This document is the Federal Defendants' Answer to the Plaintiffs' Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The Federal Defendants deny many of the allegations in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and provide responses to each numbered paragraph corresponding to the Complaint. The Federal Defendants also assert that matters not specifically admitted in their Answer are denied.
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the reasons they are being sued.
U.S. Supreme Court Order On The Travel Ban Appeals, June 26, 2017Honolulu Civil Beat
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and partially stayed injunctions blocking enforcement of Executive Order 13780, which suspended entry of nationals from six Muslim-majority countries. Lower courts had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions, finding the order likely violated the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court's partial stay allows the 90-day travel ban to take effect but exempts foreigners with bona fide relationships with U.S. entities or individuals. Oral arguments will be heard in the fall on the constitutionality of the executive order.
1) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former federal inmate against a residential reentry center and its employees.
2) The plaintiff violated conditions of his release from federal prison by driving a car and possessing a cell phone. As a result, he was sent back to federal prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action against them because the federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, made the decision to return the plaintiff to prison for his violations of rules. Therefore, the defendants should be granted summary judgment.
Rob Brayshaw Fights With Dream Defenders v._DesantisTerry81
Rob Brayshaw is case cited in the fight with the Dream Defenders and The ACLU against Governor Ron Desantis for the Unconstitutional and illegal HB1 Bill against blacks and minorities for free speech and free press protected for legal and peaceful protests.
Proposed Rule Text from DHS on H4 Visahappyschools
This document proposes a rule to extend eligibility for employment authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders who are seeking lawful permanent resident status. Specifically, it would provide work authorization to H-4 dependent spouses whose H-1B spouse is either the beneficiary of an approved permanent residence petition or has obtained an extension under AC21 legislation. The proposed rule aims to reduce economic hardship for these families and encourage retention of skilled foreign workers during their transition to permanent residence.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
State of North Dakota's Unopposed Motion to Intervene as Petitioner; State of Wyoming v. United States Department of the Interior; Sally Jewell, in her capacity as Secretary of the Interior; Bureau of Land Management; and Neil Kornze, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Land Management
On February 27, 2015, DHS, in effect, admitted that its Family Detention Centers were in violation of the Flores settlement by seeking to modify it to allow family detention.
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the reasons they are being sued.
U.S. Supreme Court Order On The Travel Ban Appeals, June 26, 2017Honolulu Civil Beat
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and partially stayed injunctions blocking enforcement of Executive Order 13780, which suspended entry of nationals from six Muslim-majority countries. Lower courts had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions, finding the order likely violated the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court's partial stay allows the 90-day travel ban to take effect but exempts foreigners with bona fide relationships with U.S. entities or individuals. Oral arguments will be heard in the fall on the constitutionality of the executive order.
1) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former federal inmate against a residential reentry center and its employees.
2) The plaintiff violated conditions of his release from federal prison by driving a car and possessing a cell phone. As a result, he was sent back to federal prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action against them because the federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, made the decision to return the plaintiff to prison for his violations of rules. Therefore, the defendants should be granted summary judgment.
Rob Brayshaw Fights With Dream Defenders v._DesantisTerry81
Rob Brayshaw is case cited in the fight with the Dream Defenders and The ACLU against Governor Ron Desantis for the Unconstitutional and illegal HB1 Bill against blacks and minorities for free speech and free press protected for legal and peaceful protests.
Proposed Rule Text from DHS on H4 Visahappyschools
This document proposes a rule to extend eligibility for employment authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders who are seeking lawful permanent resident status. Specifically, it would provide work authorization to H-4 dependent spouses whose H-1B spouse is either the beneficiary of an approved permanent residence petition or has obtained an extension under AC21 legislation. The proposed rule aims to reduce economic hardship for these families and encourage retention of skilled foreign workers during their transition to permanent residence.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
State of North Dakota's Unopposed Motion to Intervene as Petitioner; State of Wyoming v. United States Department of the Interior; Sally Jewell, in her capacity as Secretary of the Interior; Bureau of Land Management; and Neil Kornze, in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Land Management
On February 27, 2015, DHS, in effect, admitted that its Family Detention Centers were in violation of the Flores settlement by seeking to modify it to allow family detention.
Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs response to defendants’ reply brief i...Cocoselul Inaripat
Defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's response brief to their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment for the following reasons:
1) The local court rules do not permit a response to a reply brief without court approval, which was not obtained.
2) Even if permitted, the plaintiff's response brief exceeds the 20-page limit for response briefs and the 10-page limit for reply briefs.
3) The defendants argue the plaintiff's response brief should be stricken from the record.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to a lawsuit brought by a former inmate, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities and three employees. The defendants argue that Bujduveanu violated terms of his release from federal prison by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, transferred Bujduveanu back to prison to complete his sentence. The defendants provide 27 undisputed facts with supporting documentation showing Bujduveanu signed forms acknowledging he would abide by rules prohibiting unauthorized driving and cell phone possession. The defendants argue they were not legally responsible for Bu
The State of Hawaii provided state-funded medical assistance benefits to COFA residents who lost eligibility for federal Medicaid under federal welfare reform laws. Facing budget deficits, the state implemented Basic Health Hawaii, which provided reduced benefits compared to Medicaid. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, finding the program discriminated against aliens. However, the appellants argue that providing separate state benefits for those ineligible for federal programs due to their alien status is not discriminatory. They further argue that rational basis review should apply given the federal government's role in establishing eligibility rules.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility (Dismas) as a transition from federal prison, and agreed to follow its rules. However, the plaintiff admitted driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, in violation of the rules. As a result, he was returned to federal prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The brief argues the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence and constitutional violations, as the plaintiff cannot prove the elements of these claims or that
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
This document is a joint motion by Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA to enter a scheduling order for a patent infringement case. It outlines a proposed discovery schedule including dates for initial disclosures, claim construction briefing, a Markman hearing, fact and expert discovery deadlines, summary judgment briefing and a trial date. It also sets limits on discovery including a limit of 10 depositions per side of up to 7 hours each. The parties request the court adopt this proposed scheduling order and discovery plan.
USA vs. Joe Rickey Hundley, by US District Court for N. GeorgiaUmesh Heendeniya
Joe Ricky Hundlely is accused of assaulting a 2-year old child on a Delta Airlines flight from Minneapolis to Atlanta. According to witness statements, Hundlely told the child's mother to shut her "N word" baby up, then turned and slapped the crying child in the face, leaving a scratch below his eye. This occurred while the plane was in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, violating federal assault statutes.
