KEALAKEKUA — A judge 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 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 HIHS 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 dog rescue 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 it. The HIHS says 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.
During the hearing, Humane Society attorney John Duchemin said the causes that eventually were 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.
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.
Although BIDR said it and the Humane Society compete for donations, Duchemin said that’s not the same as competition for business.
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.
In his ruling, Ibarra 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 might compete for 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 its “likeness, work, effort, project and image” from BIDR each 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 as to why a case should or shouldn’t go to trial, after which a judge decides.
Email Cameron Miculka at cmiculka@westhawaiitoday.com.