Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue, a five year litigation and court battle. When NECA board of directors, and community are jealous for driving right by a property that could have been purchased, but was inherited by Angela Kaaihue, who has turned the property she inherited into a Hawaiian Gold Mine.
Hawaii Appellant Court Supreme Court judge castegnetti, judge jeffrey crabtree, judge karen t. nakasone, judge katherine g. leonard, judge keith hiraoka, judge lisa m. ginoza, judge sonja mccullen, judge clyde j. wadsworth, judge karen holma, judge gary W.B. chang
Mock answer and counterclaim of Ms. Geiger who allegedly rear-ended the plaintiff on I-540 by following too closely but alleges that the collision was the result of the plaintiff's proximate negligence.
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
Sample motion to suppress evidence for CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This document is a notice of motion and motion to suppress evidence in a California criminal case. It notifies the district attorney that the defendant will move to suppress evidence from their detention, arrest, and search. Specifically, the defendant will argue that the search of their home/person was conducted without a warrant and without probable cause or consent. The motion is supported by a declaration and memorandum of points and authorities. The memorandum provides background on the incident, stating that police responded to the defendant's home after a 911 call, detained the defendant, and coerced them into opening a locked toolbox found in the home, discovering illegal items inside. The defendant argues any consent was involuntary.
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a California default judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake is made under the inherent equitable power of a California Court to vacate a judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud or mistake. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro.
This document is a complaint filed in California Superior Court alleging various causes of action against Jerry Goldman, J.B. Goldman Insurance Agency, and others related to their roles as insurance brokers for the plaintiffs over 20 years. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their duties by fraudulently overcharging premiums, embezzling hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, failing to procure all promised policies, providing duplicative coverage, and concealing their actions. Causes of action alleged include professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, and others. The plaintiffs are seeking damages.
Motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of processLegalDocsPro
Motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the topic of this document. Rule 12(b)(5) allows a defendant to move for dismissal due to insufficient service of process in civil litigation in United States District Court.
Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer have petitioned the Land Court of Hawaii for a declaratory judgment regarding the title to their property located at 98-673 Kilinoe Street in Aiea, Hawaii. They seek to have a perpetual encumbrance listed on their title certificate and warranty deed, referring to "Perpetual Covenants in Doc. 582929", declared to be in error and removed. They allege that there was a clerical error in transferring this encumbrance between previous title certificates that has resulted in it incorrectly appearing on their current title. Kaaihue and Fryer have provided documentation of the chain of title and transfers of the property back to the
Opposition to a California summary judgment motionLegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to a motion for summary judgment in California was created by a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has used this sample for many years.
Mock answer and counterclaim of Ms. Geiger who allegedly rear-ended the plaintiff on I-540 by following too closely but alleges that the collision was the result of the plaintiff's proximate negligence.
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. It alleges that the plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
Sample motion to suppress evidence for CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This document is a notice of motion and motion to suppress evidence in a California criminal case. It notifies the district attorney that the defendant will move to suppress evidence from their detention, arrest, and search. Specifically, the defendant will argue that the search of their home/person was conducted without a warrant and without probable cause or consent. The motion is supported by a declaration and memorandum of points and authorities. The memorandum provides background on the incident, stating that police responded to the defendant's home after a 911 call, detained the defendant, and coerced them into opening a locked toolbox found in the home, discovering illegal items inside. The defendant argues any consent was involuntary.
Sample California motion to vacate default judgment for extrinsic fraud or mi...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a California default judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake is made under the inherent equitable power of a California Court to vacate a judgment obtained through extrinsic fraud or mistake. This is a preview of the sample motion sold by LegalDocsPro.
This document is a complaint filed in California Superior Court alleging various causes of action against Jerry Goldman, J.B. Goldman Insurance Agency, and others related to their roles as insurance brokers for the plaintiffs over 20 years. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their duties by fraudulently overcharging premiums, embezzling hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, failing to procure all promised policies, providing duplicative coverage, and concealing their actions. Causes of action alleged include professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, and others. The plaintiffs are seeking damages.
Motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of processLegalDocsPro
Motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the topic of this document. Rule 12(b)(5) allows a defendant to move for dismissal due to insufficient service of process in civil litigation in United States District Court.
Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer have petitioned the Land Court of Hawaii for a declaratory judgment regarding the title to their property located at 98-673 Kilinoe Street in Aiea, Hawaii. They seek to have a perpetual encumbrance listed on their title certificate and warranty deed, referring to "Perpetual Covenants in Doc. 582929", declared to be in error and removed. They allege that there was a clerical error in transferring this encumbrance between previous title certificates that has resulted in it incorrectly appearing on their current title. Kaaihue and Fryer have provided documentation of the chain of title and transfers of the property back to the
Opposition to a California summary judgment motionLegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to a motion for summary judgment in California was created by a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has used this sample for many years.
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu. The defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor for three reasons: 1) the plaintiff cannot maintain any cause of action because he violated the terms of his halfway house release and was returned to prison by the Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants; 2) the plaintiff cannot maintain any tort claims under Florida law for false arrest, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, or abuse of process; 3) the individual defendants - Gispert, Adams, and Thomas - did not engage in any conduct that would subject them to liability. The motion provides legal arguments supporting each of these
Writing sample (motion for summary judgment- abbreviated) for Martinez, Aaron...Aaron A. Martinez
This motion for summary judgment argues that the plaintiff, Treassa Wren, is not a consumer under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and therefore does not have standing to bring DTPA claims. It asserts that Wren's employer, Aldine Independent School District, purchased the school bus and driver's seat that injured Wren to further its business of transporting students, not primarily for Wren's benefit. Therefore, Wren did not acquire or have ownership of the bus and seat, and any benefit to her was incidental. As a result, the motion argues Wren is not a consumer under the DTPA as a matter of law and the DTPA claims should be dismissed.
This a sample offer to compromise or also known as a 998 offer for California is pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This sample is used when a defendant wants to make an offer to compromise to the plaintiff. It can be adapted for use by a plaintiff who wishes to make an offer to compromise to a defendant.
The author is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has used this sample for many years. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane DoesJRachelle
This document is a motion filed by Howard K. Stern as executor of the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith) in a civil action. It requests leave from the court to amend and supplement the original complaint, join additional defendants, and amend the case caption. The motion states that discovery has revealed new information supporting the original claims and identifying previously unknown defendants. It also describes events that have occurred since the original complaint that could be added. The executor seeks to add claims involving additional conversions of estate property and to join new parties involved in the unauthorized transfers.
Sample motion to vacate judgment for fraud on the court under rule 60(d)(3)LegalDocsPro
This document is a notice of motion and motion to vacate a judgment for fraud on the court. It was filed in a United States District Court by an attorney representing a defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered against their client. The motion alleges that the judgment was obtained through fraud on the court, briefly listing facts regarding the fraud. It notices a hearing date and time and states that the motion is brought under Rule 60(d)(3) and will be supported by a memorandum, declaration, and exhibits providing details on the alleged fraud on the court.
