Here is the opinion — Brown v State of Hawaii (D. Haw.)
An excerpt:
Plaintiff should be commended for bringing his NAGPRA claim. As the State Defendants’ counsel acknowledged in his opening statement, the claim effectively brought certain issues of noncompliance to light. See 10/21/09 Tr. 96:17-22 (St.’ Defs.’ Counsel) (“In a very perverse way, my client has to thank Mr. Brown for bringing this case. Because although SHPD had been under the belief and understanding that NAGPRA did not apply to it, unless there was a finding on federal or tribal lands, there apparently is a dispute as to whether or not that is an accurate interpretation of the law.”). It appears that, as a direct result of this litigation, SHPD has initiated consultation with the National NAGPRA Program in an effort to come into compliance with the [*26] statute. Nevertheless, the Court may only issue permanent injunctive relief upon a proper showing. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n, 452 F.3d at 1137 n.10. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that injunctive relief is appropriately issued in his favor at this time because he has failed to show that he has suffered irreparable harm or that he will likely suffer such harm immediately in the absence of injunctive relief. See id.
Turtle Talk 