Stay of Enforcement Request - Hawaii

STAY OF ENFORCEMENT REQUEST — HAWAII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Stay Request Cover Letter
2. Formal Motion for Stay of Enforcement
3. Statement of Facts
4. Legal Standard for Stay
5. Grounds Analysis — Four-Factor Test Under HRS § 91-14(c)
6. Bond and Security Provisions
7. Emergency Stay Procedures
8. Opposition Response Template
9. Proposed Order Granting Stay
10. Appeal of Stay Denial
11. Document Checklist
12. Practice Tips
13. Sources and References

1. STAY REQUEST COVER LETTER

[__/__/____]

[________________________________]
[Title / Position]
[Agency Name / Circuit Court]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[City, State, ZIP]

Via: ☐ Hand Delivery ☐ Certified Mail ☐ Electronic Filing ☐ Facsimile

Re: Application for Stay of Enforcement Pending Judicial Review
Case No.: [________________________________]
Agency Docket No.: [________________________________]
Agency Order/Decision Dated: [__/__/____]
Petitioner: [________________________________]

Dear [________________________________]:

Enclosed please find Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Enforcement of the above-referenced agency decision/order dated [__/__/____], filed pursuant to HRS § 91-14(c).

Petitioner respectfully requests expedited consideration of this application given the effective date of the agency decision and the potential for irreparable harm.

Please contact the undersigned at [________________________________] with any questions.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
Attorney for Petitioner
Hawaii Bar No.: [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

2. FORMAL MOTION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE [____] CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

MOTION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT

Petitioner [________________________________] ("Petitioner"), by and through [undersigned counsel / pro se], respectfully moves this Court for an order staying enforcement of the [Decision / Order / Final Action] of [Agency Name] dated [__/__/____] ("Agency Decision"), pursuant to HRS § 91-14(c), pending completion of judicial review.

In support of this Motion, Petitioner states as follows:

I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal from the agency contested case under HRS § 91-14(a).

2. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on [__/__/____], within 30 days after service of the certified copy of the agency's final decision and order as required by HRS § 91-14(b).

3. Under HRS § 91-14(c), the proceedings for review shall not stay enforcement of the agency decision. However, the reviewing court may order a stay if the statutory criteria are met.

4. The four statutory criteria that must be satisfied for a stay under HRS § 91-14(c) are:
   - (1) Likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on the merits;
   - (2) Irreparable damage to Petitioner will result without a stay;
   - (3) No irreparable damage to the public will result from a stay; and
   - (4) The public interest will be served by a stay.

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Background

5. Petitioner is [________________________________] [describe party — individual, business entity, licensee, permit holder, etc.].

6. Petitioner [holds / held] [license / permit / certification / registration] No. [________________________________] issued by [________________________________] on [__/__/____].

7. [________________________________]
   [Describe the nature of Petitioner's activities, business, or professional practice subject to agency regulation.]

B. The Administrative Proceeding

8. On [__/__/____], the [Agency Name] initiated [________________________________] [describe the enforcement action, investigation, charges, or contested case proceeding].

9. A contested case hearing was held under HRS § 91-9 on [__/__/____] before [________________________________] [hearing officer / board / commission].

10. [________________________________]
    [Describe key hearing dates, evidence, testimony, and procedural steps.]

C. The Agency Decision

11. On [__/__/____], the [Agency Name] issued its [Final Decision and Order / Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order], which:

☐ Revoked Petitioner's [license / permit / certification]
☐ Suspended Petitioner's [license / permit / certification] for [________________________________]
☐ Imposed a fine of $[________________________________]
☐ Confirmed a fine as a judgment under HRS § 92-17(g)
☐ Issued a cease-and-desist order requiring [________________________________]
☐ Denied Petitioner's application for [________________________________]
☐ Imposed conditions or restrictions on [________________________________]
☐ Other: [________________________________]

12. The Agency Decision is effective on [__/__/____].

D. The Appeal

13. On [__/__/____], Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to this Court under HRS § 91-14.

14. The appeal raises the following issues:

☐ The agency's findings are not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
☐ The decision was in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions
☐ The decision was in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction
☐ The decision was made upon unlawful procedure
☐ The decision was affected by error of law
☐ The decision was arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion
☐ Other: [________________________________]

E. Current Status and Urgency

15. Without a stay, the Agency Decision will [________________________________] on [__/__/____].

16. [________________________________]
    [Describe any immediate harm or urgency.]