Sample motion for OSC for contempt for violations of the Bankruptcy Discharge...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for OSC for contempt for violations of the Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction is filed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's contempt authority under § 105(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The motion is designed to be filed by a Debtor against a Creditor that has willfully violated the Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction such as filing a State Court lawsuit after receiving notice that the Debtor has been granted a discharge. The motion requests that the Creditor be held in contempt and requests actual damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. The sample motion on which this preview is based is 30 pages and includes a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to Case law from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the United States Bankruptcy Code , sample declarations for the Debtor and the Attorney for the Debtor, sample Request for Judicial Notice and sample Proposed Order Re: Contempt The sample motion is in Microsoft Word format and can be easily modified for most situations. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Answer, Counterclaims & Third Party Claims - Non-Compete & Tortious InterferencePollard PLLC
This is one of our cases in Volusia County, Florida. Our clients - all of the defendants in the case - were sued for breach of a non-compete agreement, breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference.
We responded with counterclaims for a declaratory judgment holding the non-compete agreement(s) unenforceable, third party claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and a demand for indemnification.
This is a good example of our level of work. We have extensive experience litigating non-compete and tortious interference cases on both sides. We prosecute and defend these types of cases.
In every case, we have a process: First, we master the facts. Many lawyer and law firms get involved in a case and immediately focus on law. In our view, that is the wrong approach. All cases are driven by facts. Any legal strategy must be tailored to the specific facts of a specific case.
We do not take anything for granted. We do not default to the same tired boilerplate pleadings. In every new case, we fashion a specific strategy for that case.
If you have a non-compete or tortious interference case, just give us a call at 9543-32-2380. That's what we're here for.
Sample ex parte application for osc for civil contempt in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample ex parte application for Order to Show Cause for Contempt in California is filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, et seq., on the grounds that a party has willfully disobeyed an order of the Court, or has otherwise committed indirect contempt. The sample ex parte application also requests the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred with commencing the contempt proceeding pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a). The sample on which this preview is based is 19 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration, sample declaration regarding ex parte notice, proposed order to show cause, and proposed order re: contempt. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty of success is provided.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
Sample opposition to motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6)LegalDocsPro
This document is an opposition to a motion to dismiss a complaint filed in a bankruptcy case. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a valid cause of action under Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code for non-dischargeability of debt based on false representations made by the defendant. The opposition contends the complaint satisfies the particularity requirements to plead fraud by identifying the alleged false statements, when and where they were made. It asks the court to deny the motion to dismiss as the plaintiff may be able to prove facts entitling them to relief.
Sample motion to compel further answers to requests for admission in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to compel further responses to requests for admission in California is filed under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290 on the grounds that the responses to the requests for admission are not code compliant in that they consist of evasive answers and boilerplate objections. The sample on which this preview is based is 21 pages and includes the separate statement required by California Rule of Court 3.1345, it also includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is an enterpreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
Sample opposition to California motion for leave to amendLegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to California motion for leave to amend is used when a party wishes to oppose the request of another party for leave to amend their pleading such as an answer or complaint on the grounds of lack of diligence, long unexplained delay and prejudice. The sample on which this preview is based is 9 pages long and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law supporting the opposition, sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
Defendant Roberts filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Linda Smith's negligence complaint for failure to state a claim or for a more definite statement. Roberts argues that Smith failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligence - that Roberts owed a legal duty, breached that duty, and that the breach caused Smith's injury and damages. Specifically, Smith did not allege that Roberts owed her a legal duty. Roberts requests that the court dismiss Smith's claim or require her to provide a more definite statement that properly pleads negligence.
Sample motion for Family Code section 271 sanctions in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for Family Code section 271 sanctions in California may be filed in any dissolution (divorce), legal separation or nullity action in California and is designed to be used in conjunction with a Request for Order Judicial Council Form FL-300. The motion is used to request an award of damages and sanctions under Family Code section 271 and 1100, et seq. on the grounds that the conduct of the other party and/or their attorney frustrated any expeditious settlement of the case and caused the moving party to have to incur additional costs and attorney’s fees as a result of the obstreperous conduct. The sample document on which this preview is based is 15 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and sample declaration.
Sample motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 in ca...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 in California is filed on the grounds that another party has engaged in bad faith actions or or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay such as filing numerous frivolous motions or complaints. The sample is 13 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Sample California motion to vacate order of dismissalLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate order of dismissal in California is made under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 on the grounds that the order of dismissal was taken against the moving party through their mistake and inadvertence. The sample on which this preview is based is 13 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declarations and a proof of service by mail.
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...LegalDocsPro
This document is an opposition to a motion to vacate a default judgment. It argues that the motion to vacate should be denied for the following reasons: (1) the motion is untimely as it was filed more than 6 months after the default judgment was entered, exceeding the statutory limit; (2) the required affidavit of fault from the attorney is not included; and (3) the attorney is attempting to cover up for the client's fault. The opposition requests that the court deny the motion to vacate based on the arguments in this document, an accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and a supporting declaration.
Sample motion to vacate judgment under rule 60(b)(2) in United States Distric...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) on the grounds of newly discovered evidence in United States District Court is used when a party has newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b). The sample on which this preview based is 10 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, a sample declaration and proof of service by mail.
1. The plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the defendants for failing to comply with a court order to produce documents related to property ownership and hurricane damage estimates.
2. The court had previously ordered the defendants to produce deeds, property records, and construction estimates for hurricane damage to a property by May 2010, but the defendants did not comply.
3. The plaintiff is requesting sanctions in the amount of $4,500 against the defendants for disregarding the court order from May 2010 through December 2014.
Sample notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service of summons in Unit...LegalDocsPro
This sample notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service of a summons in United States District Court under Rule 4(d) is used pursuant to subdivision (d) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. This subdivision imposes a duty on any defendant who is an individual that is not a minor or incompetent, or is a corporation or association to avoid the unnecessary expenses of serving the summons. The sample is 5 pages and contains brief instructions as well as a sample waiver of the service of a summons containing all required statutory language. The author is a freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents.
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...Angela Kaaihue
This document is a memorandum filed by Angela Kaaihue and Yong Fryer in opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA). It argues that NECA's motion should be denied for several reasons: (1) Petitioners' property is not part of Newtown Estates and is therefore not subject to NECA's rules; (2) there are errors in the property's title and warranty deed regarding its inclusion in Newtown Estates; and (3) Petitioners have developer rights over the property according to the master declaration. The memorandum also notes that the land court has jurisdiction over NECA's claims, as determined in a previous hearing.
Angela Kaaihue -vs- Newtown Estates Community AssociationAngela Kaaihue
This document is an Answer and Counterclaim filed by defendants Angela Kaaihue and Young Fryer in response to a complaint brought against them by the Newtown Estates Community Association. In their answer, the defendants deny many of the allegations in the complaint and assert 14 defenses. In their counterclaim against the association, the defendants allege that their vacant, undeveloped land parcel was never subject to the association's rules and covenants during the times it was owned by the original developer and a subsequent owner. They argue the association now improperly seeks association dues and fines from the defendants as the current owners.