Gary Gauthier Florida Has Attended Michigan State Universityfranklinpinto01
Gary Gauthier has earned reputation as a renowned professional in the United States of America. He is residing in Northern Michigan for many years. He went to Michigan State University and completed his graduation. Prior to this, he also attended Utica High School. He enjoys teaching guitar to the music enthusiasts. In his free times, he loves playing soccer, golf and bowling. In addition, he also likes hunting. He mentors returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Gary holds membership with Friends of Ingham County Veterans' Treatment Court.
This document is a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss claims against defendants Susan Brown and The Law Offices of Susan Brown. It argues that (1) claims based on California procedural law cannot be brought in South Carolina court, (2) the relevant California statute only applies to acts occurring in California, and (3) the principle of res judicata bars re-litigating issues already decided in a prior motion for sanctions. The memorandum provides background on the representation of defendant Ben Thompson by Susan Brown and the limited allegations against Brown in the amended complaint.
This document provides data on educational attainment levels for geographic areas in Hawaii. It shows the percentage of the population aged 25 and over with a high school diploma, college degree, and post-graduate degree for the US, Hawaii regions and counties, and specific communities in Hawaii. Some of the highest rates of educational attainment are seen in communities in Honolulu County like Barbers Point Housing, Hickam Housing, and Maalaea. The Northeast region of the US has the highest rates of college and post-graduate degrees nationally.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help boost feelings of calmness, happiness and focus.
This document provides data on poverty rates and changes in poverty rates from 1999 to 2009 for various geographic areas in Hawaii. It ranks 124 Census Designated Places (CDPs) in Hawaii from lowest to highest poverty rate in 2009. The top CDP saw a decrease in poverty of over 97% while the bottom saw an increase of over 127%. Overall poverty decreased the most in Maui County and increased the most in the Midwest region of the United States.
This document contains crosstabs from a poll on the 2010 Hawaii gubernatorial race between Neil Abercrombie and Mufi Hannemann. It shows the candidates' levels of support across demographic groups including gender, party affiliation, religion, age and more. Education is the top issue of concern and Abercrombie leads Hannemann in overall support, especially among Democrats, liberals, Asian and Jewish voters, and those over 50 years old.
This document is a transcript of a phone survey about the upcoming November 2nd election in Hawaii. It asks respondents questions about their preferences in various races, including Governor and Congressional District 1 representative. It also asks about their views on issues like President Obama's job performance, the role of religion in government, and a proposed amendment to change how the Board of Education is selected.
Leina'ala Ahu Isa has extensive experience in education and business. She holds multiple degrees including a Ph.D. from the University of Hawaii and has worked as a professor, administrator, and politician. Currently, she is on the Board of Education and principal broker of a timeshare company. She is involved in her community through numerous organizations.
The City of Honolulu proposes constructing a 20.1-mile elevated rail line with 21 stations running from Kapolei to Ala Moana Center. The electrified rail line would run mostly along arterial streets and provide frequent service from early morning to late evening. The project aims to improve mobility and relieve congestion in the corridor constrained by mountains and water.
Oahu is facing a housing crisis with over 24,000 additional housing units needed, most for low-income households. The Mayor's Affordable Housing Strategy aims to address this need through new policies, incentives, and investments to accelerate affordable housing production. Key initiatives include an Affordable Housing Requirement for new developments over 10 units, financial incentives for affordable units, transit-oriented development zoning, and leveraging city lands and funds for affordable projects. If implemented successfully, along with continued state funding, the strategy could meet housing demand within 15 years.
Oahu is facing a housing crisis with over 24,000 additional housing units needed, most for low-income households. The Mayor's Affordable Housing Strategy aims to address this need through new policies, incentives, and investments to accelerate affordable housing production. Key initiatives include an Affordable Housing Requirement for new developments over 10 units, financial incentives for affordable units, transit-oriented development zoning, and leveraging city lands and funds for affordable projects. If implemented successfully, along with continued state funding, the strategy could help meet housing demand within 15 years.
This order rules on the defendants' request for judicial notice in a case about the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The court grants the request to take judicial notice of exhibits A, B, and C, which are the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Final Environmental Impact Statement, and Record of Decision, as they are incorporated into the complaint by reference. The court also grants the request to take judicial notice of the existence of other exhibits consisting of public records, but does not take judicial notice of the defendants' descriptions of those exhibits.
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the specific reasons they are being sued.
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the reasons they are being sued.
A motion by the City and County of Honolulu and the FTA to dismiss some plaintiffs and some claims from a federal environmental lawsuit was denied by a judge.
Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs response to defendants’ reply brief i...Cocoselul Inaripat
Defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's response brief to their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment for the following reasons:
1) The local court rules do not permit a response to a reply brief without court approval, which was not obtained.
2) Even if permitted, the plaintiff's response brief exceeds the 20-page limit for response briefs and the 10-page limit for reply briefs.
3) The defendants argue the plaintiff's response brief should be stricken from the record.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to a lawsuit brought by a former inmate, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities and three employees. The defendants argue that Bujduveanu violated terms of his release from federal prison by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, transferred Bujduveanu back to prison to complete his sentence. The defendants provide 27 undisputed facts with supporting documentation showing Bujduveanu signed forms acknowledging he would abide by rules prohibiting unauthorized driving and cell phone possession. The defendants argue they were not legally responsible for Bu
The State of Hawaii provided state-funded medical assistance benefits to COFA residents who lost eligibility for federal Medicaid under federal welfare reform laws. Facing budget deficits, the state implemented Basic Health Hawaii, which provided reduced benefits compared to Medicaid. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, finding the program discriminated against aliens. However, the appellants argue that providing separate state benefits for those ineligible for federal programs due to their alien status is not discriminatory. They further argue that rational basis review should apply given the federal government's role in establishing eligibility rules.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility (Dismas) as a transition from federal prison, and agreed to follow its rules. However, the plaintiff admitted driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, in violation of the rules. As a result, he was returned to federal prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The brief argues the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims of false arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligence and constitutional violations, as the plaintiff cannot prove the elements of these claims or that
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
This document is a joint motion by Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA to enter a scheduling order for a patent infringement case. It outlines a proposed discovery schedule including dates for initial disclosures, claim construction briefing, a Markman hearing, fact and expert discovery deadlines, summary judgment briefing and a trial date. It also sets limits on discovery including a limit of 10 depositions per side of up to 7 hours each. The parties request the court adopt this proposed scheduling order and discovery plan.
