Ralston v. Board of Land and Natural Resources

── Ralston v. Board of Land and Natural Resources ── Court: Hawaii Supreme Court Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General **FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 15-MAY-2026 07:50 AM Dkt. 25 OP IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ---o0o--- ________________________________________________________________ TYLER RALSTON, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant, vs. BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES and RESORTRUST HAWAII, LLC, Respondents/Appellees-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX) MAY 15, 2026 DEVENS, C.J., McKENNA, EDDINS, AND GINOZA, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE CASTAGNETTI, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J. I. Introduction The narrow question before us concerns whether the private attorney general doctrine (“PAG doctrine”) applies when a party challenging a one-year revocable permit is denied a contested case hearing and an appellate court determines due process  **FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER** requires a contested case hearing, but remands the matter to the lower court to determine the scope of relief. We conclude the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) erred by ruling that the PAG doctrine does not apply because it has not yet been determined what relief, if any, could be obtained on remand. We therefore vacate the ICA’s September 19, 2025 order denying Tyler Ralston’s (“Ralston”) attorney fees and remand this matter to the ICA to determine the reasonableness of Ralston’s attorney fees and whether Resorttrust Hawaii, LLC (“RTH”) is liable for them. II. Background A. Factual background RTH owns and operates the Kahala Hotel. The underlying dispute arises from RTHʻs use of ceded lands fronting the hotel, known as Lot 41. The ICA recently outlined the history of Lot 41 in a related case: In 1963, four years after the crown and government lands were returned, the State entered into an agreement with the Kahala Hilton Hotel, Charles J. Pietsch, Jr., and David T. Pietsch (collectively, Kahala Hotel) to allow Kahala Hotel to “dredge a swimming area and construct a beach . . . for and on behalf of the State.” The agreement provided that “[t]itle to and ownership of all filled and reclaimed lands and improvements seaward of the makai boundaries . . . shall remain in and vest in the State of [Hawaiʻi] and shall be used as a public beach.” (Emphasis added.) This newly constructed beach and swimming area (Lot 41) is part of the returned crown and government lands. In 1968, shortly after completion of Lot 41, the Board granted a temporary month-to-month permit for one year to Kahala Hotel allowing it “to enter and occupy” 6,250 square feet of Lot 41 for “[r]ecreational purposes.” The Board 2  **FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER** granted these temporary month-to-month yearly permits for the next 50 years. . . . .