4. LEGAL STANDARD FOR STAY

A. Statutory Framework — HRS § 91-14(c)

Hawaii's Administrative Procedure Act provides:

"The proceedings for review shall not stay enforcement of the agency decisions or the confirmation of any fine as a judgment pursuant to section 92-17(g); but the reviewing court may order a stay if the following criteria have been met:
(1) There is likelihood that the subject person will prevail on the merits of an appeal from the administrative proceeding to the court;
(2) Irreparable damage to the subject person will result if a stay is not ordered;
(3) No irreparable damage to the public will result from the stay order;
(4) Public interest will be served by the stay order."

B. Four-Part Statutory Test

Unlike many states that use a general "upon appropriate terms" standard, Hawaii codifies a specific four-part test for stays. All four criteria must be satisfied:

C. No Automatic Stay

The statute is explicit: proceedings for review "shall not stay enforcement." This applies to both the agency decision itself and any fine confirmed as a judgment under HRS § 92-17(g).

D. Court Authority — Not Agency

Under HRS § 91-14(c), the stay is granted by the reviewing court, not by the agency. This distinguishes Hawaii from states where the agency may independently grant stays.

E. Burden of Proof

The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that all four statutory criteria are met. The conjunctive nature of the test ("if the following criteria have been met") means failure on any single factor is grounds for denial.

F. Scope of Stay

☐ The stay may cover enforcement of the agency decision in its entirety
☐ The stay may cover confirmation of a fine as a judgment under HRS § 92-17(g)
☐ The court has discretion to craft the scope and terms of the stay

5. GROUNDS ANALYSIS — FOUR-FACTOR TEST UNDER HRS § 91-14(c)

Factor 1: Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits

17. Petitioner is likely to prevail on appeal because:

☐ The agency's findings of fact are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record — HRS § 91-14(g)(5)
☐ The decision was in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions — HRS § 91-14(g)(1)
☐ The decision was in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency — HRS § 91-14(g)(2)
☐ The decision was made upon unlawful procedure — HRS § 91-14(g)(3)
☐ The decision was affected by other error of law — HRS § 91-14(g)(4)
☐ The decision was arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion — HRS § 91-14(g)(6)

18. Specifically, Petitioner will demonstrate on appeal that:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

19. The legal errors in the Agency Decision include:

a. [________________________________]
b. [________________________________]
c. [________________________________]

20. The evidentiary deficiencies include:

a. [________________________________]
b. [________________________________]

Factor 2: Irreparable Damage to Petitioner

21. Petitioner will suffer irreparable damage if the stay is not ordered because:

☐ Loss of [license / permit / certification] will terminate Petitioner's [business / practice / livelihood]
☐ Financial losses estimated at $[________________________________] that cannot be recovered from the State
☐ Loss of [____] jobs for employees dependent on Petitioner's operations
☐ Permanent reputational damage in [________________________________]
☐ Loss of established client/patient/customer relationships and professional goodwill
☐ Constitutional rights will be violated during the pendency of review
☐ Physical harm or health consequences: [________________________________]
☐ Loss of unique business opportunity: [________________________________]
☐ Other: [________________________________]

22. The damage is irreparable (not compensable by monetary remedy) because:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

23. Supporting evidence of irreparable damage:

☐ Declaration of Petitioner (Exhibit [____])
☐ Financial statements / tax returns (Exhibit [____])
☐ Employee records showing affected personnel (Exhibit [____])
☐ Customer/client declarations (Exhibit [____])
☐ Expert opinion on business impact (Exhibit [____])
☐ Other: [________________________________] (Exhibit [____])

Factor 3: No Irreparable Damage to the Public

24. No irreparable damage to the public will result from the stay because:

☐ Petitioner's continued operations pose no risk to public health or safety
☐ The underlying violations are [administrative / technical / procedural] rather than safety-related
☐ Petitioner has operated without incident for [____] years
☐ Proposed conditions adequately protect the public (see Section 6)
☐ The agency's enforcement action is directed at [________________________________], not public safety
☐ No members of the public have been harmed by Petitioner's conduct
☐ Similar entities continue to operate under comparable circumstances
☐ The public benefits from Petitioner's continued operation because: [________________________________]

25. The absence of public harm is demonstrated by:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]

26. Proposed safeguards to protect the public during the stay:

☐ Enhanced monitoring or reporting
☐ Operational restrictions: [________________________________]
☐ Insurance or bonding: [________________________________]
☐ Third-party supervision: [________________________________]
☐ Other: [________________________________]