USA vs. Joe Rickey Hundley, by US District Court for N. GeorgiaUmesh Heendeniya
Joe Ricky Hundlely is accused of assaulting a 2-year old child on a Delta Airlines flight from Minneapolis to Atlanta. According to witness statements, Hundlely told the child's mother to shut her "N word" baby up, then turned and slapped the crying child in the face, leaving a scratch below his eye. This occurred while the plane was in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, violating federal assault statutes.
Gary Gauthier Florida Has Attended Michigan State Universityfranklinpinto01
Gary Gauthier has earned reputation as a renowned professional in the United States of America. He is residing in Northern Michigan for many years. He went to Michigan State University and completed his graduation. Prior to this, he also attended Utica High School. He enjoys teaching guitar to the music enthusiasts. In his free times, he loves playing soccer, golf and bowling. In addition, he also likes hunting. He mentors returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Gary holds membership with Friends of Ingham County Veterans' Treatment Court.
This document is a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss claims against defendants Susan Brown and The Law Offices of Susan Brown. It argues that (1) claims based on California procedural law cannot be brought in South Carolina court, (2) the relevant California statute only applies to acts occurring in California, and (3) the principle of res judicata bars re-litigating issues already decided in a prior motion for sanctions. The memorandum provides background on the representation of defendant Ben Thompson by Susan Brown and the limited allegations against Brown in the amended complaint.
This document provides data on educational attainment levels for geographic areas in Hawaii. It shows the percentage of the population aged 25 and over with a high school diploma, college degree, and post-graduate degree for the US, Hawaii regions and counties, and specific communities in Hawaii. Some of the highest rates of educational attainment are seen in communities in Honolulu County like Barbers Point Housing, Hickam Housing, and Maalaea. The Northeast region of the US has the highest rates of college and post-graduate degrees nationally.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help boost feelings of calmness, happiness and focus.
This document provides data on poverty rates and changes in poverty rates from 1999 to 2009 for various geographic areas in Hawaii. It ranks 124 Census Designated Places (CDPs) in Hawaii from lowest to highest poverty rate in 2009. The top CDP saw a decrease in poverty of over 97% while the bottom saw an increase of over 127%. Overall poverty decreased the most in Maui County and increased the most in the Midwest region of the United States.
This document contains crosstabs from a poll on the 2010 Hawaii gubernatorial race between Neil Abercrombie and Mufi Hannemann. It shows the candidates' levels of support across demographic groups including gender, party affiliation, religion, age and more. Education is the top issue of concern and Abercrombie leads Hannemann in overall support, especially among Democrats, liberals, Asian and Jewish voters, and those over 50 years old.
This document is a transcript of a phone survey about the upcoming November 2nd election in Hawaii. It asks respondents questions about their preferences in various races, including Governor and Congressional District 1 representative. It also asks about their views on issues like President Obama's job performance, the role of religion in government, and a proposed amendment to change how the Board of Education is selected.
Leina'ala Ahu Isa has extensive experience in education and business. She holds multiple degrees including a Ph.D. from the University of Hawaii and has worked as a professor, administrator, and politician. Currently, she is on the Board of Education and principal broker of a timeshare company. She is involved in her community through numerous organizations.
The City of Honolulu proposes constructing a 20.1-mile elevated rail line with 21 stations running from Kapolei to Ala Moana Center. The electrified rail line would run mostly along arterial streets and provide frequent service from early morning to late evening. The project aims to improve mobility and relieve congestion in the corridor constrained by mountains and water.
Oahu is facing a housing crisis with over 24,000 additional housing units needed, most for low-income households. The Mayor's Affordable Housing Strategy aims to address this need through new policies, incentives, and investments to accelerate affordable housing production. Key initiatives include an Affordable Housing Requirement for new developments over 10 units, financial incentives for affordable units, transit-oriented development zoning, and leveraging city lands and funds for affordable projects. If implemented successfully, along with continued state funding, the strategy could meet housing demand within 15 years.
Oahu is facing a housing crisis with over 24,000 additional housing units needed, most for low-income households. The Mayor's Affordable Housing Strategy aims to address this need through new policies, incentives, and investments to accelerate affordable housing production. Key initiatives include an Affordable Housing Requirement for new developments over 10 units, financial incentives for affordable units, transit-oriented development zoning, and leveraging city lands and funds for affordable projects. If implemented successfully, along with continued state funding, the strategy could help meet housing demand within 15 years.
This order rules on the defendants' request for judicial notice in a case about the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The court grants the request to take judicial notice of exhibits A, B, and C, which are the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Final Environmental Impact Statement, and Record of Decision, as they are incorporated into the complaint by reference. The court also grants the request to take judicial notice of the existence of other exhibits consisting of public records, but does not take judicial notice of the defendants' descriptions of those exhibits.
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the specific reasons they are being sued.
Defendants dismas charities,inc.,ana gispert,derek thomas and adams leshota's...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The document is a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Traian Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota.
2) The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to state any valid causes of action. It does not provide specific facts or legal elements to support the ten alleged legal violations or theories of recovery.
3) The complaint also fails to delineate which defendant is being sued for each specific cause of action. The motion asserts that the complaint does not give the defendants proper notice of the reasons they are being sued.
A motion by the City and County of Honolulu and the FTA to dismiss some plaintiffs and some claims from a federal environmental lawsuit was denied by a judge.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
Rob Brayshaw v. Officer Annette Garrett Filed By Attorney Marie Mattoxtallahasseeobserver
Robert Brayshaw filed an amended complaint against Annette Garrett alleging violations of his civil rights and First Amendment rights. Brayshaw claims Garrett deleted his critical online posts about the Tallahassee Police Department and Garrett. Garrett used her position as a police officer to have Brayshaw's accounts terminated on various websites. Brayshaw argues these were retaliatory acts that violated his free speech rights. He is seeking damages and claims Garrett's actions were willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of his rights.
This document is an answer and counterclaims filed by defendants Matt Carey and Sam Ruta in response to a lawsuit brought against them by Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. The defendants deny many of the allegations in BRL's complaint. They also bring counterclaims against BRL alleging that BRL senior management engaged in an extensive extortion scheme that netted one manager over $1.6 million, and that BRL failed to properly address this issue and other improper conduct by senior management such as expense fraud and abuse, self-dealing, and improper use of competitors' confidential information. The defendants claim BRL's current lawsuit against them is in retaliation for their knowledge about these improper activities.
