by Andrew Walden

A second lawsuit has been filed challenging Maui Bill 9.  Representing five ‘class plaintiffs’ who are Minatoya List TVR owners, the suit, filed December 22, 2025, seeks certification as a class action to represent all Minatoya List property owners before Maui’s Second Circuit Court.  (Lynam v Maui County, case# 2CCV-25-0003780.)

Plaintiff counsel includes attorneys who, last week, filed a non-class-action Bill 9 lawsuit representing Kaanapali Royal condotel unit owners.  (Malter v Maui County, case #2CCV-25-0003778.)

As in the first suit, plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of Bill 9.

After tracing the legal authority for TVR operations in Minatoya List properties, plaintiff attorneys make the case for certification as a class action:

21. A class action is alleged pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (“HRCP”) Rule 23.

22. Class Plaintiffs seek to represent Minatoya List owners who will lose their ability to engage in short-term rentals under Bill 9 (“Minatoya Owners”).

23. The number of individuals within the Class is so numerous that joinder of all Minatoya Owners would be impracticable.

24. The Class involves questions of law and fact common to all individual members of the Class, including whether class members have a vested property right to engage in short-term rentals, and whether deprival of Minatoya Owners’ vested property right to engage in STRs constitutes a regulatory taking by the County of Maui.

25. The claims and relief sought by the Class are typical of the claims and relief that could be sought by individual members of the class. For example, all members seek declaratory and injunctive relief to continue their preexisting lawful use of units as transient vacation rentals or short term rentals, and all members will suffer similar irreparable harm as a result of Maui County’s actions, which includes loss of valuable property rights and loss of property values and rights for class members.

26. Class Plaintiffs will adequately and fairly represent the interests of individual members of the proposed Class in that they are similarly situated individuals who have suffered harm because Maui County failed to recognize their vested property rights.

27. A Class is further warranted because:

a) prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class will create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties; and

b) adjudication of the issues presented by Class would be dispositive of the interests of other putative class members; and

c) common questions of law and fact predominate over other questions that might apply to individual members to the extent that a class action would be the superior format to manage the shared questions of law and fact that apply to the Class.

28. Accordingly, a class action under HRCP Rule 23 is in the best interests of judicial economy.

Read the class action complaint >>> HERE <<<.

BACKGROUND: Bill 9: First Lawsuit Filed