Factor 4: Public Interest Served by the Stay

27. The public interest will be served by granting the stay because:

☐ The public benefits from Petitioner's continued [business operations / professional practice / services]
☐ The public interest in fair adjudication requires that enforcement be delayed until the appeal is resolved
☐ Premature enforcement will harm the community served by Petitioner
☐ Consumers/clients/patients rely on Petitioner for [________________________________]
☐ The public interest in maintaining the rule of law supports judicial review before enforcement
☐ No countervailing public interest requires immediate enforcement
☐ Other: [________________________________]

28. Additional public interest considerations:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]

6. BOND AND SECURITY PROVISIONS

A. Court's Discretion to Impose Terms

While HRS § 91-14(c) does not expressly require a bond, the court has discretion to impose conditions on any stay, which may include security.

B. Fines Confirmed as Judgments

If the Agency Decision includes a fine confirmed as a judgment under HRS § 92-17(g), the stay application must address the fine enforcement as well.

☐ The Agency Decision includes a fine of $[________________________________]
☐ The fine [has been / will be] confirmed as a judgment
☐ Petitioner seeks to stay enforcement of the fine/judgment as well

C. Petitioner's Position on Bond

☐ Petitioner is willing to post a bond in the amount of $[________________________________]
☐ Petitioner proposes alternative security: [________________________________]
☐ Petitioner requests that no bond be required because: [________________________________]
☐ Petitioner requests a reduced bond amount because: [________________________________]
☐ Petitioner requests waiver of bond due to financial hardship (with supporting documentation)

D. Proposed Bond Terms

E. Proposed Conditions of Stay

☐ Petitioner will maintain all applicable [insurance / licensure / certification / bonding] requirements
☐ Petitioner will comply with all statutes, rules, and regulations except the specific terms stayed
☐ Petitioner will submit periodic reports to the agency every [____] days
☐ Petitioner will permit agency monitoring or inspection on [____] days notice
☐ Petitioner will refrain from [________________________________]
☐ Petitioner will practice/operate under supervision of [________________________________]
☐ Petitioner will escrow disputed fine amounts: $[________________________________]
☐ Other conditions: [________________________________]

7. EMERGENCY STAY PROCEDURES

A. Application for Emergency Stay

When the agency decision takes effect immediately or before the full stay motion can be heard:

Emergency Stay Request

☐ Petitioner seeks an emergency temporary stay pending resolution of the full motion
☐ The Agency Decision takes effect on [__/__/____]
☐ Without emergency relief, Petitioner will suffer: [________________________________]

B. Grounds for Emergency Relief

29. Emergency relief is warranted because:

☐ The enforcement date is imminent: [__/__/____]
☐ The harm from enforcement is immediate and cannot be undone
☐ Normal briefing schedules would render the stay request moot
☐ Petitioner had insufficient time to seek relief through ordinary channels because: [________________________________]
☐ The agency decision was issued on [__/__/____] and takes effect on [__/__/____], allowing insufficient time for a full hearing

C. Emergency Motion Practice

Under Hawaii practice:

☐ File an emergency motion for stay with the Circuit Court
☐ Request expedited hearing under HRCP Rule 6 or court procedures
☐ Contact the court calendar clerk to arrange an emergency hearing
☐ Consider ex parte relief under HRCP Rule 65(b) for temporary restraining order if the statutory stay mechanism is insufficient

D. Proposed Emergency Procedure

Petitioner requests:

☐ An immediate temporary stay pending briefing on the full motion
☐ Expedited briefing: Response due within [____] days
☐ Telephonic or emergency hearing on [__/__/____]
☐ Consideration on the papers without oral argument
☐ Shortened notice period

E. Notice to Opposing Party

☐ The agency has been notified on [__/__/____] at [____] [a.m./p.m.]
☐ Contact person: [________________________________]
☐ Method: ☐ Telephone ☐ Email ☐ Fax ☐ Hand Delivery

8. OPPOSITION RESPONSE TEMPLATE

AGENCY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY

The [Agency Name] respectfully opposes Petitioner's Motion for Stay and states:

I. Petitioner Is Not Likely to Prevail on the Merits

30. The Agency Decision was:
    ☐ Supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
    ☐ Within the agency's statutory authority
    ☐ Made in accordance with lawful procedure
    ☐ Free from error of law
    ☐ Not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion

