court
(hereinafter “the Supreme Court”).
26. As of the filing of this complaint, the settlement has not been executed.
27. As of the filing of this complaint, the LWRF Lawsuit has not been withdrawn
and remains on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court.
28. Due to their specific interests in the health of the marine environment, the

6

 Plaintiffs are directly and immediately affected by the actions of Defendants in
refusing to execute the settlement agreement and withdraw the Supreme Court
appeal. If that appeal is not withdrawn it will result in a decision by the Supreme
Court that is beyond the control of the County and that may adversely affect the
interests of the Plaintiffs which are laid out in the opening paragraphs of this
Complaint.
29. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the County then the County may be
allowed to continue injecting insufficiently treated wastewater into the Lahaina
injection wells without taking any measures to prevent the flow of that wastewater
into the ocean, and that would result in continuing pollution of the ocean by the
wells and resulting damage to the marine environment.
30. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court rules against the County then the
County will lose all the benefits of the 2019 Proposed Settlement, including
potential cost savings due to a stipulated rather than court-ordered approach to
remedying the injection well problem, and will also face the probability of the other
side in the LWRF Lawsuit being awarded substantial costs and attorney fees, which
would be minimized under the 2019 Proposed Settlement. The expense of these
items will be borne by the individual Plaintiffs herein along with other Maui
taxpayers.
31. In addition, as concerned citizens of Maui County and as an organization
representing those citizens, Plaintiffs are impacted by Defendants’ refusal to abide
by and acknowledge the authority of Section 3.16.020 of the Maui County Code. In
refusing to abide by that provision of the Maui County Code the Mayor is arrogating
to himself extraordinary powers far beyond those contemplated by the drafters of
the Maui County Charter and the Maui County Code. Under the Defendants’
interpretation of the law, the Mayor would have absolute authority to refuse to
settle virtually any legal case, and his decision could not be overruled even by a
unanimous vote of the County Council.

7

 COUNT ONE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL TO
ACCEPT 2019 PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
32. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as though fully alleged.
33. Pursuant to Maui County Code, Section 3.16.020 (E), “The decision of the
council to accept a settlement offer shall be binding on the County and on legal
counsel.”
34. Pursuant to Maui County Code, Section 3.16.020 (D), the roles of both the
mayor and corporation counsel in responding to settlement offers above $7,500 are
limited to making a “recommendation” to the County Council. The dictionary
definition of “recommendation” is “a suggestion or proposal as to the best course of action”.
A recommendation by definition is not binding; it can either be adopted or rejected
by the decision maker, which pursuant to §3.16.020 (E) is the County Council.
35. Pursuant to the Maui County Charter, §7-5 (17), Defendant Mayor
VICTORINO has the duty to enforce all provisions of the County Charter and all
ordinances of the county.
36. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the County Council has
the exclusive authority to accept the 2019 Proposed Settlement pursuant to Maui
County Code, Section 3.16.020 (E), and that the resolution of the County Council to
settle the LWRF Lawsuit is therefore binding on the County and on legal counsel.
37. In the alternative, the Charter of the County of Maui, §2-2, provides as
follows:
All powers of the county shall be carried into execution as provided by this
charter, or, if the charter makes no provisions, as provided by ordinance or
resolution of the county council.
Therefore if the Court finds that no provision of the charter defines which branch of
government is entrusted with the authority to settle or compromise civil claims
against the County, then pursuant to the Charter of the County of Maui, §2-2, the

8

 authority to settle or compromise a claim against the County rests solely with the
County Council.
COUNT TWO: DECLARATORY RELIEF AS TO DISQUALIFICATION OF
CORPORATION COUNSEL FROM REPRESENTATION OF CONCURRENT
CLIENTS WITH CONFLICTING INTERESTS
38. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully alleged.
39. For the Corporation Counsel to represent the mayor or itself in this case
would violate the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) §§1.7(a)(1) and
1.7(a)(2).
40. Pursuant to the Charter of the County of Maui §8-2.3, Defendant MOANA
LUTEY, CORPORATION COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY OF MAUI, represents
the County of Maui in all legal proceedings.
41. The Corporation Counsel serves in a dual role in which her clients actually
include both Defendant MICHAEL VICTORINO, MAYOR OF THE COUNTY OF
MAUI, and the County Council.
42. Under HRPC §1.7(a)(1), “A lawyer shall not represent a client...if the
representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client.”
43. As the interests and positions of Defendant LUTEY’s two clients the mayor
and the County Council are directly adverse to one another regarding both the
settlement of the LWRF Lawsuit and the question raised in this Complaint of
whether the Council has exclusive authority to settle the LWRF lawsuit, the
Corporation Counsel is barred from representing either party in this lawsuit.
44. Pursuant to HRPC §1.7(a)(2), “A lawyer shall not represent a client...if there
is a significant risk that the representation…will be materially limited by the
lawyer’s responsibilities to another client…or by a personal interest of the lawyer.”
45. Defendant LUTEY as a Defendant herein has a personal interest in this
lawsuit that is in conflict with her responsibilities to her client the Maui County

9

 Council. Therefore she or her office cannot represent her as a Defendant in this
lawsuit.
46. In addition, for Defendant LUTEY or her office to attempt to represent
herself in this lawsuit would pit her interests against those of the County Council,
which is another client of Defendant LUTEY, and her responsibilities to that client
would materially limit her ability to represent herself, in violation of HRPC
§1.7(a)(2).
WHEREFORE, upon a trial of this matter, Plaintiff demands that the Court
grant Plaintiffs the following relief against Defendants:
a. A declaratory judgment of law on the above matters;
b. An order requiring the Mayor to execute a Release and Settlement
Agreement on behalf of the County in the LWRF case, implementing
the terms of the 2019 Proposed Settlement as provided by County
Council Resolution No. 19-158;
c. An order that Corporation Counsel immediately direct the withdrawal
of the Supreme Court appeal, S.Ct. No. 18-260;
d. An order that Corporation Counsel be barred from representing Maui
County in this matter;
e. Attorney’s fees and costs; and
f. Any other relief that the court deems proper.
DATED:

Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, October 28, 2019.

_________________________
ANTHONY L. RANKEN
Attorney for Plaintiffs

10