This document summarizes a court order on a motion to amend a complaint and a motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the approval of the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The court granted both motions. Regarding the motion to amend, the court found that while the statute of limitations had passed, the proposed additions to the complaint arose from the same facts and occurrences as the original complaint. Regarding the motion to intervene, the court allowed three organizations and an individual to intervene as defendants to represent interests not addressed by the existing defendants.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictment charging them with violating export control laws. They argue that the language of the US Munitions List regulating the export of military equipment is unconstitutionally vague and does not provide fair notice of what requires an export license. Specifically, the list does not enumerate the exact parts the defendants were charged with exporting. This violates the due process requirement that criminal statutes define the prohibited conduct clearly. The defendants therefore could not have known their actions were illegal.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictment charging them with violating export control laws. They argue that the language of the US Munitions List regulating the export of military equipment is unconstitutionally vague and did not provide fair notice of what required an export license. Specifically, the list does not enumerate the exact parts charged but uses broad language about components designed for military use. This violates due process by failing to clearly define the prohibited conduct. The defendants also claim the discovery does not show they knew the parts would end up in Iran. They request dismissal of all counts.
This letter requests a briefing schedule for a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiffs. The letter argues that plaintiffs' claims against Unitransfer lack evidentiary support and factual basis in several key areas: (1) there is no evidence of any unlawful agreement by Unitransfer, (2) plaintiffs did not suffer damages as Unitransfer did not collect fees from US recipients, (3) there is no evidence Unitransfer made material misrepresentations, (4) Unitransfer was not unjustly enriched as fees were remitted to Haiti, (5) Unitransfer does not conduct business in California, and (6) plaintiffs consented to fees so Unitransfer lacked intent for civil theft claims. The letter contends
This letter requests a briefing schedule for a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiffs and their counsel. The letter argues that sanctions are warranted because the plaintiffs' claims against Unitransfer USA lack evidentiary support and a reasonable factual basis. Specifically, the letter asserts there is no evidence that Unitransfer entered into any unlawful agreements, collected fees from class members, made misrepresentations, was unjustly enriched, conducted business in California, or intended to steal funds as required for the civil theft claim. The letter contends the plaintiffs failed to conduct a proper factual inquiry before filing their claims against Unitransfer.
Gov. Ige sent a letter to California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo in response to her August 2020 request for information about Hawaii's pandemic response.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2020/08/california-congresswoman-wants-answers-on-hawaiis-virus-response-effort/
Audit of the Department of the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s Policies, Proc...Honolulu Civil Beat
This audit was conducted pursuant to Resolution 19-255,
requesting the city auditor to conduct a performance audit of the Honolulu Police Department and the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s policies and procedures related to employee misconduct.
Audit of the Honolulu Police Department’s Policies, Procedures, and ControlsHonolulu Civil Beat
The audit objectives were to:
1. Evaluate the effectiveness of HPD’s existing policies, procedures, and controls to identify and respond to complaints or incidents concerning misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of power by its management and employees;
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of HPD's management control environment and practices to correct errors and prevent any misconduct, retaliation, favoritism, and abuses of power by its
management and employees; and
3. Make recommendations to improve HPD’s policies, procedures, and controls to minimize and avoid future managerial and operational breakdowns caused by similar misconduct.
The report summarizes use of force incidents by the Honolulu Police Department in 2019. There were 2,354 reported incidents, an increase from 2018. Physical confrontation techniques were used most often (53% of applications). The most common types of incidents requiring force were simple assault (13.4%), mental health cases (13.2%), and miscellaneous public cases (6.7%). Most incidents occurred on Mondays and Saturdays between midnight and 1:59am and involved males aged 34 on average, with the largest proportion being Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (34.5%).
The Office of Health Equity aims to eliminate health disparities in Hawaii. Its vision is for policies and programs to improve the health of underserved groups. Its mission is to increase the capacity of Hawaii's health department and providers to eliminate disparities and improve quality of life. The office identifies disparities, recommends actions to the health director, and coordinates related activities and programs. It works to establish partnerships, identify health needs, develop culturally appropriate interventions, and promote national health objectives. The office's strategic goals are to increase awareness of disparities, strengthen leadership, improve outcomes through social determinants, improve cultural competency, and improve research coordination.
The document calls for unity and collaboration between Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities in Hawaii to address COVID-19. It summarizes that government leaders have failed citizens by being slow to respond to the crisis, not working together effectively, and one in three COVID cases impacting Pacific Islanders. It calls on officials to take stronger, transparent leadership and get resources like contact tracers deployed quickly from Pacific Islander communities. Each day without action will lead to more cases, hospitalizations and deaths. It establishes a response team to improve COVID data and policies for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities.
This letter from the ACLU of Hawaii to the Honolulu Police Department raises concerns about racial disparities in HPD's enforcement of COVID-19 orders and use of force. It cites data showing Micronesians, Black people, Samoans and those experiencing homelessness were disproportionately arrested. It recommends HPD end aggressive enforcement of minor offenses, racial profiling, and using arrest statistics to measure performance. It also calls for implicit bias training, data collection and transparency regarding police stops, searches and arrests.
This letter from the ACLU of Hawaii to the Honolulu Police Department raises concerns about racial disparities in HPD's enforcement of COVID-19 orders and use of force. It cites data showing Micronesians, Black people, Samoans and those experiencing homelessness were disproportionately arrested. It recommends HPD end aggressive enforcement of minor offenses, racial profiling, and using arrest statistics to measure performance. It also calls for implicit bias training, data collection and transparency regarding police stops, searches and arrests.
This document is a complaint filed in circuit court by Jane Doe against The Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific and several individuals. Jane Doe alleges she has experienced discrimination and harassment at her job as a physical therapist at Rehab Hospital based on her sexual orientation. She lists several causes of action against the defendants and is seeking damages for the harm to her career and emotional distress caused by the defendants' actions.