Defendants motion for summary judgment, incorporated memorandum of law in sup...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants in a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu. The defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor for three reasons: 1) the plaintiff cannot maintain any cause of action because he violated the terms of his halfway house release and was returned to prison by the Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants; 2) the plaintiff cannot maintain any tort claims under Florida law for false arrest, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, or abuse of process; 3) the individual defendants - Gispert, Adams, and Thomas - did not engage in any conduct that would subject them to liability. The motion provides legal arguments supporting each of these
Writing sample (motion for summary judgment- abbreviated) for Martinez, Aaron...Aaron A. Martinez
This motion for summary judgment argues that the plaintiff, Treassa Wren, is not a consumer under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and therefore does not have standing to bring DTPA claims. It asserts that Wren's employer, Aldine Independent School District, purchased the school bus and driver's seat that injured Wren to further its business of transporting students, not primarily for Wren's benefit. Therefore, Wren did not acquire or have ownership of the bus and seat, and any benefit to her was incidental. As a result, the motion argues Wren is not a consumer under the DTPA as a matter of law and the DTPA claims should be dismissed.
This a sample offer to compromise or also known as a 998 offer for California is pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This sample is used when a defendant wants to make an offer to compromise to the plaintiff. It can be adapted for use by a plaintiff who wishes to make an offer to compromise to a defendant.
The author is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has used this sample for many years. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Motion for Leave To Amend And Add Known Jane DoesJRachelle
This document is a motion filed by Howard K. Stern as executor of the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith) in a civil action. It requests leave from the court to amend and supplement the original complaint, join additional defendants, and amend the case caption. The motion states that discovery has revealed new information supporting the original claims and identifying previously unknown defendants. It also describes events that have occurred since the original complaint that could be added. The executor seeks to add claims involving additional conversions of estate property and to join new parties involved in the unauthorized transfers.
Sample motion to vacate judgment for fraud on the court under rule 60(d)(3)LegalDocsPro
This document is a notice of motion and motion to vacate a judgment for fraud on the court. It was filed in a United States District Court by an attorney representing a defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered against their client. The motion alleges that the judgment was obtained through fraud on the court, briefly listing facts regarding the fraud. It notices a hearing date and time and states that the motion is brought under Rule 60(d)(3) and will be supported by a memorandum, declaration, and exhibits providing details on the alleged fraud on the court.
Sample motion for OSC for contempt for violations of the Bankruptcy Discharge...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for OSC for contempt for violations of the Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction is filed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's contempt authority under § 105(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The motion is designed to be filed by a Debtor against a Creditor that has willfully violated the Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction such as filing a State Court lawsuit after receiving notice that the Debtor has been granted a discharge. The motion requests that the Creditor be held in contempt and requests actual damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. The sample motion on which this preview is based is 30 pages and includes a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to Case law from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the United States Bankruptcy Code , sample declarations for the Debtor and the Attorney for the Debtor, sample Request for Judicial Notice and sample Proposed Order Re: Contempt The sample motion is in Microsoft Word format and can be easily modified for most situations. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Answer, Counterclaims & Third Party Claims - Non-Compete & Tortious InterferencePollard PLLC
This is one of our cases in Volusia County, Florida. Our clients - all of the defendants in the case - were sued for breach of a non-compete agreement, breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference.
We responded with counterclaims for a declaratory judgment holding the non-compete agreement(s) unenforceable, third party claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and a demand for indemnification.
This is a good example of our level of work. We have extensive experience litigating non-compete and tortious interference cases on both sides. We prosecute and defend these types of cases.
In every case, we have a process: First, we master the facts. Many lawyer and law firms get involved in a case and immediately focus on law. In our view, that is the wrong approach. All cases are driven by facts. Any legal strategy must be tailored to the specific facts of a specific case.
We do not take anything for granted. We do not default to the same tired boilerplate pleadings. In every new case, we fashion a specific strategy for that case.
If you have a non-compete or tortious interference case, just give us a call at 9543-32-2380. That's what we're here for.
Sample ex parte application for osc for civil contempt in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample ex parte application for Order to Show Cause for Contempt in California is filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1209, et seq., on the grounds that a party has willfully disobeyed an order of the Court, or has otherwise committed indirect contempt. The sample ex parte application also requests the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred with commencing the contempt proceeding pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a). The sample on which this preview is based is 19 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration, sample declaration regarding ex parte notice, proposed order to show cause, and proposed order re: contempt. The author is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty of success is provided.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal conviction and sentence, his transfer to Dismas Charities halfway house, and the rules he agreed to follow. It states that the plaintiff drove himself to Dismas and had an unauthorized cell phone, violating the rules. As a result, his personal items were confiscated and he was returned to prison to complete his sentence.
Sample opposition to motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6)LegalDocsPro
This document is an opposition to a motion to dismiss a complaint filed in a bankruptcy case. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a valid cause of action under Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code for non-dischargeability of debt based on false representations made by the defendant. The opposition contends the complaint satisfies the particularity requirements to plead fraud by identifying the alleged false statements, when and where they were made. It asks the court to deny the motion to dismiss as the plaintiff may be able to prove facts entitling them to relief.
Sample motion to compel further answers to requests for admission in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to compel further responses to requests for admission in California is filed under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290 on the grounds that the responses to the requests for admission are not code compliant in that they consist of evasive answers and boilerplate objections. The sample on which this preview is based is 21 pages and includes the separate statement required by California Rule of Court 3.1345, it also includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is an enterpreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
Sample opposition to California motion for leave to amendLegalDocsPro
This sample opposition to California motion for leave to amend is used when a party wishes to oppose the request of another party for leave to amend their pleading such as an answer or complaint on the grounds of lack of diligence, long unexplained delay and prejudice. The sample on which this preview is based is 9 pages long and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law supporting the opposition, sample declaration and proof of service by mail. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
Defendant Roberts filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Linda Smith's negligence complaint for failure to state a claim or for a more definite statement. Roberts argues that Smith failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligence - that Roberts owed a legal duty, breached that duty, and that the breach caused Smith's injury and damages. Specifically, Smith did not allege that Roberts owed her a legal duty. Roberts requests that the court dismiss Smith's claim or require her to provide a more definite statement that properly pleads negligence.
Sample motion for Family Code section 271 sanctions in CaliforniaLegalDocsPro
This sample motion for Family Code section 271 sanctions in California may be filed in any dissolution (divorce), legal separation or nullity action in California and is designed to be used in conjunction with a Request for Order Judicial Council Form FL-300. The motion is used to request an award of damages and sanctions under Family Code section 271 and 1100, et seq. on the grounds that the conduct of the other party and/or their attorney frustrated any expeditious settlement of the case and caused the moving party to have to incur additional costs and attorney’s fees as a result of the obstreperous conduct. The sample document on which this preview is based is 15 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and sample declaration.
Sample motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 in ca...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 in California is filed on the grounds that another party has engaged in bad faith actions or or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay such as filing numerous frivolous motions or complaints. The sample is 13 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service. The author is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale. Note that the author is NOT an attorney and no guarantee or warranty is provided.
