Legal Process Docs:
11选5机选摇一摇Our initial legal action was a complaint filed in federal court on May 11, 2011 by plaintiffs, hymskdr.cn, Governor Ben Cayetano, Judge Walter Heen, Professor Randal Roth, Senator Sam Slom's SBH Educational Foundation, Hawaii's Thousand Friends, Dr. Michael Uechi MD, and Cliff Slater, against the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the City and County of Honolulu (City).
Since then the City and the FTA have responded separately denying everything and, in addition, have jointly filed Motions to dismiss some of the plaintiffs, and to dismiss some of our allegations concerning historic properties. Our attorneys believe these are nuisance motions intended to delay matters and to try run up our legal bills so that we would be unable to continue with the lawsuit. Judge A. Wallace Tashima agreed with our defense that neither the standing of plaintiffs nor the Defendants' 4(f) concerns can be determined until such time as the Defendants produce the Administrative Record, which Judge A. Wallace Tashima ruled that they must produce the Index by January 20, 2012, and the full electronic version of the Administrative Record by February 24, 2012.
We received the Administrative Record on February 24. It is approximately 44Gb in size and consists of 155,000 pages. We will comment on it later.
Full details of the environmental process are available at hymskdr.cn/processdocs.htm
Here is a third party attorney's view of the proceedings from
Not included in this listing are minor declarations and proofs of service.
Hawaii Federal District Court:
Original Complaint 5/11/11.
City's response to the Complaint. 7/18/11.
FTA's response the Complaint. 8/12/11.
Nossaman Letter to Yost. 10/26/2011.
Declaration of Robert Loy re above Memorandum. 12/29/2012.
Filings re intervenors. 1/3/2012.
Scheduling order. 1/10/2012.
Opposition of Plaintiffs to intervenors. 1/26/2012
Declaration of Yost opposing intervenors. 11选5机选摇一摇 1/26/2012.
Administrative Record Index from FTA11选5机选摇一摇. 2/3/2012.
FTA grants LONP to HART. 2/6/2012.
Status Conference Order. 3/27/2012.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. 4/6/2012.
Intervenors Answer to Amended Complaint.11选5机选摇一摇 5/7/2012.
City Answer to Amended Complaint. 5/7/2012.
Federal Defendants' Answer11选5机选摇一摇 6/7/2012.
Judge's Order on Defendant's MPSJ. 5/17/2012.
Internvenors Memo Opposing Plaintiff's MSJ.11选5机选摇一摇 6/1/2012
Memo Supporting Defendants MSJ. 6/1/2012.
Federal Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's MSJ.11选5机选摇一摇 6/1/2012.
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of MSJ. 6/22/2012
Federal Defendents Reply to Plaintiffs. 7/13/2012.
City's Reply to Plaintiffs. 7/13/2012.
Intervenor's Reply to Plaintiffs. 7//13/2012.
Exhibit to Intervenor's Reply. 7/13/2012.
Ruling in the federal lawsuit on November 1, 2012.
Click here11选5机选摇一摇 for the complete legal history of our case through December 27, 2012 from PACER.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
Expedite request granted. May 2, 2013.
Our appeal filed. May 15, 2013.
FTA reply brief.11选5机选摇一摇 June 19, 2013.
City reply brief. June 19, 2013.
PRP reply brief11选5机选摇一摇. June 19, 2013.
Our reply brief. July 8, 2013.