This document provides guidance for large or extended families living together during the COVID-19 pandemic. It recommends designating one or two household members who are not at high risk to run necessary errands. When leaving the house, those individuals should avoid crowds, maintain social distancing, frequently wash hands, avoid touching surfaces, and wear cloth face coverings. The document also provides tips for protecting high-risk household members, children, caring for sick members, isolating the sick, and eating meals together while feeding a sick person.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) requests that the State of Hawaii prioritize collecting and reporting disaggregated data on Native Hawaiians relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, OHA asks for disaggregated data from the Departments of Health, Labor and Industrial Relations, and Human Services on topics like COVID-19 cases, unemployment claims, and applications for assistance programs. Disaggregated data is critical to understand how the pandemic is impacting Native Hawaiians and to direct resources most effectively. OHA also requests information on how race data is currently collected by these agencies.
The CLA audit of OHA from 2012-2016 found significant issues in OHA's procurement processes and identified $7.8 million across 32 transactions as potentially fraudulent, wasteful, or abusive. The audit found 85% of transactions reviewed contained issues of noncompliance with policies and laws, while 17% (32 transactions) were flagged as "red flags". Common issues included missing procurement documents, lack of evidence that contractors delivered on obligations, and contracts incorrectly classified as exempt from competitive bidding. The audit provides a roadmap for OHA to investigate potential wrongdoing and implement reforms to address deficiencies.
This document provides a list of pro bono legal service providers for immigration courts in Honolulu, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, as of the January 2018 revision date, there are no registered pro bono legal organizations for the immigration courts in Honolulu, Hawaii, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands. The document also notes that the Executive Office for Immigration Review maintains this list of qualified pro bono legal service providers as required by regulation, but that it does not endorse or participate in the work of the listed organizations.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
Mayor Kirk Caldwell issued a statement regarding the construction of a multi-purpose field at Waimānalo Bay Beach Park. City Council member Ikaika Anderson had requested halting all grubbing work until September 15 out of concern for the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat. However, the environmental assessment states grubbing of woody plants over 15 feet tall should not occur after June 1 to protect young bats. The city contractor will finish grubbing by the end of May as required. Canceling the contract would cost $300,000 in taxpayer money. Therefore, the city will proceed with completing Phase 1, including a multi-purpose field, play area, and parking lot, for $1.43 million, and will review additional
Khushi Saini, An Intern from The Sparks Foundationkhushisaini0924
This is my first task as an Talent Acquisition(Human resources) Intern in The Sparks Foundation on Recruitment, article and posts.
I invitr everyone to look into my work and provide me a quick feedback.
Delta International is an ISO Certified top recruiting agency in Pakistan, recognized for its highly experienced recruiters. With a diverse range of international jobs for Pakistani workers, Delta International maintains extensive connections with overseas employers, making it one of the top 10 recruitment agencies in Pakistan. It stands out in the list of recruitment agencies in Pakistan for its exceptional services.
https://www.ditrc.com/
Known for its expertise in the Gulf region, Delta International is among the top 10 international recruitment agencies, specializing in expert headhunting and candidate sourcing. This prominence places it in the list of top 10 overseas recruitment agencies in Pakistan. As one of the best overseas recruitment agencies in Pakistan, Delta International is a trusted name for manpower recruitment, particularly from Pakistan.
The agency is not just a leading name in Karachi but also recognized as one of the best recruitment agencies in Islamabad. Delta International consistently ranks as the top recruitment agency in Pakistan, earning its reputation among the top recruiting agencies in Pakistan. It is also regarded as one of the top overseas employment agencies in Pakistan.
For those seeking foreign jobs, Delta International is listed among the top overseas employment companies in Pakistan. Their extensive network and expertise make them a go-to for anyone looking at the list of overseas employment agencies in Pakistan. As a leading foreign jobs recruitment agency in Pakistan, they offer opportunities across various sectors.
Delta International is consistently listed among the top recruitment companies in Pakistan, known for providing the best recruitment services. It’s considered one of the best recruitment agencies in Pakistan and a prominent recruitment agency in Pakistan. The company excels in international recruitment, making it a key player among international recruitment agencies in Pakistan.
Their inclusion in the list of international recruitment agencies further attests to their excellence. As a top manpower agency in Pakistan, Delta International specializes in recruiting skilled professionals and labor for various industries, including construction, healthcare, IT, engineering, and hospitality.
Delta International is a leader among recruitment agencies in Pakistan, with a particular focus on overseas employment. They are one of the foremost overseas employment agencies in Pakistan, catering to technical jobs and other employment opportunities. Their role as overseas employment promoters highlights their commitment to connecting Pakistani talent with global opportunities.
In summary, Delta International is not only one of the best recruitment agencies in Pakistan but also a distinguished name among overseas employment agencies. Their extensive network and experienced recruiters make them a top choice for anyone seeking employment both locally and internationally.
LinkedIn Strategic Guidelines for June 2024Bruce Bennett
LinkedIn is a powerful tool for networking, researching, and marketing yourself to clients and employers. This session teaches strategic practices for building your LinkedIn internet presence and marketing yourself. The use of # and @ symbols is covered as well as going mobile with the LinkedIn app.
1. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 157
IGNACIA S. MORENO
Assistant Attorney General
PETER C. WHITFIELD
(HI Bar No. 08749)
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Natural Resources Section
P.O. Box 663
Washington, D.C. 20044-0663
peter.whitfield@usdoj.gov
(202) 305-0430
Fax (202) 305-0506
FLORENCE T. NAKAKUNI
United States Attorney
District of Hawaii
HARRY YEE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for Federal Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
HONOLULU TRAFFIC.COM, et al. ) Case No. 11-00307 AWT
)
Plaintiffs, ) FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’
) ANSWER
v. )
)
FEDERAL TRANSIT )
ADMINISTRATION, et al. )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________
2. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 158
Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants, the
United States Department of Transportation; Ray LaHood, in his official capacity
as the Secretary of Transportation; the Federal Transit Administration; Leslie
Rogers, in his official capacity as Federal Transit Administration Regional
Administrator; and Peter M. Rogoff, in his official capacity as Federal Transit
Administration Administrator (collectively, “Federal Defendants,”) by and through
the undersigned counsel, submit the following Answer in response to Plaintiffs’
Complaint filed on May 12 , 2011 (ECF #1). The responses in the numbered
paragraphs below correspond to the allegations contained in the numbered
paragraphs in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. All matters not specifically admitted are
hereby denied.
PLAINTIFFS’ INTRODUCTION SECTION
1. The allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 1 set forth
Plaintiffs’ characterization of the nature and basis of their lawsuit and the relief
they seek to which no response is required. Federal Defendants deny that Plaintiffs
are entitled to the relief they seek or any relief whatsoever. The allegations in the
third, fourth, and fifth sentences of paragraph 1 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Federal
Defendants deny the allegations in the third, fourth, and fifth sentences.
