Judge denies case dismissal

  • Bethany Freudenthal/The Garden Island Three weeks ago, County of Kauai employee Charles Rapozo said he was transferred from The Kauai County War Memorial, where he says he was being retaliated against by his boss for over a year, to The Historic County Council Building.

LIHUE — A motion to dismiss a civil case filed against the County of Kauai and several individuals, based on the failure to state a claim, was denied in Fifth Circuit Court Tuesday.

According to a complaint filed in September by longtime county employee Charles Rapozo, his then supervisor Edward Sarita denied him proper training and safety gear to clean tiles containing asbestos at Kauai War Memorial Convention Hall.

The complaint says he was retaliated against for bringing up asbestos in the hall and as a result, wasn’t given work assignments by his supervisor for over a year. He continued to show up for work, the complaint says, spending his days in the parking lot.

Appearing before Judge Kathleen Watanabe, Deputy County Attorney Mark Bradbury argued that in order to proceed with the case, there are three hurdles the plaintiff will have to surpass in order to win. He will have to prove that the actions of his client were outrageous, wanton and willful (negligent) and malicious.

“Here we have an individual like Eddie Sarita, who has a job in a supervisory capacity, and he’s required to make sure anyone below him does the job that he’s responsible for. In this particular case it was cleaning the floors at the convention center. Now to say that Mr. Sarita acted maliciously when he was just carrying out his jobs as a supervisor, is kind of a leap,” Bradbury argued.

The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, argued attorney for the plaintiff, Richard Wilson, is the defense coming to the court saying there are facts the plaintiff has to prove and they don’t think they can prove those facts.

At this stage, Wilson argued, the claim of emotional distress has to be accepted as truth.

“Now what the defendant is telling you is, ‘Judge, let’s weigh some of the facts, because my client did this, he was the supervisor, he made Mr. Rapozo clean the floor.’ Now we’re getting into a factual. Will what he was alleged to have done rise to the level of being willful and wanton or malicious? Again, that’s a factual,” Wilson argued.

That, Wilson said, is not a proper attack on a complaint at this stage when it’s a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim.

The three-part test argued by Bradbury, Wilson said, is an either-or test, stating the defendant argued on the “or,” and based on a factual determination.

“They come to you essentially trying to convince the court, ‘we win as a matter of law,’ then they have to backpedal and we recognize, and I think it’s crystal clear in their reply, that what they’re telling you is they’re arguing facts,” Wilson argued.

The facts that are pleaded in the complaint, he said, clearly meet the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

“Now I’m not saying that somewhere down the road they can come back, and there may be facts that aren’t in dispute. But they’re putting the cart before the horse,” Wilson said.

Bradbury argued that he was arguing alleged facts.

“I’m asking the court to determine whether they rise to the level of what is necessary to maintain and continue with this case and specifically, I don’t believe what has been alleged here can even possibly be characterized as being malicious,” Bradbury said.

Watanabe said she was a bit perplexed in reading the pleadings, because they were brought in under the failure to state a claim and Bradbury was arguing facts in support of that motion.

The facts, argued Bradbury, don’t support the finding that Sarita acted maliciously. Unless there’s a finding made by this court one way or another, he said, his client is entitled to qualified privilege.

“This is the point in time I can raise it,” he said.

Bradbury stated that all his client was asking the court to do is make a preliminary evaluation as to whether the facts alleged in the complaint support a finding that Mr. Sarita acted maliciously.

“I don’t believe the facts alleged can be characterized as malicious,” Bradbury said.

Watanabe denied the county’s motion.

“I think as correctly pointed out by Mr. Wilson, when he said this juncture, and this type of motion, but there’s not enough before the court. And perhaps under the appropriate motion, we can start discerning what the factual disputes are, but facts plead before the court. Once again, the court’s denying it, in its entirety.”

  1. Larry February 21, 2018 6:08 am Reply

    Mr. Rapozo needs OSHA in his corner

  2. Bluedream February 21, 2018 7:17 am Reply

    This is a big joke. The second that clown found out there was asbestos within the mastic under the tile, he saw huge dollar bill signs in his eyes. So this Rapozo guy says he heard there is asbestos underneath the tiles, tells his supervisor, so the supervisor lets him come to work with full benefits, but now he doesn’t have to lift a mop. And NOW this idiot claims he is being abused by his boss. Sounds to me like the boss was trying to placate the Rapizo clown to me..You can thank the AFSME unions for this nonsense that we the taxpayers foot the bill for…

    1. you’re the biggest clown February 21, 2018 7:20 pm Reply

      Are you kidding me? You think he would willingly put his life at risk? You think he didn’t want the equipment to protect himself? You think he wanted to put his family through this heartbreak? You think he wants to worry about his death for the rest of his life? You think he wanted to be ignored and treated like he was an animal? You think he wanted to stay in the parking lot for over a year doing nothing? When he asked his supervisor and even THE MAYOR to be relocated??? Instead of looking at the potiental dollar signs for Mr.Rapozo (which to me no amount could ever replace a life) you should look at who’s responsible, THE REASON THE COUNTY IS BEING SUED, and who allowed it to get this far. It’s unacceptable. you have your head up your as*. Sounds to me like you’re just jealous for whatever reason that may be. It also sounds like you got a personal issue. How naive.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, send us an email.