Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 1 of 75 PageID.1
`
`06/04/24 9:44pm
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
`
`In Re: Lahaina Wildfire Litigation
`
`(Class Action)
`
`1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK
`
`CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Nova Burnes; Maui Concierge Aesthetics, LLC; Lani Chadli, individually and
`
`as Trustee of the Aotaki Family Irrevocable Trust; Monica I. Eder; Rede S. Eder; Candace Faust;
`
`Peter Faust; David Heymes; Kathryn Llamas; Jennifer Lynn McNamee; Chardell Naki; Barret
`
`Procell; and Rolland Williams Jr., individually and on behalf of others similar situated, bring this
`
`action against Defendants Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. dba Hawaiian Electric; Maui
`
`Electric Company, Limited dba MECO; Hawai‘i Electric Light Company, Inc.; Hawaiian
`
`Electric Industries, Inc. (collectively, the “HECO Defendants”); Trustees of the Estate of Bernice
`
`Pauahi Bishop (“Bishop Estate”); Hawaiian Telcom; Hawaiian Telecommunications, Inc.;
`
`Hawaiian Telcom, Inc.; Spectrum Oceanic, LLC (collectively, “Telecommunications
`
`Defendants”); Peter Klint Martin; Peter Klint Martin Revocable Trust; Hope Builders Holding
`
`LLC; Hope Builders Inc.; Hope Builders LLC; Kauaula Land Company LLC; Kipa Centennial,
`
`LLC; James C. Riley Trust; Jeanne A. Riley Trust; Wainee Land & Homes, LLC; West Maui
`
`Land Company, Inc.; Makila Ranches Inc.; Makila Land Co., LLC; Makila Ranches
`
`Homeowners Association, Inc.; JV Enterprises, LLC (“West Maui Landowner Defendants”);
`
`County of Maui; and Doe Defendants 1–10, and allege the following:
`
`3014313.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 2 of 75 PageID.2
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Early on the morning of August 8, 2023, downed power lines that HECO
`
`Defendants owned and operated sparked the deadliest wildfire in more than a century of U.S.
`
`history (“Fire” or “Lāhainā Fire”). The Fire burned more than 2,000 acres across Lāhainā,
`
`tragically taking 101 lives and causing thousands of people to lose their homes, businesses, and
`
`livelihoods. Lāhainā is also the site of the first capital of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It contains
`
`some of the most historically significant cultural properties and sacred remains of Native
`
`Hawaiians.
`
`2.
`
`Firefighters reported that they contained the Lāhainā Fire that morning. They did
`
`not extinguish the Fire, which continued to smolder. In the afternoon, winds grew stronger and
`
`picked up embers from the Fire, causing it to flare at its area of origin on Bishop Estate land. The
`
`Fire moved quickly through the Estate’s unmaintained land, which was overgrown with highly
`
`flammable nonnative vegetation. Wind gusts pushed flames through dense neighborhoods into
`
`Lāhainā, as the Fire grew rapidly in size and intensity. Hundreds of homes burned in a matter of
`
`hours, forcing residents to evacuate with minimal or no notice.
`
`Infrared Images from NASA’s Earth Observatory
`(Aug. 8, 2023, 10:25 p.m. HST)
`
`3014313.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 3 of 75 PageID.3
`
`3.
`
`Cellphone towers burned or lost power, leaving people unable to communicate,
`
`receive emergency alerts, or both. Flames and downed power lines blocked or forced the closure
`
`of the two main roads that served as escape routes out of Lāhainā, funneling evacuees into an
`
`inferno of gridlock. Former agricultural lands, fallow and overgrown with non-native grasses,
`
`abutted these roads, fueling the Fire’s rapid spread. The County’s powerful emergency warning
`
`sirens never made a sound. Fire hydrants ran dry.
`
`Waiola Church and Lāhainā Hongwanji Mission engulfed in flames on August 8.1
`
`4.
`
`Had the HECO Defendants acted responsibly, the Lāhainā Fire could have been
`
`prevented. Despite High Wind and Red Flag weather warnings from the National Weather
`
`Service (“NWS”) cautioning that winds could topple power lines and cause fires to spread
`
`rapidly, the HECO Defendants failed to implement necessary fire prevention and mitigation
`
`measures. The utility company’s aging infrastructure failed, igniting the deadly inferno.