PLAINTIFFS’ JURISDICTION AND VENUE SECTION
3. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 159
2. The allegations in paragraph 2 constitute Plaintiffs’ characterization of their
complaint to which no response is required.
3. The allegations in paragraph 3 contain statements of jurisdiction to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, Federal Defendants
deny the allegations in paragraph 3.
4. The allegations in paragraph 4 contain statements of venue to which no
response is required.
5. The allegations in paragraph 5 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required.
6. The allegations in paragraph 6 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, Federal Defendants
deny the allegations in paragraph 6.
PLAINTIFFS’ PLAINTIFFS SECTION
7. Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of allegations in the first, second, third, fifth, and sixth
sentences of paragraph 7 and on that basis deny the allegations. The allegations in
the fourth sentence of paragraph 7 purport to characterize Plaintiffs’ comments on
the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project (“Project”), which speak for
themselves and are the best evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny
any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the
4. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 160
comments. Federal Defendants deny the remaining allegations in the fourth
sentence of paragraph 7. The allegations in the seventh sentence constitute
conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response
is required, Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the seventh sentence.
8. Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 8 and on that basis deny the
allegations.
9. Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 9 and on that basis deny the
allegations.
10. Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 10 and on that basis deny the
allegations.
11. Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 11 and on that basis deny the
allegations.
12. Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 12 and on that basis deny the
allegations.
5. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 161
13. Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 13 and on that basis deny the
allegations.
14. Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 14 and on that basis deny the
allegations.
15. The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 15 constitute conclusions
of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,
Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 15.
Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph and on that
basis deny the allegations.
PLAINTIFFS’ DEFENDANTS SECTION
16. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first and second sentences of
paragraph 16. As to the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, Federal
Defendants admit that the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) issued a Record
of Decision (“ROD”) for the Project. The remaining allegations in the third
sentence of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is
required.
17. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 17.
6. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 162
18. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph
18. The allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph are overly vague, and
on that basis, Federal Defendants deny the allegations.
19. Federal Defendants admit that the Department of Transportation is the
parent department of the FTA. The remaining allegations in paragraph 19 are
overly vague and Federal Defendants therefore lack the knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and on that basis deny the allegations.
20. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph
20. The allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph are overly vague, and
on that basis, Federal Defendants deny the allegations.
21. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph
21. As to the allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph, Federal
Defendants admit that the City and County of Honolulu (“City”) served as joint
lead agency for the Project with FTA. The remaining allegations in the second
sentence constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required.
22. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph
22. As to the allegations in the second sentence, Federal Defendants admit that
WayneYoshioka had some responsibility for the City’s compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966, and the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”).
7. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 163
The remaining allegations in the second sentence constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required..
PLAINTIFFS’ THE PROJECT SECTION
23. The allegations in paragraph 23 purport to characterize information about
the Project described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”),
which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants
deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the
FEIS.
24. The allegations in paragraph 24purport to characterize information about
the Project described in FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the FEIS.
25. The allegations in paragraph 25 purport to characterize information about
the Project described in the FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the FEIS.
26. The allegations in paragraph 26 purport to characterize information about
the Project described in the FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the FEIS.
8. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 164
27. The allegations in paragraph 27 purport to characterize information about
the Project described in the FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the FEIS.
28. The allegations in paragraph 28 purport to characterize information about
the Project described in FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the FEIS.
29. The allegations in paragraph 29 purport to characterize the Project’s FEIS,
which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants
deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the
FEIS.
30. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph
30. The allegations in the second and third sentences of this paragraph purport to
characterize the Project’s FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of
its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the FEIS.
31. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph
31. The allegations in the second, third, and fourth sentences of this paragraph
purport to characterize the Project’s FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best
9. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 165
evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the
plain language, meaning, and context of the FEIS.
PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICABLE LAW SECTION
32. The allegations in paragraph 32 purport to characterize NEPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the statute and regulations.
33. The allegations in paragraph 33 purport to characterize NEPA, which speaks
for itself and is the best evidence of its content. Federal Defendants deny any
allegation contrary to NEPA’s plain language, meaning, and context.
34. The allegations in paragraph 34 purport to characterize NEPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the statute and regulations.
35. The allegations in paragraph 35 purport to characterize NEPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the statute and regulations.
36. The allegations in paragraph 36 purport to characterize NEPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
10. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 166
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the statute and regulations.
37. The allegations in paragraph 37 purport to characterize NEPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the statute and regulations.
38. The allegations in paragraph 38 purport to characterize NEPA, its
implementing regulations, and a Supreme Court opinion, which speak for
themselves and are the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny
any allegations contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the statute,
regulations, and cited opinion.
39. The allegations in paragraph 39 purport to characterize NEPA and the
Council on Environmental Quality’s (“CEQ”) regulations, which speak for
themselves and are the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny
any allegations contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the statute
and regulations.
40. The allegations in the first, third, and fourth sentences of paragraph 40
purport to characterize the CEQ NEPA regulations and the Department of
Transportation NEPA regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best
evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the
11. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 167
plain language, meaning, and context of the regulations. The allegations in the
second sentence of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required.
41. The allegations in paragraph 41 purport to characterize 23 U.S.C. §
139(c)(3), which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and
context of this statute.
42. The allegations in paragraph 42 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning,
and context of this Act.
43. The allegations in paragraph 43 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning,
and context of this Act.
44. The allegations in paragraph 44 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning,
and context of this Act.
12. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 168
45. The allegations in paragraph 45 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act’s implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and
are the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the regulations.
46. The allegations in paragraph 46 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act’s implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and
are the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the regulations.
47. The allegations in paragraph 47 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act’s implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and
are the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the regulations.
48. The allegations in paragraph 48 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act’s implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and
are the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the regulations.
49. The allegations in paragraph 49 purport to characterize the Federal Highway
Administration’s 4(f) Policy Paper, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the 4(f) Policy Paper.
13. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 169
50. The allegations in paragraph 50 purport to characterize an FTA
memorandum dated December 13, 2005, which speaks for itself and is the best
evidence of its content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the
plain language, meaning, and context of the memorandum.