Sample California motion to vacate order of dismissalLegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate order of dismissal in California is made under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 on the grounds that the order of dismissal was taken against the moving party through their mistake and inadvertence. The sample on which this preview is based is 13 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declarations and a proof of service by mail.
Sample opposition to motion to vacate in California with an attorney affidavi...LegalDocsPro
This document is an opposition to a motion to vacate a default judgment. It argues that the motion to vacate should be denied for the following reasons: (1) the motion is untimely as it was filed more than 6 months after the default judgment was entered, exceeding the statutory limit; (2) the required affidavit of fault from the attorney is not included; and (3) the attorney is attempting to cover up for the client's fault. The opposition requests that the court deny the motion to vacate based on the arguments in this document, an accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and a supporting declaration.
Sample motion to vacate judgment under rule 60(b)(2) in United States Distric...LegalDocsPro
This sample motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) on the grounds of newly discovered evidence in United States District Court is used when a party has newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b). The sample on which this preview based is 10 pages and includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, a sample declaration and proof of service by mail.
1. The plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the defendants for failing to comply with a court order to produce documents related to property ownership and hurricane damage estimates.
2. The court had previously ordered the defendants to produce deeds, property records, and construction estimates for hurricane damage to a property by May 2010, but the defendants did not comply.
3. The plaintiff is requesting sanctions in the amount of $4,500 against the defendants for disregarding the court order from May 2010 through December 2014.
Sample notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service of summons in Unit...LegalDocsPro
This sample notice of lawsuit and request for waiver of service of a summons in United States District Court under Rule 4(d) is used pursuant to subdivision (d) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. This subdivision imposes a duty on any defendant who is an individual that is not a minor or incompetent, or is a corporation or association to avoid the unnecessary expenses of serving the summons. The sample is 5 pages and contains brief instructions as well as a sample waiver of the service of a summons containing all required statutory language. The author is a freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents.
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...Angela Kaaihue
This document is a memorandum filed by Angela Kaaihue and Yong Fryer in opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA). It argues that NECA's motion should be denied for several reasons: (1) Petitioners' property is not part of Newtown Estates and is therefore not subject to NECA's rules; (2) there are errors in the property's title and warranty deed regarding its inclusion in Newtown Estates; and (3) Petitioners have developer rights over the property according to the master declaration. The memorandum also notes that the land court has jurisdiction over NECA's claims, as determined in a previous hearing.
Angela Kaaihue -vs- Newtown Estates Community AssociationAngela Kaaihue
This document is an Answer and Counterclaim filed by defendants Angela Kaaihue and Young Fryer in response to a complaint brought against them by the Newtown Estates Community Association. In their answer, the defendants deny many of the allegations in the complaint and assert 14 defenses. In their counterclaim against the association, the defendants allege that their vacant, undeveloped land parcel was never subject to the association's rules and covenants during the times it was owned by the original developer and a subsequent owner. They argue the association now improperly seeks association dues and fines from the defendants as the current owners.
Request for Entry of Default Judgment in favor for Angela KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
This document is a request for entry of default from Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer, who are pro se defendants and counter-claim plaintiffs, against Newtown Estates Community Association. It includes affidavits from Kaaihue and Fryer stating that the association failed to respond to their counter-claim within the required time period. It requests a default judgment of $43,450,000 including principal of $40 million, interest, costs and attorney's fees. Exhibits of the filed counter-claim and proofs of service are attached in support of the request.
This document is a memorandum submitted by Plaintiffs' attorneys in support of a motion for a temporary restraining order against Defendants. It summarizes the arguments made in previous filings and addresses issues raised in the State's opposition memorandum. Specifically, it argues that the Attorney General's Opinion No. 13-1 misinterprets the meaning and intent of Article I, Section 23 of the Hawaii Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. It also argues that federal justiciability standards of an actual controversy, ripeness, and standing do not apply given that this involves a matter of great public importance under Hawaii law. The memorandum aims to demonstrate the Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success on the merits in their request for a declaratory judgment on the meaning of
02/09/12 GARRETSON RESOLUTION GROUP - Motion To Vacate (STAMPED)VogelDenise
The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. appears to be a FRONTING Firm for United States President Barack Obama. This is Vogel Denise Newsome's REBUTTAL to Lawsuit/Complaint filed against her for exercising her FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS (i.e. Freedom of Speech, etc.). Information that President Barack Obama does NOT want the PUBLIC to see!
Alicias, Jr. v. Baclig, A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017, 813 PHIL 893-900.pdfElleAlamo
The Supreme Court ruled that while the lawyer, Atty. Baclig, could not be faulted for consenting to assertions made by his clients in an amended complaint, he was guilty of forum shopping. There was an existing case regarding the same subject property filed by his clients against the complainant in the Municipal Trial Court. However, while that case was pending, Atty. Baclig consented to the filing of another complaint in the Regional Trial Court seeking similar relief. This amounted to forum shopping. As a former judge, Atty. Baclig should have been mindful to observe the proper tenets of the legal profession and not engage in actions that undermine the administration of justice, such as forum shopping. The Court found Atty
This document is a summary of a court case regarding a land registration dispute between Flordeliza and Honorio Valisno (petitioners) and Vicencio Cayaba (private respondent). The petitioners opposed Cayaba's application to register title to the land in question. The lower court dismissed the opposition based on res judicata, citing a previous court decision in favor of Cayaba. The petitioners appealed, arguing the lower court erred in several ways. The key issues discussed are whether res judicata can be invoked in a land registration case, and whether the elements of res judicata are met based on the previous court decision.
REPLY BRIEF FILED BY ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECAAngela Kaaihue
ANGELA KAAIHUE'S REPLY BRIEF IN APPEALLANT COURT, CAAP-19-0000806 VERSUS NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
HAWAII LAND COURT JUDGE GARY CHAN
CORRUPTION AT IT'S FINEST, Judge CrabTree, Judge Holma, Judge Sonja M. P. McCullen, Hawaii Chief Judge Lisa Ginoza, Hawaii Associate Judge Keith Hiraoka, Hawaii Judge Katherine G. Leonard, Hawaii Judge Karen T. Nakasone, Hawaii Judge Clyde J. Wadsworth
Appellant's Reply Brief in Georgia Court of AppealsJanet McDonald
Reply Brief filed into Georgia Court of Appeals. The Court had treated the Plaintiff/Appellant very unfairly, most likely because he was proceeding in propria persona. Legal argument, very informative.
The court denies the appellant's motion for rehearing or certification to the Supreme Court. The motion was improper and violated numerous rules. It failed to identify any facts overlooked or explain how the court's decision conflicted with precedents. The motion contained unsupported factual assertions and was an emotional tirade. The court directs the appellant's counsel to appear and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the frivolous motion and violations of conduct rules.
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
This document summarizes a court case regarding a same-sex couple challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The court granted California's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Proposition 8. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, or that their injury could be redressed by a favorable court decision, which are both requirements for standing. This was the second time the plaintiffs had brought similar challenges to the court regarding same-sex marriage bans.