`
`1 Scenes From the Hawaii Fires and the Aftermath, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 11, 2023),
`https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/us/hawaii-fires-photos.html.
`
`3014313.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 4 of 75 PageID.4
`
`Photographs taken after the devastating fire.2
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, to
`
`hold Defendants liable for this avoidable tragedy and enable the community to rebuild.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Nova Burnes was at all times relevant a resident of Maui County, State
`
`of Hawai‘i. Ms. Burnes is an owner, member, and operator of Plaintiff Maui Concierge
`
`Aesthetics, LLC.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Maui Concierge Aesthetics, LLC (“Maui Concierge”) is a Hawai‘i
`
`domestic limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Maui County, State of
`
`Hawai‘i. At all relevant times, Maui Concierge operated a salon at 180 Dickenson St., Lāhainā,
`
`Hawai‘i, 96761. All members of Maui Concierge are residents of Hawai‘i.
`
`8.
`
`The Lāhainā Fire leveled Maui Concierge’s salon at 180 Dickenson, destroying
`
`business equipment and property, as well as personal property belonging to Nova Burnes.
`
`9.
`
`As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
`
`and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiff Nova Burnes has suffered injuries and damages, including
`
`2 Id.
`
`3014313.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 5 of 75 PageID.5
`
`destruction of personal property, out of pocket expense, loss of income, annoyance, aggravation,
`
`and inconvenience.
`
`10.
`
`As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
`
`and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiff Maui Concierge has suffered injuries and damages,
`
`including loss of personal property and loss of business income.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Lani Chadli, was at all times relevant a resident of Maui County, State of
`
`Hawai‘i. Plaintiff Chadli is a Trustee of the Aotaki Family Irrevocable Trust, which owns her
`
`residence at 1634 Ainakea Rd., Lāhainā, Hawai‘i, 96761. Plaintiff Chadli is an educational
`
`assistant for children with special needs and a caretaker for her 90-year-old mother.
`
`12.
`
`On the morning of the Fire, Plaintiff Chadli heard from friends about a brushfire
`
`near the Lāhainā Intermediate School but had no reason to believe the Fire would reach her home
`
`at the northern end of Lāhainā. By the time Plaintiff Chadli learned that the Fire was heading
`
`towards her home, she had no time to gather her belongings before evacuating. She swiftly
`
`loaded her 90-year-old mother into her car and left for the evacuation zone. The Lāhainā Fire
`
`consumed her entire home and all of her belongings, including family heirlooms. She, her
`
`mother, and her son have been displaced since the Fire and have had to rely on temporary
`
`housing in hotels that can accommodate her mother’s wheelchair.
`
`13.
`
`As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
`
`and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiff Chadli has suffered injuries and damages, including a
`
`complete loss of the property at 1634 Ainakea Road, loss of personal property, and emotional
`
`distress.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs Monica I. Eder and Rede S. Eder own a townhome located at 1400
`
`Limahana Circle, Lāhainā, Hawai‘i, 96761.
`
`3014313.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 6 of 75 PageID.6
`
`
`
`15.
`
`As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
`
`and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiffs M. Eder and R. Eder suffered real and personal property
`
`damages.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Candace Faust owns a townhome located at 41 Puapake Place, Lāhainā,
`
`Hawai‘i, 96761, which the Lāhainā Fire destroyed. As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and
`
`Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless, and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiff Faust suffered real
`
`and personal property damages and personal injuries, including emotional distress.
`
`17.
`
`As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
`
`and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiff C. Faust’s husband, Plaintiff Peter Faust suffered both
`
`personal property damages and personal injuries, including emotional distress.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiffs Kathryn Llamas and Barrett Procell were at all times relevant residents
`
`of Maui County, State of Hawai‘i. Mr. Procell and Ms. Llamas rented a residence located at 1406
`
`Front Street, Suite A, Lāhainā, Hawai‘i, 96761. Plaintiff Procell is a spearfishing guide and a
`
`realtor. Plaintiff Llamas is a personal trainer.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs Llamas and Procell fled their home as the Fire closed in. As they fled,
`
`they felt the heat of the oncoming fire and could see it advancing rapidly. The Lāhainā Fire soon
`
`razed their home and destroyed almost all of their personal possessions and work equipment.
`
`Plaintiffs Llamas and Procell have been displaced since the Fire, unable to find steady housing
`
`and unable to work.
