On September 27, 2019, Judge Gary Chang entered the final judgment in the case, finding in favor of the defendants in seven of the nine claims. Only two counts were found in favor of the Plaintiffs. They are counts 1 and 9. The ruling on these two claims allow condominium purchasers to elect to either void their sales contracts and recover the full amount paid, with interest, or receive a pro rata share of a $20 million unjust enrichment award.
A brief background of the case and each claim is summarized below:
On July 17, 2013, Former Rep. Matt Lopresti, Julia Lopresti, Robert Johnson, Regena Johnson, Kyle McKee, Marites McKee, Emil Gocong, Liz Gocong and Kenneth Tyler filed their lawsuit against Haseko (Civil No. 13-1-1995-07) seeking monetary damages for not completing a marina. The lawsuit consisted of 9 claims.
Two claims were dismissed before the trial began. After 8 weeks of trial, the jury found in favor of Haseko on two claims and issued a verdict for the Plaintiffs on claim #3 (Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices). Subsequently the trial judge set aside the jury verdict and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Haseko and against Plaintiffs when he concluded as a matter of law that Plaintiffs had failed to prove they suffered monetary damages. Two more claims were dismissed after the trial. Seven of the Plaintiffs’ nine claims have been dismissed in favor of Haseko.
On January 29, 2018, Judge Nakasone ruled in favor of plaintiffs on Count I and Count 9. Below is a summary of each claim.
- Count 1:
- Judge Nakasone ruled that condominium purchasers within the Class may elect to void their sales contracts and recover the full amount paid, with interest, together with all taxable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
- Count 2:
- Judge Gary Chang dismissed this claim under the Uniform Land Sales Practices Act because it was inapplicable on December 11, 2013, finding “there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiffs’ second claim.”
- Count 3:
- The jury returned a verdict finding that four of the defendants had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices on September 8, 2015. Subsequently, Judge Gary Chang “respectfully grant[ed] the motion and set aside the verdict and order[ed] that judgment as to Count III be entered in favor of the defendants and against plaintiffs” on October 28, 2015.
- Count 4:
- Judge Karen Nakasone dismissed the plaintiffs’ promissory estoppel claim on September 8, 2016, stating that the plaintiffs “did not establish in the motion itself by facts and the law, plaintiffs’ entitlement for judgment on Counts 4 and 8, as set forth in the first amended class action complaint.”
- Count 5:
- The jury returned a verdict finding that Haseko did not breach their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing on September 8, 2015.
- Count 6:
- The jury returned a verdict finding that Haseko did not make any negligent misrepresentations to homeowners on September 8, 2015.
- Count 7:
- In the original complaint, this was labeled as the eighth claim for relief. An order was entered on October 29, 2013 that “The Motion (to dismiss) is GRANTED as to the following claims, which are dismissed without prejudice: Eighth Claim for Relief (Innocent Misrepresentation in the Sale of Real Property).”
- Count 8:
- Judge Karen Nakasone also dismissed the Plaintiffs’ estoppel claim on September 8, 2016, stating that the Plaintiffs “did not establish in the motion itself by facts and the law, Plaintiffs’ entitlement for judgment on Counts 4 and 8, as set forth in the first amended class action complaint.”
- Count 9:
- Judge Nakasone ruled that Class members who do not elect restitution of the purchase price plus interest are awarded the remedy of unjust enrichment in the amount of their pro rata share of $20,000,000.
Subsequent to the 2015 trial and 2018 decision by the equitable claims judge (Judge Karen Nakasone), Plaintiffs filed numerous motions, including several motions for new trial, all of which they lost.
Defendants will appeal the ruling on Counts 1 and 9.