This document summarizes a court case where the plaintiff's attorney repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and discovery requests. The court dismissed the case as a sanction. Specifically, the plaintiff's attorney failed to provide medical records as ordered, did not appear at hearings, and the records were no longer available due to the delays. The court determined dismissal was warranted given the willful noncompliance, prejudice to the defendant who could not access potentially important evidence, and need to deter such behavior.
This document summarizes an appeal from an order granting a motion to add additional judgment debtors to a judgment in a malpractice lawsuit. The additional judgment debtors included entities (limited partnerships and LLCs) that were previously owned by the plaintiff, an entity that managed the plaintiff's assets, and trusts to which the plaintiff had transferred ownership of the entities. The trial court found all were alter egos of the plaintiff. The additional judgment debtors and plaintiff appealed, raising arguments that they were legally separate and the evidence was insufficient, but the appellate court affirmed, finding the arguments unpersuasive.
The 9th Circuit Court declares that the Newport Beach ordinance targeted rehab and sober living centers, and violated federal and state laws that protect the rights of people with disabilities.
Attorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - FinalTHINK FORWARD
The learned judge erred in striking out the Attorney General's amended claim against Allen Chastanet and Kenneth Cazaubon based solely on the pleadings, without considering the further amended statement of claim that had been filed pursuant to leave granted. The further amended statement of claim asserted ownership of the funds by the Government of Saint Lucia, which raised a serious factual issue that could only be determined after a full trial. It was inappropriate for the judge to make determinations of mixed fact and law based solely on pleadings, before witness statements or evidence was presented at trial. The judge's decision to strike out the claim cannot stand given his failure to consider the operative further amended statement of claim.
Similar to Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue (20)
Kaaihue's Preliminary Title Report, as of Mar. 2021, dates back to 1970Angela Kaaihue
This preliminary report was issued on May 8, 2020 by Hawaii Title Agency, LLC for 98-673 Kilinoe Street, Aiea, HI 96701. The report provides information on the title to the property, which is currently vested in Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer as joint tenants. The report lists 31 exceptions that may affect the insurable title, including easements, deed restrictions, and legal orders regarding access rights.
MDCCR of Newtown Estates Community Association, Kaaihue-vs-NECAAngela Kaaihue
In the appellant court of Hawaii, Angela Kaaihue files for an appeal against Newtown Estates Community Association. Sec. 7.10 references Kaaihue's property described as mountainous, and excluded from the MDCCR's by the declarant of that time Herbert Horita, developer. When title eventually transferred to Kaaihue, did she or did she not inherit similar rights as Kaaihue?
Map 19 for MDCCR for Newtown Estates Community AssociationAngela Kaaihue
Map 19 as referenced in the Initial Development of Newtown Estates Community Association, the MDCCR's. Where is my Lot 285-A? And was it included in the initial development, and if not, when was it annexed into Newtown Estates
Map 20 for Newtown Estates Community Association MDCCR'sAngela Kaaihue
This document is a tax map key showing easements on a property. It depicts the boundaries of the property and outlines various easements, including an easement of 14,450 square feet. Notes indicate that some areas have no access permitted or limited access as noted on another referenced plan. The easements shown were cancelled by an order of the land court judge dated April 14, 2014.
MAP 19 FOR Newtown Estates Community Association MDCCR'sAngela Kaaihue
CAAP-19-0000806, Angela Kaaihue -vs- NECA , MAP 19 & 20- Referenced in the NECA's MDCCR- Does not reflect Appellant's undeveloped Lot. Originating TCT #137,368 states Appellant's lot 285-A was specifically excluded.
Kaaihue fights Corruption in Hawaii
ANGELA KAAIHUE'S REPLY BRIEF IN APPEALLANT COURT, CAAP-19-0000806 VERSUS NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
HAWAII LAND COURT JUDGE GARY CHAN
WILL JUSTICE PREVAIL? Judge CrabTree, Judge Holma, Judge Sonja M. P. McCullen, Hawaii Chief Judge Lisa Ginoza, Hawaii Associate Judge Keith Hiraoka, Hawaii Judge Katherine G. Leonard, Hawaii Judge Karen T. Nakasone, Hawaii Judge Clyde J. Wadsworth
This is a document filed electronically with the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Hawaii on August 4, 2020 at 12:30 PM. The document is related to case number CAAP-19-0000806 but does not provide any additional context about the case or parties involved.
Answering Brief by Newtown Estates Community AssociationAngela Kaaihue
Answering Brief by Newtown Estates Community Association
ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION- OPENING BRIEF CAAP-19-0000806
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Hawaii Appellant Court Supreme Court judge castegnetti, judge jeffrey crabtree, judge karen t. nakasone, judge katherine g. leonard, judge keith hiraoka, judge lisa m. ginoza, judge sonja mccullen, judge clyde j. wadsworth, judge karen holma, judge gary W.B. chang
Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA) -vs-Angela KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
Angela Kaaihue, Phillip Li, Carol Rosenberg, Bernard Bays, Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA) -vs-Angela Kaaihue, Judge Crabtree, Judge Castegnetti, Judge Gary Chang, Hawaii Land court
Filed Sept. 2014 Mark Kawata, Attorney for Yong Fryer, Angela KaaihueAngela Kaaihue
Attorney Mark Kawata, defends Angela Kaaihue, and Yong Fryer, in NECA -vs- Kaaihue, Memorandum in Opposition to NECA's claim,
judge castegnetti, judge crabtree, karen holma, mark kawata hawaii attorney
LD 17-1-002541; Transcript Hawaii Land Court Gary Won Bae Chang, Dual Jurisdi...Angela Kaaihue
Transcript Hawaii Land Court Gary Won Bae Chang, Kaaihue -vs- NECA
Discusses whether or not Land Court or Circuit Court has juridiction to rule on Land Court Registered Title Certificate Errors. Monday, July 23, 2018, Petitioner seeks Declaratory Relief;
Gary Won Bae Chang questions whether Judge Castegnetti knew about HRS 501C. Land Court Judge requests that law be read aloud by Petitioner
Land Court discusses Subject Matter Jurisdiction and seeks to enlighten us on which court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction on Land Court Registered Properties in Hawaii and Dual Jurisdiction
(Part 3 of 4) Newtown v. kaaihue motion for leave - exh d-iAngela Kaaihue
(Part 3 of 4) (Part 1 of 4) Newtown Estates Community Associations Motion to ask for leave to file Counter-claim plaintiffs Angela Kaaihue's Counter-claim. Note: 5 years has gone by. This is a Default Judgement.
(Part 1 of 4) Newtown v. kaaihue motion for leave to file answer (motion on...Angela Kaaihue
The document discusses the results of a study on the effects of exercise on memory and thinking abilities in older adults. The study found that regular exercise can help reduce the decline in thinking abilities that often occurs with age. Older adults who exercised regularly performed better on cognitive tests and brain scans showed they had greater activity in important areas for memory and learning compared to less active peers.
(Part 1 of 4) Newtown v. kaaihue motion for leave to file answer (motion only)Angela Kaaihue
(Part 1 of 4) Newtown Estates Community Associations Motion to ask for leave to file Counter-claim plaintiffs Angela Kaaihue's Counter-claim. Note: 5 years has gone by. This is a Default Judgement.