31. Petitioner's arguments are insufficient because:
    ☐ [________________________________]
    ☐ [________________________________]

II. Petitioner Will Not Suffer Irreparable Damage

32. The alleged damage is not irreparable because:
    ☐ Financial losses are compensable through [________________________________]
    ☐ The harm is speculative and not imminent
    ☐ Petitioner caused or contributed to the circumstances
    ☐ Petitioner delayed in seeking relief
    ☐ [________________________________]

III. Irreparable Damage to the Public Would Result

33. Granting a stay would cause irreparable damage to the public because:
    ☐ Continued operations by Petitioner pose a risk to [________________________________]
    ☐ Public safety concerns: [________________________________]
    ☐ Consumer protection concerns: [________________________________]
    ☐ Environmental concerns: [________________________________]

IV. The Public Interest Is Not Served by a Stay

34. The public interest requires immediate enforcement because:
    ☐ Regulatory compliance: [________________________________]
    ☐ Public health and safety: [________________________________]
    ☐ Deterrence of violations: [________________________________]
    ☐ Protection of third parties: [________________________________]

V. Conditions if Stay is Granted

35. If the Court grants the stay, the Agency requests:
    ☐ Bond: $[________________________________]
    ☐ Conditions: [________________________________]
    ☐ Time limitation: [________________________________]
    ☐ Enhanced monitoring: [________________________________]

9. PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING STAY

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE [____] CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT

(Pursuant to HRS § 91-14(c))

This matter having come before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Enforcement, and the Court having considered the motion, opposition, evidence, and applicable law under HRS § 91-14(c):

THE COURT FINDS that:

☐ (1) There is a likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on the merits of the appeal;
☐ (2) Irreparable damage to Petitioner will result if a stay is not ordered;
☐ (3) No irreparable damage to the public will result from the stay order; and
☐ (4) The public interest will be served by the stay order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

☐ Petitioner's Motion for Stay is GRANTED on the following terms:

1. Enforcement of the [Decision / Order] dated [__/__/____] is stayed pending [final disposition of the appeal / further order of this Court / the following date: __/__/____].

2. ☐ Enforcement of the fine of $[________________________________] confirmed as a judgment under HRS § 92-17(g) is also stayed.

3. ☐ Petitioner shall post a bond or security in the amount of $[________________________________] within [____] days.
   ☐ No bond or security is required.

4. The following conditions shall apply during the stay:
   a. [________________________________]
   b. [________________________________]
   c. [________________________________]

5. ☐ The Agency may move to dissolve the stay upon a showing of changed circumstances, new evidence of public harm, or Petitioner's violation of the stay conditions.

☐ Petitioner's Motion for Stay is DENIED because:
☐ Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits
☐ Petitioner has not demonstrated irreparable damage
☐ The stay would cause irreparable damage to the public
☐ The public interest is not served by the stay
☐ Other: [________________________________]

SO ORDERED this [____] day of [________________], [________].

_________________________________
Judge of the Circuit Court
[____] Circuit

10. APPEAL OF STAY DENIAL

A. Circuit Court Denial of Stay

If the Circuit Court denies the stay:

☐ File a motion for reconsideration under HRCP Rule 59(e)
☐ Seek interlocutory appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals under HRS § 641-1(b)
☐ Consider whether new evidence or changed circumstances support a renewed motion
☐ Explore alternative remedies (negotiated compliance schedule, consent order with the agency)

B. Interlocutory Appeal

Under HRS § 641-1(b), interlocutory appeals from orders of the Circuit Court may be permitted by the Intermediate Court of Appeals:

☐ File an application for interlocutory appeal within the applicable timeframe
☐ Demonstrate that the order involves a controlling question of law on which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion
☐ Show that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation
☐ Request emergency treatment

C. Alternative Avenues

☐ Petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition (in extraordinary circumstances)
☐ Apply to the agency for voluntary compliance modifications
☐ Negotiate with the agency for a phased enforcement schedule
☐ Seek mediation or informal resolution

D. Timeline for Stay Proceedings

11. DOCUMENT CHECKLIST

Filing Preparation

☐ Stay request cover letter completed and signed
☐ Formal motion for stay completed with HRS § 91-14(c) citation
☐ Statement of facts verified for accuracy
☐ All four statutory criteria specifically addressed
☐ Supporting declarations or affidavits prepared and notarized
☐ Exhibits compiled, indexed, and tabbed
☐ Proposed order prepared
☐ Memorandum in support of motion (recommended)