`
`20.
`
`As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
`
`and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiffs Llamas and Procell have suffered injuries and damages,
`
`including loss of personal property, loss of income, and emotional distress.
`
`3014313.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 7 of 75 PageID.7
`
`View of the Lāhainā Fire taken from near Plaintiffs Llamas and
`Procell’s home as the Fire approached.
`
`Plaintiffs Llamas and Procell’s home before and after the Lāhainā fire.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff David Heymes rents an apartment located at 1034 Front Street, Lāhainā,
`
`Hawai‘i, 96761, which the Lāhainā Fire destroyed. As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and
`
`Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless, and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiff Heymes suffered
`
`personal property damages and personal injuries, including emotional distress.
`
`3014313.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 8 of 75 PageID.8
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff Jennifer Lynn McNamee rented a home located at 239 Front Street,
`
`Lāhainā, Hawai‘i, 96761, which the Lāhainā Fire destroyed.
`
`23.
`
`As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
`
`and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiff McNamee suffered personal property damages, business
`
`losses, and personal injuries, including emotional distress.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Chardell Naki was at all times relevant a resident of Maui County, State
`
`of Hawai‘i. Plaintiff Naki rented a residence at 737 Mill Street, Lāhainā, Hawai‘i, 96761.
`
`25.
`
`As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
`
`and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiff Chardell Naki suffered personal property damages, as well
`
`as personal injuries, including emotional distress.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Rolland Williams, Jr. rented a home located at 1337 Hoapili Street,
`
`Lāhainā, Hawai‘i, 96761, which the Lāhainā Fire destroyed.
`
`27.
`
`As a result of the Lāhainā Fire and Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
`
`and/or intentional conduct, Plaintiff Williams suffered personal property damages and business
`
`losses.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. dba Hawaiian Electric (“HECO”) is
`
`a Hawai‘i domestic corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Hawai‘i,
`
`registered on or about October 13, 1891. HECO is the Principal Subsidiary of Defendant
`
`Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. Defendant HECO is a public utility company headquartered in
`
`Honolulu, Hawai‘i that owns, controls, operates, and/or manages one or more energy plant and
`
`equipment that is directly or indirectly for public use for the production, conveyance,
`
`transmission, delivery, or furnishing of light and power in the State of Hawai‘i pursuant to HRS
`
`chapter 269. Defendant HECO is the parent company of Defendants Maui Electric Company and
`
`3014313.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 9 of 75 PageID.9
`
`Hawai‘i Electric Light Company, Inc. Defendant HECO does regular, sustained business
`
`throughout Hawai‘i, including in Maui County. Its principal place of business is in Honolulu at
`
`820 Ward Avenue, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, 96814.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant Maui Electric Company, Inc. dba MECO (“MECO”) is a Hawai‘i
`
`domestic for profit corporation registered on or about April 28, 1921, with its principal place of
`
`business in Maui County, State of Hawai‘i. Defendant MECO owns, controls, operates, and/or
`
`manages one or more energy plant and equipment that is directly or indirectly for public use for
`
`the production, conveyance, transmission, delivery, or furnishing of light and power in the State
`
`of Hawai‘i pursuant to HRS chapter 269. Its principal place of business is in Maui County at 210
`
`Kamehameha Avenue, Kahului, Hawai‘i, 96732.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Hawai‘i Electric Light Company, Inc. (“HELCO”) is a Hawai‘i
`
`domestic company with its principal place of business in Hawai‘i County, State of Hawai‘i.
`
`Defendant HELCO is a public utility company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawai‘i that owns,
`
`controls, operates, and/or manages one or more energy plant and equipment that is directly or
`
`indirectly for public use for the production, conveyance, transmission, delivery, or furnishing of
`
`light and power in the State of Hawai‘i pursuant to HRS chapter 269. It does regular, sustained
`
`business throughout Hawai‘i, including in Maui County. Its principal place of business is at 54
`
`Halekauila St., Hilo, Hawai‘i, 96720.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (“HEI”) is a Hawai‘i domestic
`
`company with its principal place of business in Honolulu County, State of Hawai‘i. Defendant
`
`HEI is the parent company of HECO, MECO, and HELCO, and does business in the State of
`
`Hawai‘i, including the County of Maui. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HEI is a publicly
`
`traded, investor-owned utility company that owns, controls, operates, and/or manages one or
`
`3014313.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 10 of 75 PageID.10
`
`more energy plant and equipment that is directly or indirectly for public use for the production,
`
`conveyance, transmission, delivery, or furnishing of light and power in the State of Hawai‘i
`
`pursuant to HRS chapter 269. Defendant HEI is in the business of providing electricity to the
`
`residents of Maui County, including, but not limited to, those residing in Lāhainā and Kula
`
`through a network of electrical transmission and distribution lines. It is the largest supplier of
`
`electricity in the State of Hawai‘i. Defendant HEI does regular, sustained business throughout
`
`Hawai‘i, including in Maui County. Its principal place of business is in Honolulu at 1001 Bishop
`
`Street, Suite 2900, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, 96813.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants HECO, MECO, HELCO, and HEI are collectively referred to herein
`
`as the “HECO Defendants.”