2015 09-22 neca's reply re msj as to count ii and for attys Angela Kaaihue
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for both physical and mental health. It notes that regular exercise can reduce the risk of diseases like heart disease and diabetes, improve mood, and reduce feelings of stress and anxiety. The document recommends that adults get at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per week to gain these benefits.
2014 10 supplemental declaration of a. kaaihueAngela Kaaihue
The document discusses a meeting of the Board of Trustees of a community association held on November 28, 2022. It states that the meeting was called to order and that a quorum was present. It then lists three motions that were discussed and voted on at the meeting: appointing a new member to the Board of Trustees, approving the budget for 2023, and addressing issues with improper use of common areas. The document concludes by stating that the meeting was adjourned.
Order denying neca's msj on counterclaim (kaaihue)Angela Kaaihue
This order denies a motion for summary judgment filed by the Newtown Estates Community Association against defendant Angela Sue Kaaihue. The motion was heard over two dates by Judge Jeannette H. Castagnetti, with attorneys appearing for both sides. After reviewing submissions and hearing arguments, the judge denied NECA's motion for summary judgment on Kaaihue's counterclaim.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
Anti-Money Laundering (AML): What It Is, Its History, and How It Works
What Is Anti-Money Laundering (AML)?
Anti-money laundering is an international web of laws, regulations, and procedures aimed at uncovering money that has been disguised as legitimate income. For centuries, governments and law enforcement agencies have tried to fight crime by following the money. In modern times, that comes down to anti-money laundering (AML) laws and activities.
Money laundering is the concealment of the origins of money gained from crimes, including tax evasion, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and public corruption. It also includes money being illegally routed to terrorist organizations.1
Anti-money laundering regulations have had an impact on governments, financial institutions, and even individuals around the world.
bvnvbnvbnvbnbvnbvbnbvncccccccccnvbnbvnvbbvnvbccvbcnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnk,jullllllo7uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuki ty563eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefgdjfgdjfgdjfgdjfgdjfgdjfgdjfgdjfgdjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjsssssssssczbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbczczczczczczczczczczczczczczczczjkv nmzxñodahspguv9hadsfguvpdsjvnhbuansxjvnpkdaspjvnpasxhpjdsxnvpjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjadsxxxxdffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffssssssssssssfrrrrtygreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeTEMA: ESCUCHA LA VOZ DE DIOS
TEXTO: JEREMIAS 38:19-20
INTRODUCCION
En el texto que hemos leído vemos el momento de angustia que el rey Sedequias tenía cuando Jerusalén estaba rodeada por el ejército babilonio.
En ese momento de angustia la respuesta del profeta Jeremías fue: oye la voz de Jehová y te ira bien y vivirás.
Quizás este día nos sentimos preocupados por las situaciones que estamos enfrentando o nos sentimos llenos de incertidumbre por aquellos proyectos de nuestra vida que estamos por iniciar, por esas metas que nos hemos propuesto alcanzar este año.
Que nos dice la voz de Dios este dia a cada uno de nosotros: FILIPENSES 4:13 “Todo lo puedo en Cristo que me fortalece”
Tenemos que escuchar la voz de nuestro Dios por sobre cualquier voz en nuestra vida,
I)DEBEMOS ESCUCHAR LA VOZ DE DIOS POR SOBRE LA VOZ DE LA EXPERIENCIA (LUCAS 5:4-6)
La voz de la experiencia es una autoridad, eso es real, pues la experiencia es el conocimiento aprendido por haber realizado algo, por haberlo vivido o sufrido, la experiencia es importante, pero por sobre la autoridad de la experiencia esta la voz de Dios.
La voz de la experiencia decía que si no habían pescado nada toda la noche era inútil tirar la red en la mañana, pero Pedro confi
IHL provisions call for requisite study to assess their capacity to deal with emerging means and methods of warfare.
Member states of the UN should promote negotiations on a new international treaty to ban and regulate lethal automatic weapon systems together with use of artificial intelligence in armed conflicts.
Child Sponsorship - Sponsorship Lawyer Toronto_ Ensuring a Smooth Pathway to ...adenhoru
Child sponsorship is a crucial process that allows parents or guardians to bring their children to live with them in Canada. This guide highlights the child sponsorship process, the importance of a sponsorship lawyer in Toronto, and key steps to ensure a successful application.
REPUBLIC ACT No 11313 An Act Defining Gender-Based Sexual Harassment in Stree...elyshaiana2
An Act Defining Gender-Based Sexual Harassment in Streets, Public Spaces, Online, Workplaces, and Educational or Training Institutions, Providing Protective Measures and Prescribing Penalties Therefor
This Act shall be known as the "Safe Spaces Act".
Newtown Loses By Default Judgment- NECA -vs- Kaaihue
1. 1
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
YONG NAM FRYER
98-673 Kilinoe St.
Aiea, HI. 96701
Telephone: (808) 688-7806
Pro-Se Defendant(s)
Pro-Se Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY Civil No. 13-1-2161-08 JHC
ASSOCIATION, (Other Civil Action)
Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM
PLAINTIFF(S) MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION (MIO) TO PLAINTIFF(S)/
COUNTER-CLAIM DEFENDANT(S)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
VS, ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS COUNTER-
CLAIMS’ FILED ON NOV. 13TH
, 2018;
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG NAM MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES OPPOSITION; AFFIDAVIT OF ANGELA
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50 KAAIHUE; AFFIDAVIT OF YONG NAM
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE FRYER; EXHIBITS 1-12; C/S
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50;
AND DOES ENTITIES 1-50
Defendants,
__________________________________________
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG NAM
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50;
AND DOES ENTITIES 1-50
Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s),
VS.,
Judge: Hon. J. Crabtree
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY Hearing Date: Dec. 12th
, 2018
ASSOCIATION, Time: 9:30 A.M.
