Five marine sports operators are wondering why the Department of Public Lands finds it necessary to file pleadings supporting Tasi Tours & Transportation Inc.'s motion that asks the Superior Court to reconsider its ruling on the bond requirement.
“DPL is using government resources for this improper purpose, and the motion should be summarily denied,” according to attorney Mark A. Scoggins, counsel for the five marine sports operators.
At no time does DPL provide any argument that it is adversely impacted by the injunction order, said Scoggins yesterday in the marine sports operators' opposition to DPL's pleadings.
Scoggins said that DPL only asserts Tasi Tours' interests, arguing that Tasi Tours, a private company able to speak for itself, is “effectively unsecured.”
The lawyer said there is no reason beyond the “political pressure” exerted by Tasi Tours against DPL for DPL to bring this motion.
“DPL has no interest in ensuring there is a secured bond in place to protect a private company such as Tasi Tours,” Scoggins said.
The motion, Scoggins said, is a waste of resources and that no further hearings or inquiry is needed.
DPL recently filed a memorandum supporting Tasi Tours' motion that asks the court to reconsider its ruling that allowed the five marine sports operators to post a $60,172.95 in unsecured bond on top of the $1,861.05 that they had already posted as bond requirement in connection with their lawsuit against DPL.
Assistant attorney general Michael Wilt, counsel for DPL, asserts that the court's order is internally inconsistent and leaves Tasi Tours, a concessionaire of DPL, effectively unsecured.
“Clarification is necessary to the DPL because the DPL is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rights of Tasi Tours, made pursuant to their concession agreement with the DPL,” the government lawyer said.
Earlier, Tasi Tours, through counsel Rexford C. Kosack, requested clarification of Superior Court associate judge Joseph N. Camacho's Aug. 22, 2012, order regarding the bond for preliminary injunction.
Kosack said that Camacho issued a preliminary injunction without giving the security for the payment of all the damages that might be suffered by Tasi Tours-contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
In response to Tasi Tours' motions for reconsideration and clarification, Scoggins stated that the filing of the motions is part of Tasi Tours' strategy to litigate them to death.
Last Aug. 23, the five marine sports operators resumed their business operations after complying with Camacho's bond requirement order.
The operators-Island Marine Sports Inc., Aquatic Marine Co. Inc., Automarine Inc., Seahorse Inc., and BSEA Inc.-signed an acknowledgment of their responsibility for the unsecured amount.
The preliminary injunction that Camacho issued last July 19 granted the marine sports operators' request to maintain the status quo on Managaha access until their lawsuit against DPL is decided on its merits.
The operators are suing DPL to invalidate the department's “rule” promulgated on Dec. 13, 2011, and June 14, 2012, pertaining to Managaha access. The “rule” prohibits marine sports operators from picking up customers on Managaha Island for their tours unless they are Tasi Tours or its subcontractors.