`
`33.
`
`The HECO Defendants serve about 95% of the population of the State of Hawai‘i
`
`with public utility services and services relating to the generation of energy, transmission of
`
`electricity, generation of electricity, and distribution of energy. Collectively, the HECO
`
`Defendants own about 3,000 miles of electrical transmission and distribution lines in the State of
`
`Hawai‘i. Further, Defendant HECO is the sole owner of 50,000 utility poles.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that the HECO Defendants are jointly
`
`and severally liable for each other’s negligence, conduct, and wrongdoing as alleged herein, in
`
`that:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`HEI is the sole holder of HECO common stock;
`
`HECO, MECO, and HELCO operate as a single business enterprise operating out
`of the same building, located at 1099 Alakea Street, Suite 2200, Honolulu,
`Hawai‘i, 96813 for the purpose of effectuating and carrying out HEI’s business
`and operations and/or for the benefit of HEI;
`
`The HECO Defendants do not operate as completely separate entities, but, rather,
`integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose;
`
`3014313.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 11 of 75 PageID.11
`
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`m.
`
`HECO, MECO, and HELCO are organized and controlled, and their decisions,
`affairs, and business so conducted, as to make them a mere instrumentality,
`agents, conduits, or adjuncts of HEI;
`
`HECO, MECO, and HELCO’s income contribution results from function
`integration, centralization of management, and economies of scale with HEI;
`
`The HECO Defendants’ officers and management are intertwined and do not act
`completely independent of one another;
`
`The HECO Defendants’ officers and managers act in the interest of HEI as a
`single enterprise;
`
`HEI has control and authority to choose and appoint HECO, MECO, and HELCO
`board members, as well as officers and managers;
`
`The HECO Defendants do not compete with one another but have been
`structured, organized, and integrated as a single enterprise where various
`components operate in concert with one another;
`
`HEI maintains unified administrative control over HECO, MECO, and HELCO;
`
`The HECO Defendants share the same insurance carriers and provide uniform or
`similar employee benefit plans;
`
`The HECO Defendants have unified personnel policies and practices; and
`
`HEI’s written guidelines, policies, and procedures control HECO, MECO, and
`HELCO, and their employees, policies and practices.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant Trustees of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop (“Bishop Estate”) is a
`
`charitable trust established pursuant to the laws of the State of Hawai‘i. The Bernice Pauahi
`
`Bishop Estate is the largest private landowner in the Hawaiian islands.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant County of Maui (“Maui County”) is, and was at all times relevant
`
`herein, a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Hawai‘i and the
`
`United States of America.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant Hawaiian Telcom, Inc. is a Hawai‘i domestic company with its
`
`principal place of business in Honolulu County, State of Hawai‘i. Its purpose is providing
`
`integrated communications, technology, and entertainment solutions for business and residential
`
`3014313.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 12 of 75 PageID.12
`
`customers. Its principal place of business is in Honolulu at 1177 Bishop Street, Suite 15,
`
`Honolulu, Hawai‘i, 96813.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant Hawaiian Telcom Federal, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company and doing business in the State of Hawai‘i.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant Hawaiian Telcom Communications Inc. is a Delaware corporation and
`
`doing business in the State of Hawai‘i.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants Defendant Hawaiian Telcom, Inc.; Hawaiian Telcom
`
`Communications Inc.; and Hawaiian Telcom Federal, LLC are collectively referred to herein as
`
`“Hawaiian Telcom.”
`
`41.