Counter-Claim Defendants, Trial Date: Jan. 7th
, 2019
Judge: Honorable J. Crabtree
__________________________________________
2. 2
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CASE HISTORY (Bernard Bays Law Firm, Exhibit 1) . . . . . . Pg. 4
2. PLAINTIFF NECA’S FAILURE TO ANSWER COUNTER-COMPLAINT FILED BY
ANGELA KAAIHUE ON OCT. 23RD
, 2013, IS INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL
CONDUCT, UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL . . . . . . Pg. 19
3. PLAINTIFF NECA’S FAILURE TO ANSWER COUNTER-COMPLAINT FILED BY
YONG FRYER ON AUG. 13TH
, 2014, IS INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL CONDUCT,
UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL . . . . . . Pg. 19
4. 10TH
, 11TH
, & 12TH
, MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY
PLAINTIFF NECA . . . . . . Pg. 19
5. RULES OF THE HRCP, 1; 12, 55, 60, not limited to those few stated HRCP Pg. 20
6. PLAINTIFF’S STATE OF MIND: WILLFULL NEGLECT, INTENTIONAL
NEGLECT TO FRAUD, DECEIVE, AND MISLEAD THE COURTS, AND THE
DEFENDANTS. FAULT BY PLAINTIFF’S OWN ADMISSIONS. . . . . . Pg. 20
7. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVE JURISDICTION, STATE A CLAIM, AND
FAILED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE FULL DISCOVERY . . . . . Pg. 20
8. DEFAULT-JUDGMENT- INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT . . . . . Pg. 20
9. PLAINTIFF’S ARE PREJUDICED- . . . . . Pg. 20
10. ESTIMATED DAMAGES: $117 MILLION, FILED APRIL 18TH
, 2018 Pg. 21
11. CONCLUSION . . . . . Pg. 21
3. 3
DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF(S) ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE AND
YONG FRYER MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NECA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
ANSWER DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF(S) (FILED OCT. 23RD
, 2013 &
AUG. 13TH
, 2014) COUNTER-CLAIMS’ FILED ON NOV. 13TH
, 2018
COMES NOW Petitioner(s), ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE and YONG NAM FRYER, by Pro-
Se Defendant(s)/Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s), respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an
Order DENYING NECA’s Motion for Leave to Answer Counter-Claim’s filed on Oct. 23,
2013, and Aug. 13th
, 2014. , in favor for “Defendant(s)/Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s) dismissing
Plaintiff’s motions in it’s entirety filed on Nov. 13th
2018.
1. CASE HISTORY- Bernard Bays Law Firm (Exhibit 1)
This Memorandum in Opposition is brought pursuant to Rules 1, 6(b), 7, 7(f), 12(a), 17,
54, 55(a), 55(b), and 56, 60 of the Hawaii rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7, 7(f), of the Rules
of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai’I, and is supported by the attached Memorandum,
Declarations, Exhibits, Transcripts, Orders, the numerous pleadings filed in this matter, and
includes Defendant(s)/Counter-Claim Plaintiff(s) Request for Right of Entry and Order of Default
Judgment against Newtown Estates Community Association filed on July 23rd
, 2018, filed
herein, as well as the Memorandum in Support of Motion and all supporting documents thereto.
This Memorandum in Opposition is made pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of the Land Court of
the State of Hawaii, Hawaii Revised Statutes 501-52 and -53, and 501-196, Rules 56 and 81 of
the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, the Petition, and the Memorandum in Opposition, and the
Request for Judicial Notice, the Declaration of Counsel with Exhibits “1-10”, attached hereto,
and the records and files herein, and such oral argument and other evidence as may be
presented at the hearing on the Motion.
4. 4
Despite a long lengthy litigation, and numerous motions for summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s
willfully neglected their answer to the Filed Counter-Complaint. Numerous Expert Attorneys
have serviced this case file, including but not limited to The Plaintiffs Attorneys (Na Lan, Milton
Matooka, Keith Eyrich, Katherine Caswell, Phillip Li, Matt Tsukuzaki, and Carol Rosenberg), and
to the Defendant’s Attorneys: ( Mark Kawata, Bernard Bays, Karin Holma, J.D. Ferry, Glenn
Yoshida, Anthony Fujii, Matthew Terrance Reviere),
Despite numerous Motions for Summary Judgment filed by NECA, Newtown Estates
Community Association has failed in each and every Motion for Summary Judgment, this is the
5th
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NECA’s including their sub-association attorneys
involving in multiple cases, Civil Court Cases: 17-1-1940: 13-1-2161, and this case LC
Case No. 17-1-2541. Filed Motion for Summary Judgments are as follows: 7/8/2014, 1/12/2015,
1/2/2018, 4/10/2018, ETC. ETC. and now in this Land Court filed Jan. 23, 2018. The same
issues continue to prevail, and no resolve to this issue in either of the cases by NECA’s eluding
of resolving the issue by claiming that the courts don’t have jurisdiction depending on which
court we are in- civil or land court at the time. If we are in Land Court, NECA claims Land Court
does not have jurisdiction. If we are in Civil Court, NECA claims Civil Court does not have
jurisdiction. Thus, the reason why the ongoing litigation which is to NECA’s advantage and
favor only. However, in the most recent hearing before Judge. Crabtree, he suggested that in
order to resolve these issues and move forward, that co-jurisdiction of the issues may be
shared.
This case is based on Plaintiff’s intentional motives to fraud Defendant’s out of
their fee-simple 82 acre land parcel, once thought was worthless unbuildable,
undevelopable mountainous terrain property. By frivolous claims, intentional
harassment, conspiracy, fraud, malice, and intentional manipulation and mockery of the
Civil Court Judiciary System and Process, owed by the Plaintiffs “NECA” for intentional
misconduct, ill-fated misery, “going on a witch-hunt, Conspiracy, Fraud, and failing to
follow their own written MDCCR’s by-laws, and failing to abide by the Hawaii State Laws
of Hawaii Revised Statue 421J, and failing to mediate.
5. 5
This is a clear example and portrayer of how NECA’s attorneys attempts
to fraud, misconstrue, and misinterpret orders of this court, and thus
misleads, intimidate, and conspire in attempts to cause Angela Sue
Kaaihue and Yong Fryer extreme emotional distress, bad faith, confuse
the courts, thus reaffirming Angela Sue Kaaihue’s Counter-Claims to
Count I-Bad Faith, Count IV-Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Count VI-
Punitive Damages, including the frivolous claim filed by Defendant Yong
Fryer. By eluding and misconstruing the laws of this court (HRS 421J,
MDCCRS’s), and State laws, NECA’s attorneys continue on a pattern of
harassing behavior, in attempts to exasperate attorney fees and expecting
the Defendants in this case to “foot their “enormous and outrageous” bill
by refusing to follow their own governing documents of the MDCCRS, and
the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 421J, made specifically for
Condominium Property Regimes(CPR), as Such is Newtown Estates
Community Association. (MDCCR’s 7.10)
o “ . . . all of the above would give any reasonable association and its
attorneys pause and good cause to reconsider their actions. . .
whether the property is part of Newtown Estates, and subject to
NECA’s governance, remains an open question, to which NECA’s
answer changes depending on the context.” Attorney John D. Ferry,
III (Bays, Lung, Rose, Holma, July 7, 2015).
DEFENDANTS PARCAL IS NOT PART OF THE NEWTOWN ESTATES
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION JUSTIFIES COUNTERCLAIM: COUNT 1-
BAD FAITH- Although it appears to be a question whether or not “, the
NECA’s (“Plaintiffs”) MDCCR’s Article V, Section 7.10 of their governing
documents addresses it clearly, stating it is “reservation to Exclude”, and
has been reiterated dozens of times, but intentionally, purposely, and
blatantly ignored by the NECA’s attorneys. In addition, the Defendants
parcel has never been annexed, nor is it part of any sub-association.
Defendants seek declaratory relief to reconfirm such interpretation of the
MDCCR’s and to correct an obviously defective Title of Certificate which
has been petitioned before the Land Court. Being part of the association
or NOT, has been the issue since the beginning, and Newtown’s
attorneys, should have moved to clarify this issue, by means of a
Declaratory Relief from either Land Court, but they failed to do so. Despite
any need for a Declaratory Relief, it is however, stated in their own
MDCCR’s as described, and should gave them “good cause” to reconsider
their course of actions.
