The Department of Public Lands has no objection to the marine sports operators' request for the Superior Court to immediately hold a hearing on their motion to modify the court's $62,034 bond requirement in order for them to regain Managaha access. But Tasi Tours has.
Attorney Rexford Kosack, counsel for Tasi Tours, asserted that the court has already required the bond, thus it is the law of the case.
“If it is going to be changed it should be changed only if the stringent requirements for motions for consideration have been met,” said Kosack in Tasi Tours' opposition to the marine sports operators' motion to shorten time on motion to modify bond requirement.
Kosack said the plaintiffs [marine sports operators] seek to give Tasi Tours two days or less to file an opposition whereas pursuant to the rules, Tasi Tours' opposition is due on Aug. 8.
Thus, the lawyer said, his client would ordinarily have two weeks, not two days.
Kosack said in addition to responding to plaintiffs' various motions to have chambers conferences and shorten time, he is preparing Tasi Tours' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Kosack said the rest of plaintiffs' motion to shorten time is “a naked plea” to change the court's order requiring the bond.
“What is relevant is whether the plaintiffs have met the standard for a motion for reconsideration, which should be fully briefed and argued by the parties,” he added.
In the marine sports operators' reply to Tasi Tours' opposition, attorney F. Matthew Smith said DPL did not object to a shortened hearing as they understood the urgency, but, once again, Tasi Tours objected.
Smith said it is hypocrisy for Tasi Tours to now claim that there is no urgency and that regular briefing rules have to be followed because they need “two weeks, not two days” to respond.
In this case, Smith said his clients have followed the rules in seeking a proper order shortening time due to the fact that irreparable harm is being suffered.
“Tasi Tours' intent is clear. They seek to shut down the plaintiffs and control the lagoon and realize that plaintiffs are injured and on the verge of collapse during this critical peak season for their businesses,” the lawyer pointed out.
On Thursday, Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho issued an order setting for Thursday, Aug. 2, a hearing on marine sports operators' request to modify the court's $62,034 bond requirement.
Last Wednesday, marine sports operators filed a motion asking the court to either remove the bond or to only require a nominal bond.
Smith, one of the counsels for the marine sports operators, stated that given the urgency of the matter, the irreparable harm already suffered by their clients, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the general lack of financial means, Camacho should amend his July 19, 2012 order.
In his July 19 order, Camacho granted the marine sports operators' request to maintain the status quo on Managaha access until their lawsuit against DPL is decided on its merits.
Camacho, however, ordered the marine sports operators-Island Marine Sports Inc., Aquatic Marine Co. Inc. doing business as Amigo Aquatic Sports, Automarine Inc., Seahorse Inc., and BSEA Inc.-to post the $62,034 bond.
Camacho said the preliminary injunction shall take effect once the full bond is remitted to the court.