51. The allegations in this paragraph purport to characterize the National
Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), which speaks for itself and is the best
evidence of its content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the
plain language, meaning, and context of the NHPA.
52. The allegations in paragraph 52 purport to characterize the NHPA, which
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content. Federal Defendants deny
any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the NHPA.
53. The allegations in paragraph 53 purport to characterize the NHPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the NHPA.
54. The allegations in paragraph 54 purport to characterize the NHPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the NHPA and its implementing regulations.
PLAINTIFFS’ FACTUAL BACKGROUND SECTION
14. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 170
55. The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 55 are overly vague and
Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of allegations and on that basis deny the allegations. As to the
allegations in the second, third, and fourth sentences of this paragraph, Federal
Defendants admit that on or about July 2003, FTA and the City jointly issued an
FEIS (“2003 FEIS”). The remaining allegations in this paragraph purport to
characterize information described in this 2003 FEIS, which speaks for itself and is
the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary
to the plain language, meaning, and context of the 2003 FEIS.
56. The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 56 purport to characterize
information described in the 2003 FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best
evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the
plain language, meaning, and context of the 2003 FEIS. As to the allegations in
sentences two and three, Federal Defendants admit that on or about December 7,
2005, FTA published a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to prepare an EIS in the Federal
Register. The allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph purport to
characterize the NOI, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the NOI.
15. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 171
57. With respect to the allegations in the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth
sentences of paragraph 57, Federal Defendants admit that the City engaged in an
“alternatives analysis” process and that the results of this process were
incorporated by FTA into the process for complying with NEPA, Section 4(f), and
NHPA. The allegations in the first half of the fifth sentence of this paragraph
purport to characterize the 2006 Alternatives Screening Memo, which speaks for
itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any
allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the 2006
Alternatives Screening Memo. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are
overly vague and Federal Defendants therefore lack the knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and on that basis deny the allegations.
58. The allegations in paragraph 58 purport to characterize the 2006 Alternatives
Screening Memo, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning,
and context of the referenced document.
59. With respect to the first sentence in paragraph 59, Federal Defendants admit
that the City engaged in an “alternatives analysis” process. The allegations in the
second sentence of this paragraph are overly vague and Federal Defendants
therefore lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their
truth and on that basis deny the allegations. The allegations in the first half of the
16. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 172
third sentence in this paragraph purport to characterize the 2006 Alternatives
Report, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and
context of the 2006 Alternatives Report. The remaining allegations in this
paragraph are overly vague and Federal Defendants therefore lack the knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and on that basis deny the
allegations.
60. The allegations in paragraph 60 purport to characterize the 2006 Alternatives
Analysis documents, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the 2006 Alternatives Analysis documents.
61. The allegations in paragraph 61 appear to characterize the Project history set
forth in the Project FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the FEIS.
62. Federal Defendants admit that on or about March 15, 2007, FTA published a
notice of intent (“NOI”) to Prepare an EIS in the Federal Register. The remaining
allegations in paragraph 62 are overly vague, and on that basis Federal Defendants
deny the allegations.
17. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 173
63. The allegations in paragraph 63 purport to characterize comments in
response to the NOI, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the comments.
64. The allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 64 seek to
characterize a request made by the City of Honolulu, which speaks for itself and is
the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary
to the plain language, meaning, and context of the request. As to the remaining
allegations in the third and fourth sentences of this paragraph, Federal Defendants
admit that the City engaged in a process to identify a preferred technology for the
project.
65. The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 65 are overly vague and
Federal Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of these allegations and on that basis deny the allegations.
Allegations in the second sentence seek to characterize the City of Honolulu’s
technical review process for proposed transit technologies and report, and such
report speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
66. Federal Defendants admit that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(“DEIS”) for the Project was issued in November 2008. The remaining allegations
in paragraph 66 purport to characterize the Project’s DEIS, which speaks for itself
18. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 174
and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the DEIS.
67. Federal Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of
paragraph 67. The remaining allegations in this paragraph purport to characterize
the comments on the Project DEIS, which speak for themselves and are the best
evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the
plain language, meaning, and context of the comments.
68. The allegations in paragraph 68 purport to characterize the comments on the
Project DEIS, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the comments.
69. The allegations in paragraph 69 purport to characterize the Federal
Defendant’s response to Plaintiff comments on the DEIS, which speak for
themselves and are the best evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny
any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the response
to comments.
70. Federal Defendants admit the FEIS for the Project was issued in June 2010.
The remaining allegations in paragraph 70 purport to characterize the FEIS, which
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny
any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the FEIS.
19. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 175
71. The allegations in paragraph 71 purport to characterize the comments on the
Project FEIS, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of its contents.
Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning,
and context of the comments.
72. As to the allegations contained in the first, second, and third sentences of
paragraph 72, Federal Defendants admit that a Programmatic Agreement (“PA”)
for the Project was executed in January 2011. The remaining allegations in the
first, second, and third sentences of this paragraph purport to characterize the PA,
which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants
deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the
PA. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the fourth sentence.
73. As to the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 73, Federal
Defendants admit that FTA issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) on the Project on
January 18, 2011. The allegations in the second and third sentences of this
paragraph purport to characterize the ROD which speaks for itself and is the best
evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the
plain language, meaning, and context of the ROD. The allegations contained in the
fourth sentence of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the fifth sentence
of this paragraph.
20. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 20 of 30 PageID #: 176
PLAINTIFFS’ VIOLATIONS OF LAW SECTION
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNT 1
74. Federal Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1 through 73
and 78 through 123 as if set forth fully herein.
75. The allegations in paragraph 75 purport to characterize NEPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the statute and regulations.
76. The allegations in paragraph 76 purport to characterize NEPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the statute and regulations.
77. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 77.
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNT 2
78. Federal Defendants incorporate their responses to the paragraphs 1 through
77 and paragraphs 86 through 123 as if set forth fully herein.
79. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 79.
80. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 80.
81. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 81.
82. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 82.
21. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 21 of 30 PageID #: 177
83. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 83.
84. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 84.
85. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 85.
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNT 3
86. Federal Defendants incorporate their responses to the paragraphs 1 through
85 and paragraphs 94 through 123 as if set forth fully herein.
87. The allegations in paragraph 87 purport to characterize NEPA and CEQ’s
regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content.
Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain language, meaning,
and context of the statute and regulations.
88. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph
88. The allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph are overly vague, and
on that basis Federal Defendants deny the allegations.
89. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 89.
90. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 90.
91. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 91.
92. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first and third sentences of
paragraph 92. The allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph purport to
characterize the FEIS, which speaks for itself and it the best evidence of its
22. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 22 of 30 PageID #: 178
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the FEIS.
93. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first and fourth sentences of
paragraph 93. The allegations in the second and third sentences of this paragraph
purport to characterize the FEIS, which speaks for itself and it the best evidence of
its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the FEIS.
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNT 4
94. Federal Defendants incorporate their responses to the paragraphs 1 through
93 and paragraphs 97 through 123 as if set forth fully herein.
95. The allegations in paragraph 95 purport to characterize NEPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the statute and regulations.
96. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first and ninth sentences of
paragraph 96. The allegations in the second and eight sentences purport to
characterize the FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its
content. Federal Defendants deny any allegations contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the FEIS. The allegations in the third and fourth
sentences are overly vague, and on that basis Federal Defendants deny the
23. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 23 of 30 PageID #: 179
allegations. The allegations in the fifth sentence purports to characterize the 2006
Alternatives Report and 2006 Alternatives Screening Memo, which speak for
themselves and are the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny
any allegations contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of these
documents. The allegations in the sixth sentence constitute conclusions of law, to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Federal
Defendants deny the allegations.
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNT 5
97. Federal Defendants incorporate their responses to the paragraphs 1 through
96 and paragraphs 105 through 123 as if set forth fully herein.
98. The allegations in paragraph 98 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act, and its implementing regulations, which speak for themselves
and are the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of this Act and the
regulations.
99. The allegations in paragraph 99 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required.
100. The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 100 constitute
conclusions of law to which no response is required. The remaining allegations in
this paragraph purport to characterize the FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the
24. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 24 of 30 PageID #: 180
best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to
the plain language, meaning, and context of the FEIS.
101. The allegations in paragraph 101 purport to characterize the FEIS, which
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny
any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the FEIS.
102. The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 102 purport to
characterize the FEIS or comments of Hawaii’s State Historic Preservation Officer
contained therein, each of which speak for itself and is the best evidence of its
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of the FEIS or comments. The allegations in the second
sentence of this paragraph purport to characterize the ROD, which speaks for itself
and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the ROD. Federal
Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph. Federal
Defendants deny the allegations in the fourth sentence, but admit that extensive
archaeological survey methods have been used at locations throughout the Project
alignment.
103. The allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 103 purport
to characterize the FEIS or comments of Hawaii’s State Historic Preservation
Officer contained therein, each of which speaks for itself and is the best evidence
25. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 25 of 30 PageID #: 181
of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the FEIS or comments. Federal Defendants
deny the allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph, but admit that a study
has been initiated to identify traditional cultural properties (“TCPs”) along the
alignment, and that one TCP was positively identified in the programmatic
agreement attached to the ROD. The remaining allegations are overly vague and
Federal Defendants therefore lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to their truth and on that basis deny the allegations.
104. Federal Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 104.
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNT 6
105. Federal Defendants incorporate their responses to the paragraphs 1 through
104 and paragraphs 109 through 123 as if set forth fully herein.
106. The allegations in paragraph 106 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content.
Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning,
and context of this Act.
107. The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 107 purport to
characterize the FEIS, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its
contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
26. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 26 of 30 PageID #: 182
meaning, and context of the FEIS. Federal Defendants deny all remaining
allegations in this paragraph.
108. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 108.
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNT 7
109. Federal Defendants incorporate their responses to the paragraphs 1 through
108 and paragraphs 119 through 123 as if set forth fully herein.
110. The allegations in paragraph 110 purport to characterize the Department of
Transportation Act, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of their
content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language,
meaning, and context of this Act.
111. The allegations in paragraph 111 purport to characterize the DEIS, the
2006 Alternatives Report , the 2006 Alternatives Screening Memo, the FEIS, and
various other public documents (including public comments) which speak for
themselves and are the best evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny
any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of these
documents. The allegations in the second sentence of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is
required, Federal Defendants deny the allegations.
112. The allegations in paragraph 112 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, Federal Defendants lack
27. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 27 of 30 PageID #: 183
the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
allegations in this paragraph and on that basis deny the allegations.
113. The allegations in paragraph 113 purport to characterize the 2006
Alternative Analysis documents, which speak for themselves and are the best
evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the
plain language, meaning, and context of the Alternatives Analysis documents.
114. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 114.
115. The allegations in paragraph 115 purport to characterize the DEIS, the
2006 Screening Memo, the 2006 Alternatives Report, the FEIS, ROD and various
other public documents (including public comments) which speak for themselves
and are the best evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny any
allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of these
documents.
116. The allegations in paragraph 116 purport to characterize the FEIS, and an
October 22, 2009 letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which
speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and
context of these documents.
117. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 117.
118. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 118.
28. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 28 of 30 PageID #: 184
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNT 8
119. Federal Defendants incorporate their responses to the paragraphs 1 through
118 as if set forth fully herein.
120. The allegations in paragraph 120 purport to characterize the NHPA and its
implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of
their content. Federal Defendants deny any allegation contrary to the plain
language, meaning, and context of the NHPA and its implementing regulations.
121. The allegations in paragraph 121 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required.
122. The allegations in paragraph 122 purport to characterize the PA, which
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny
any allegation contrary to the plain language, meaning, and context of the PA.
123. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 123.
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The remainder of the Complaint consists of Plaintiffs’ request for
relief, to which no answer is required. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled
to any relief whatsoever.
GENERAL DENIAL
Defendant denies each and every allegation of the Complaint not otherwise
expressly admitted, qualified, or denied herein.
29. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 29 of 30 PageID #: 185
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted on
some or all of their claims.
2. Plaintiffs lack standing to assert some or all of their claims.
3. Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims are moot or not ripe for adjudication.
4. Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims have been waived.
5. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
6. The court lacks jurisdiction over some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims.
DATED: August 12, 2011.
IGNACIA MORENO
Assistant Attorney General
By /s/ Peter Whitfield
PETER WHITFIELD
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Natural Resources Section
P.O. Box 663
Washington, D.C. 20044-0663
FLORENCE T. NAKAKUNI
United States Attorney
District of Hawaii
30. Case 1:11-cv-00307-AWT Document 36 Filed 08/12/11 Page 30 of 30 PageID #: 186
HARRY YEE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for Federal Defendants