Required Attachments

☐ Copy of the agency Final Decision and Order
☐ Copy of the notice of appeal filed under HRS § 91-14
☐ Declaration of Petitioner detailing irreparable damage
☐ Evidence addressing all four HRS § 91-14(c) factors
☐ Evidence demonstrating absence of public harm (Factor 3)
☐ Evidence demonstrating public interest served by stay (Factor 4)
☐ Financial documentation (if bond waiver requested)
☐ Proposed bond or security documentation
☐ Proposed order granting stay
☐ Certificate of service

Court Filing Requirements (Circuit Court)

☐ Notice of appeal filed within 30 days of service of certified copy of decision — HRS § 91-14(b)
☐ Filed in the correct Circuit Court (circuit where the proceeding occurred or where Petitioner resides)
☐ Service on agency and all parties to the contested case
☐ Filing fee paid or waiver obtained
☐ Motion for stay filed with supporting memorandum and evidence
☐ Hearing date requested

Service Requirements

☐ Served on the agency (typically through the Attorney General's office)
☐ Served on all parties who appeared in the contested case proceeding
☐ Proof of service filed with the Court

12. PRACTICE TIPS

Hawaii-Specific Considerations

1. Codified Four-Factor Test: Unlike many states that leave the stay standard to judicial discretion or use a general "appropriate terms" formulation, Hawaii explicitly codifies the four-factor test in HRS § 91-14(c). Each factor must be addressed with specificity.

2. All Four Factors Required: The test is conjunctive — all four criteria must be met. Failure on any single factor is sufficient for denial. Do not neglect Factors 3 and 4 (no irreparable damage to public; public interest served), which are sometimes overlooked.

3. Court-Granted Only: Under HRS § 91-14(c), the reviewing court grants the stay — not the agency. This means practitioners must file the stay motion with the Circuit Court after the appeal is filed. There is no statutory mechanism for agency-granted stays, though agency-specific rules may provide alternative relief.

4. 30-Day Appeal Deadline: Under HRS § 91-14(b), the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after service of the certified copy of the final decision and order. Ensure the appeal is filed first (or simultaneously with the stay motion).

5. Fines as Judgments: HRS § 92-17(g) permits confirmation of administrative fines as judgments. The stay application should address fine enforcement if applicable, as the statute explicitly references this provision.

6. Factor 3 — Affirmative Showing: Hawaii's third factor requires an affirmative showing that "no irreparable damage to the public will result." This is a unique burden — the petitioner must prove a negative. Prepare affirmative evidence of public safety, such as clean inspection records, patient outcome data, or safety certifications.

7. Circuit Court Jurisdiction: Appeals are filed in the Circuit Court, not the District Court. The correct circuit is determined by where the proceeding occurred or where the petitioner resides.

8. Record on Appeal: Under HRS § 91-14(e), the agency must transmit the record within specified timeframes. The completeness of the record affects the strength of the stay arguments.

9. Reconsideration: Under HRS § 91-12, a party may seek reconsideration from the agency within 10 days after the decision. Reconsideration does not toll the 30-day appeal period, but it may provide additional time to prepare the stay motion.

10. Hawaiian Cultural Considerations: In cases involving Native Hawaiian rights, traditional practices, or cultural resources, the public interest analysis may include unique considerations related to Hawaii's constitutional protections for Native Hawaiian rights and cultural practices.

13. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Hawaii Statutes

• HRS § 91-1 — Definitions
• HRS § 91-1 et seq. — Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 91)
• HRS § 91-9 — Contested Case Hearings
• HRS § 91-10 — Contested Cases — Rules of Evidence
• HRS § 91-12 — Reconsideration
• HRS § 91-14 — Judicial Review of Contested Cases
• HRS § 91-14(c) — Stay of Enforcement
• HRS § 92-17(g) — Fines Confirmed as Judgments

Court Rules

• Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) — Motion for Reconsideration
• Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 62 — Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment
• Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65 — Injunctions
• Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72 — Appeal from Agency Decisions
• HRS § 641-1(b) — Interlocutory Appeals

Research Sources

• Hawaii Legislature — HRS § 91-14
• Justia — HRS § 91-14 (2025)
• Hawaii DCCA — HRS Chapter 91
• Ballotpedia — Hawaii Administrative Procedure Act

This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and procedures change frequently. Consult a qualified Hawaii attorney before filing any administrative stay application. Last updated: 2026-03-08.