descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Elizabeth Simeona Burgert, an Individual, and Francine Dawson, an Individual Belinda Anahuea Burgert, an Individual Shirley Kala, an Individual on Behalf of Themselves and All Beneficiaries of the Bishop Estate v. The Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, a Charitable Trust Administered Under the Laws of the State of Hawaii Richard S.H. Wong, an Individual Marion Mae Lokelani Lindsey, an Individual Henry Peters, an Individual Gerard Jervis, an Individual Oswald K. Stender, an Individual the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, a Charitable Trust Administered Under the Laws of the State of Hawaii John Does 1-5 John Does Corporations 1-5 John Doe Partnerships 1-5 Roe Corporations 1-5 Doe Partnerships 1-5 Roe Non-Profit Organizations 1-5 Roe Governmental Gencies 1-5

Citations: 200 F.3d 661; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 626; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 991; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 914Docket: 98-16238

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 25, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs against the Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust and individual trustees, alleging misuse of federal funds in violation of the Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA) and the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act (NHHCA), along with state law violations. The plaintiffs argued for an implied private right of action under these federal statutes. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, ruling that neither the NHEA nor the NHHCA provides such a private right of action. The court applied the Cort v. Ash four-factor test and concluded that the statutory language, legislative history, and overall legislative intent did not support the existence of enforceable individual rights. Consequently, the state law claims were also dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit conducted a de novo review, affirming the district court's dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the federal statutes do not imply private causes of action and that the district court's findings were consistent with the legislative framework and congressional intent. The decision ultimately upholds the denial of enforceable private rights under the NHEA and the NHHCA, affirming that such claims can only be pursued by the United States.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of State Law Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)

Application: The district court dismissed the state law claims after determining that the federal acts in question do not imply a private right of action, exercising its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Reasoning: The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the federal acts do not imply a private right of action and subsequently dismissed the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Implied Private Right of Action under Federal Statutes

Application: The court determined that neither the Native Hawaiian Education Act nor the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act provides an implied private right of action, as the statutory language and legislative history do not indicate congressional intent to create enforceable rights for individuals.

Reasoning: The district court applied Cort's four-part test to the Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA) and the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act (NHHCA) and found no implied private rights of action.

Standard of Review for Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissals

Application: The appellate court reviewed the district court's dismissal de novo, taking all factual allegations as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo, under Rule 12(b)(6), taking all factual allegations as true and favorably construing them for the nonmoving party, ultimately determining that the dismissal was supported by the record.