`
`Defendant Spectrum Oceanic, LLC (“Spectrum”) is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company and doing business in the State of Hawai‘i. Its stated purpose is cable
`
`telecommunications.
`
`42.
`
`Spectrum, and Hawaiian Telcom are collectively referred to herein as
`
`“Telecommunication Defendants.”
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Telecommunication Defendants are public
`
`utilities because they are corporate persons or limited liability entities composed of persons that
`
`own, control, and/or manage one or more plants and/or equipment that is directly or indirectly
`
`for public use for the conveyance or transmission of telecommunications messages in the State of
`
`Hawai‘i pursuant to HRS chapter 269.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe that “West Maui Land Company” is comprised
`
`of at least the following individuals and/or entities that owned, developed, or managed land in
`
`and/or adjacent to Lāhainā:
`
`3014313.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 13 of 75 PageID.13
`
`a. Defendant Peter Klint Martin; and Defendant Peter Klint Martin Revocable Trust.
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these persons and/or entities are residents
`of and/or doing business in the State of Hawai‘i, County of Maui.
`
`b. Defendant Hope Builders Inc. is a Hawai‘i domestic company with its principal
`place of business in Maui County, State of Hawai‘i. Its purpose is home
`construction. Its principal place of business is in Kahului at 305 E Wakea Ave.,
`Ste. 100 Kahului, Hawai‘i, 96732.
`
`c. Defendant Makila Ranches, Inc. is a Hawai‘i domestic company with its principal
`place of business in Maui County, State of Hawai‘i. Its purpose is real estate
`development. Its principal place of business is in Kahului at 305 E Wakea Ave.,
`Ste. 100 Kahului, Hawai‘i, 96732.
`
`d. Defendant West Maui Land Company, Inc. is a Hawai‘i domestic company with
`its principal place of business in Maui County, State of Hawai‘i. Its purpose is
`real estate brokerage and management. Its principal place of business is in
`Kahului at 305 E Wakea Ave., Ste. 100 Kahului, Hawai‘i, 96732.
`
`e. Defendant Hope Builders Holding LLC; Defendant Hope Builders LLC;
`Defendant Kauaula Land Company LLC; Defendant Kipa Centennial, LLC;
`Defendant Makila Land Co., LLC; and Defendant Wainee Land & Homes, LLC
`are domestic limited liability companies with their principal place of business in
`Maui County, State of Hawai‘i. Their principal place of business is in Kahului at
`305 E Wakea Ave., Ste. 100, Kahului, Hawai‘i 96732.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant Makila Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc. is a Hawai‘i domestic
`
`company with its principal place of business in Honolulu County, State of Hawai‘i. Its purpose is
`
`as a homeowners association. Its principal place of business is in Honolulu at 737 Bishop St.,
`
`Mauka, Ste. 3100, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, 96813.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant JV Enterprises, LLC, is an Idaho limited liability company doing
`
`business in Hawai‘i as JV Waiwai Investments. Its principal place of business is in Idaho Falls,
`
`Idaho.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the following individuals and/or entities
`
`that owned, developed, or managed land in and/or adjacent to Lāhainā: Defendant James C.
`
`Riley Trust and Defendant Jeanne A. Riley Trust.
`
`3014313.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 14 of 75 PageID.14
`
`
`48.
`
`Defendant West Maui Land Company; Defendant Makila Ranches Homeowners
`
`Association, Inc.; Defendant JV Enterprises, LLC; Defendant James C. Riley Trust; and
`
`Defendant Jeanne A. Riley Trust are collectively referred to herein as “West Maui Landowner
`
`Defendants.”
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiffs have reviewed available records to ascertain the true and full names and
`
`identities of all defendants in this action, but no further knowledge or information regarding the
`
`parties responsible is available at this time. Plaintiffs are unable to ascertain the identity of the
`
`defendants in this action designated as Doe Defendants 1–10 (“Doe Defendants”).
`
`50.
