KEALAKEKUA — A judge on Wednesday dismissed four allegations against the Hawaii Island Humane Society filed as part of the ongoing legal dispute with Big Island Dog Rescue.
KEALAKEKUA — A judge on Wednesday dismissed four allegations against the Hawaii Island Humane Society filed as part of the ongoing legal dispute with Big Island Dog Rescue.
Big Island Dog Rescue initially filed the lawsuit against the Humane Society and several individuals in April, alleging the society stole credit for the shipment of dogs to the mainland for care and that several people connected to the society conspired to smear the organization.
The lawsuit is based on a series of emails — allegedly from a Humane Society board member, the executive director and others — discussing how to discredit Big Island Dog Rescue and turn public opinion against them. The society has said the emails were fabricated.
On Wednesday, 3rd Circuit Court Chief Judge Ronald Ibarra granted a motion from the Humane Society’s attorneys to dismiss four causes of action from the complaint, including allegations of unfair trade practices and unfair competition.
The crux of the smear charge is still in tact, however, as are the complaints alleging HIHS interfered with BIDR’s relationship with an airline.
But during the hearing, Humane Society attorney John Duchemin said the causes that were eventually dismissed were “defective as a matter of law,” and losing them would narrow the issues being brought up in the case.
In their motion, HIHS argued that only “consumers and certain government officials” can sue for unfair and deceptive trade practices. Because BIDR is neither, attorneys said, they don’t have standing to file the claim.
“They do not have standing to bring this (unfair practices) claim, because they’re not a natural person,” Duchemin said in court.
Lockey White, attorney for BIDR, said that while there’s no case law saying whether nonprofits are considered “consumers,” there are cases where organizations can file court claims.
“In Hawaii, if its individual members would have a claim, then the nonprofit can have standing in the shoes of the individual,” she said.
As for the two allegations of unfair competition, Duchemin argued that at no point does the complaint demonstrate competition between the two groups.
“You have to allege the nature of the competition,” he told the judge.
Although BIDR said they and the Humane Society compete for donations, Duchemin said that’s not the same as competition for business.
Unfair competition, he explained, would be like an organization opening a gas station and undercutting prices.
White, however, said the defense’s argument was an “oversimplified definition of competition.”
The Humane Society’s motion also targeted a cause of action referred to as respondeat superior, a concept that higher-ups are legally responsible for the acts of their employees or agents. Duchemin argued that respondeat superior, as a concept, isn’t an actionable cause on its own.
Immediately after hearing the arguments, Ibarra ruled to dismiss the four claims in question.
He said the Humane Society isn’t a “natural person” for the purposes of arguing unfair and deceptive trade practices and that while the two organizations may compete for a donor bases, it’s “not competition in the sense that it’s covered under the statute.”
The judge’s decision doesn’t affect any of the other claims alleged in BIDR’s lawsuit.
The organization’s allegations that the Humane Society interfered with the rescue group’s relationship with Alaska Airlines and lifted their “likeness, work, effort, project and image” from BIDR both remain intact.
The complaint also still includes the cause of action alleging false light invasion of privacy. That accusation is related to the alleged smear campaign.
Paul Sulla, who represents BIDR, said once discovery is completed, he expects to file a motion for summary judgment in the coming months. Summary judgment is when both sides argue their cases before a judge as to why a case should or shouldn’t go to trial, after which the judge decides.
There’s no shortage of bad blood between the Humane Society and the rescue group. They bickered publicly for months before the smear suit was filed. Still the organizations used to work together.
BIDR shipped 81 dogs to mainland “no-kill” shelters in its first four months of operation starting early last year, under a partnership with HIHS in which BIDR handled the shipments using animals adopted from the society at a much-reduced fee.
Then HIHS began to work against BIDR with last minute schedule changes, failures to communicate and increased fees, according to the suit.
The Humane Society suspended adoptions to the rescue organizations until a contract was created spelling out legal responsibilities, animal treatment and reporting on the status of animals shipped to the mainland. BIDR declined to sign the agreement once it was drafted.
The suit also alleges that HIHS showcased BIDR’s off-island shipping of the dogs during its March 2015 “Tropical Paws” fundraiser. But instead of sharing credit or acknowledging that the airlift was both created and implemented by BIDR, the society instead edited any reference to the rescue organization and presented the shipments as solely an HIHS program.
Not surprisingly, Wednesday’s hearing got off to a tense start after Ibarra questioned Big Island Dog Rescue’s attorney about a motion to postpone the day’s hearing.
The motion to dismiss was filed in October, the judge said, but a motion to postpone the hearing wasn’t filed until just days ago.
White said the issue was a “calendaring error,” and went on to say that the many motions being raised were preventing the case from moving forward and criticized what she saw as a lack of courtesy from Humane Society attorneys.
“There is absolutely no courtesy in this case and we are prevented from getting to the substance of our claims,” she said.
Ibarra however replied that if it was a calendaring error, it’s an error on the firm alone.
Duchemin said that by the time he found out about the motion to postpone the hearing, travel arrangements had already been made and money spent.