`
`Doe Defendants are sued herein under fictitious names because their true names
`
`and identities are unknown to Plaintiffs, except that they may be connected in some manner with
`
`Defendants and may be agents, attorneys, servants, employees, employers, representatives, co-
`
`venturers, co-conspirators, associates, or independent contractors of Defendants and/or were in
`
`some manner jointly and severally responsible for the injuries or damages to Plaintiffs, and their
`
`true names, identities, capacities, activities and responsibilities are presently unknown to
`
`Plaintiffs or their attorneys.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`51.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over the above Defendants pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) & (5)(B). Specifically, this matter is a class action where “the class has
`
`more than 100 members, the amount in controversy is greater than $5,000,000, and the parties
`
`are minimally diverse.” Hawaii ex rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 761 F.3d 1027, 1039
`
`(9th Cir. 2014); see also ECF No. 67. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
`
`because this District is “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
`
`3014313.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 15 of 75 PageID.15
`
`giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action
`
`is situated.”
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`The HECO and Telecommunications Defendants had a duty to safely design, build,
`maintain, and operate their overhead electrical and communications infrastructure.
`
`52.
`
`Collectively, the HECO Defendants are a multibillion-dollar corporation that
`
`supplies electricity throughout Hawai‘i. The HECO Defendants own, build, operate, and
`
`maintain power lines, power poles, and other electrical equipment and infrastructure to transmit
`
`power to residents, businesses, schools, and other entities in Hawai‘i. The HECO Defendants
`
`own, maintain, and operate equipment throughout Hawai‘i, including in and around the Lāhainā
`
`Fire’s area of origin, as well as the areas of origin of simultaneous fires in Kula and Kīhei.
`
`53.
`
`As the HECO Defendants know, power line infrastructure carries inherent
`
`dangers. The inherent and heightened danger associated with the transmission and distribution of
`
`electricity requires the HECO Defendants to exercise an increased level of care to protect the
`
`public and the communities through which their power lines run.
`
`54.
`
`Hawai‘i law recognizes these dangers and mandates that Defendants, as public
`
`utilities, must “exercise reasonable care to reduce the hazards to which [their] employees, [their]
`
`customers, and the general public may be subjected.” Haw. P.U.C. Gen. Order No. 7, § 8.2.a.
`
`55.
`
`Hawai‘i law requires the HECO Defendants to take common sense preventative
`
`actions to protect against the known risk of fire. The HECO Defendants have a duty to properly
`
`construct, inspect, repair, maintain, manage, and operate their power line infrastructure. Haw.
`
`Admin. R. (“HAR”) § 6-73-11; Nat’l Elec. Safety Code (“NESC”) § 214(A).
`
`3014313.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 16 of 75 PageID.16
`
`56. With regard to their power poles specifically, the HECO and Telecommunications
`
`Defendants have a duty to ensure the poles can withstand wind speeds of up to 105 miles per
`
`hour. HAR § 6-73-11; NESC § 250-2(b) (2002).
`
`57.
`
`The HECO Defendants also have a duty to keep vegetation properly cleared at a
`
`safe distance to prevent contact with power line infrastructure. HAR § 6-73-11; NESC § 217(A).
`
`58.
`
`The Telecommunications Defendants share the duty to keep vegetation properly
`
`cleared at a safe distance to prevent contact with electrified infrastructure. Pursuant to their
`
`respective license agreements for pole attachments with the HECO Defendants, the
`
`Telecommunications Defendants own and operate telecommunications equipment attached to the
`
`HECO Defendants’ power pole infrastructure on Maui. Under the Pole Licensing Agreement, the
`
`Telecommunications Defendants and HECO Defendants are jointly responsible for performing
`
`proactive and corrective vegetation management in the areas surrounding their shared equipment.
`
`59.
`
`The Telecommunications Defendants are also responsible for properly designing,
`
`constructing, installing, using, inspecting, repairing, and adequately maintaining their
`
`telecommunications equipment attached to the HECO Defendants’ power poles. This duty
`
`includes a duty to design, maintain, and inspect their communications equipment so as to not
`
`overload the poles or otherwise cause the shared poles to break, snap, and/or fail during wind
`
`events.
`
`60.
`
`If Defendants start a fire, they have a duty to extinguish that fire or to use every
`
`reasonable effort to do so.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants were aware of the heightened risk of wildfire in West Maui that extreme
`weather and overgrown vegetation posed.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants knew about the fire risks that the HECO Defendants’ aging power line
`
`infrastructure posed. Numerous government and independent reports have recognized that
`
`3014313.1
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 17 of 75 PageID.17
`
`Hawai‘i’s electrical infrastructure, in conjunction with extreme weather and overgrown
`
`vegetation, poses real and significant wildfire threats.
`
`62. West Maui is generally at risk for wildfires because of its microclimate and
`
`terrain. A decade ago, the Hawai‘i Wildfire Management Organization (“WMO”) issued a
`
`Wildfire Mitigation Plan, cautioning that Lāhainā’s proximity to grasslands, steep terrain, and
`
`frequent high winds makes it particularly susceptible to wildfire.3
`
`63.
`
`The risk of high winds and rapidly spreading fire become even more severe
`
`during tropical storms, such as hurricanes. Climate change has made hurricanes more frequent
`
`and their effects more severe. Since 2000, at least twenty-two hurricanes or their remnants have
`
`either impacted or nearly impacted Hawai‘i, thirteen of which occurred since 2010.
`
`64.
`
`Hawai‘i wildfire experts have also repeatedly singled out better management of
`
`nonnative grasses as key to mitigating fire risk.4
`
`65.
`
`These invasive, nonnative grasses, such as buffelgrass and guinea grass, have
`
`thrived in Maui’s climate at the expense of native species of plants. Overgrowth of nonnative
`
`grasses is especially pronounced in former sugarcane plantation fields and in areas that burned in
`
`a prior fire.
`
`3 Dan Frosch & Jim Carlton, Hawaii Officials Were Warned Years Ago that Maui’s Lahaina
`Faced High Wildfire Risk, WALL ST. J. (Aug. 11. 2023), https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-
`maui-fire-risks-plans-government-e883f3a3.
`4 Imogen Piper et al., Maui’s neglected grasslands caused Lahaina fire to grow with deadly
`speed, WASH. POST, (Sept. 2, 2023),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2023/lahaina-wildfires-invasive-
`grass-destruction/; Melissa Tanji, Wildfire Lessons Learned, MAUI NEWS (Sept. 30, 2018)
`https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2018/09/wildfire-lessons-learned/.
`
`3014313.1
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 18 of 75 PageID.18
`
`
`66.
`
`If unchecked, and with little competition from native plants, these nonnative
`
`grasses can grow quickly to form an exceptionally dense underbrush that inches taller and closer
`
`to homes every rainy season.
`
`67.
`
`After the extended drought that preceded the Lāhainā Fire, these grasses dried out
`
`and essentially turned into kindling that, according to an expert, facilitated “explosive fire
`
`growth.”5
`
`68.
`
`The danger that drought and nonnative grasses present was well known. In 2019,
`
`the Hawai‘i Wildfire Management Organization published a report with multiple
`
`recommendations, including fuel reduction; replacement of invasive, fire-promoting grasses to
`
`less flammable species; and construction of fire breaks in the area where the Lāhainā Fire
`
`started.6
`
`69.
`
`The Maui County Cost of Government Commission reiterated these conclusions
`
`regarding vegetation management in its 2021 Report on Wildfire Prevention and Cost Recovery.7
`
`
`5 Dan Frosch & Jim Carlton, Hawaii Officials Were Warned Years Ago that Maui’s Lahaina
`Faced High Wildfire Risk, WALL ST. J. (Aug. 11. 2023), https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-
`maui-fire-risks-plans-government-e883f3a3.
`6 Cnty. of Maui, State of Hawai‘i, Cost of Gov’t Comm’n, Report on Wildfire Prevention and
`Cost Recovery on Maui, Exhibit D: Hawaii Wildfire Management Association, A Collaborative
`Landscape-Level Approach to Reduce Wildfire Hazard Across Hawai‘i: 2018–19 Vegetation
`Management — Rapid Mapping Assessment and Collaborative Action Planning — Maui Report,
`https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/129491/Report-on-Wildfire-Prevention--
`Cost-Recovery-on-Maui---Part-4-Exhibit-D-25-MB (“Cost of Gov’t Comm’n, Ex. D”).
`7 Id.
`
`3014313.1
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00259-JAO-BMK Document 1 Filed 06/04/24 Page 19 of 75 PageID.19
`
`A slide authored by the Hawaii Wildfire Management Association from the Maui County Cost of
`Government Commission’s “2021 Report on Wildfire Prevention and Cost Recovery.”8
`
`70.
`
`Under these conditions, wildfires were commonplace in West Maui prior to the
`
`Lāhainā Fire. The hazard mitigation plan prepared for Defendant Maui County in 2020 reported
`
`that West Maui, which includes Lāhainā, had the highest annual probability for w