“MDCCR, VII, Section 7.10: Reservation to Exclude from the Master
Declaration. Declarant reserves the right to exclude from the operation and
effect of and the provisions contained in this Master Declaration. Declarant
reserves the right to exclude from the operation and effect of and the
provisions contained in this Master Declaration those development
increments, which are isolated and separated from the rest of the
6. 6
NEWTOWN ESTATES , by it’s natural features, such as cliffs and streams,
so that such part of the common and recreational areas of NEWTOWN
ESTATES, including but not limited to any lots which may be constructed
and developed by Declarant within any Area identified as Area C
designated on the Proposed Newtown Estates Development Plan, which is
separated from the rest of NEWTOWN ESTATES by Waimalu Stream and by
the cliffs next to it.
It is simply “illogical” to apply the same Governing Documents for Residential
homes, of the MDCCR’s to Angela Sue Kaaihue’s and Yong Nam Fryer’s property
which once was owned by the Declarant, Herbert Horita, OceanView Ventures, in which
the MDCCR’s rules, and policies are established for residential single family and town-
homes with concise and clear lot sizes, no greater than ¼ acre. The “Defendants”
vacant land parcel is 82-acres, includes a forest preservation, is located adjacent to the
Waimalu Stream, and is mostly mountainous, thus it is “isolated, and separated from the
rest of the Newtown Estates by ‘it’s natural features, such as cliffs and streams’”. The
“Defendants” property mostly consists of “overgrown grass, “protected trees”, caves,
natural resources, and historical archaeological significance and importance. This
“clause” in the MDCCR’s should give NECA’s attorneys “good cause” to reconsider their
course of action.
LETTER FROM NECA, DATED AUG. 6, 2010
“As your neighbor, it was important to provide your concerns with the
proper attention and effort. The Board of Directors as well as our legal counsel
was consulted so I could prove you with information that has been thoroughly
examined.
With respect to the encroachment issues, we reviewed the master
Declaration of Covenants (MDCCR) for Newtown Estates Community
Association (NECA), including the By-Laws and did not find any provision that
would obligate NECA to intervene . . . “ (EXHIBIT 4, NECA, Aug. 6, 2010)
Email FROM NECA, DATED OCT.5, 2009
“ . . . Since your property is NOT part of NECA, the Board’s time would not
be spent reviewing the plans you have to develop your property . . .
(EXHIBIT 5, NECA, OCT.5, 2009)
Email FROM NECA, DATED JULY 7th, 2009
“. . . I double checked Hawaiiana Management Company’s records (they
currently manage our association) and your parcel of land is not part of Newtown
Estates Community Association.. . .”
(EXHIBIT 6, NECA, JULY 7th, 2009)
Email FROM NECA, PRESIDENT, D. DEVANEY, DATED Nov. 25th
,
2011
“ Again from AK’s position, she may prevail because we told her she was
NOT a part of Newtown which was erroneous. We as a board cannot
overlook or ignore what is going on and we are responsible for the
situation because some board members such as Ross Lee said it is a
7. 7
private matter, well I disagree with him then and now. We have not been
well served by Milton Matooka either, because at a recent board meeting
Alden reported that Motooka’s instructions was to refund her the $1,000
filing fee. So naturally I am confused and if I am confused, Angela is
confused. She invited NECA to attend a meeting with 7 attorneys but for
some reason we were told not to do that!. D. Devaney, President,
(EXHIBIT 10, NECA PRESIDENT, NOV. 25, 2011)
NECA’S VIOLATIONS OF OVERGROWN GRASS AND HARASSMENT OF
LETTERS SENT TO DEFENDANTS JUSTIFIES COUNTERCLAIM: COUNT VI-
PUNITIVE ACTION.
For Newtown Estates to claim violations of overgrown grass along the Kaahele
Street, it would be unclear as to what the extent is that NECA’s expectations of the
“Defendants” are to cut and maintain their grassy field, classified Preservation. In
addition, this grassy area, is an area, that is documented DLNR- land document
recorded #3040093, Dated, Nov. 16, 1992, which serves as their basis for landscaping
by HERBERT HORITA REALTY. For 30+ years, this part of the Kaahele Street has
been landscaped by Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA), and now for
some “abrupt unknown” reason, they are demanding and seeking that the “Defendants”
maintain, cut and landscape the area. This is the same tactic approach they are
pursuing in implementing their rules- and by-laws upon Defendants as they abruptly
change their position after 40+ years, from ignoring this land parcel, and now to claiming
this land parcel is part of the Newtown Estates Community Association, and the
implementation of their governing documents, rules, and policies upon a 82-Acre
Vacant land preservation parcel.
NECA further claims that the “Defendants” are in violation of Section 3.02 of the
MDCCR Declaration by having overgrown grass alongside Komo Mai and Kaahele
Street. The “Defendant’s” entire 82-Acre land parcel consists of mostly overgrown
grass, trees, and shrubbery. This is an erroneous and outrageous claim to have
“Defendants” all of a sudden demand for maintaining their land parcel which is zoned for
Preservation. If “Defendants” were to begin maintaining, and cutting down of
“overgrown” trees, shrubberies, and grass, this would constitute a violation of Hawaii
Laws regarding Preservation zoned land parcels.
The Land Court Registered Document states, in item #9, that failure to
comply with any of these conditions shall render this Conservation District
Land Use application null and void. Since or about May 2000, the water
meter has been removed, and since the letter dated Oct. 16th
, 2016, Nov.
2nd
, 2016, Nov. 8th
2016, March 30, 2017, and May 12, 2017, by NECA,
Melodie Beecroft, requesting for “Defendants” Angela Sue Kaaihue to
begin maintaining this area, which the Conservation District Land Use
8. 8
Permit already been deemed “null and void”. Throughout the recent
years, NECA, had taken on the liberty of maintaining this grassy woody,
ocean-view overlooking Pearl Harbor area, BUT, it wasn’t until NECA’s
employees ran out of things to harass Defendants Kaaihue with after
removing all items as listed in the “defective” Order on Dec. 29, 2014 and
both parties failing to resolve all remaining issues as ordered by Judge
Castenegetti, that “PLAINTIFFS NECA” began harassing Defendants
Kaaihue again with their harassing campaign beginning of Oct. 16th
, 2016
with notices that her “grass that needs to be cut”. NECA stopped
maintaining this grassy woody, ocean-view overlooking PearlHarbor area,
and “Plaintiffs” began harassing “Defendants” Angela Kaaihue, with the
numerous letters that were issued. (See Exhibit 2- DLNR Application
Approval)
NECA’S PHYSICAL ATTACK AND ASSSAULT UPON ANGELA KAAIHUE
JUSTIFIES COUNTERCLAIM: COUNT IV- INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
The continuous letters of harassment upon “DEFENDANTS” by their NECA
employees, dated Oct. 17th, 2016, Nov. 2nd
, 2016, Nov. 8th,
2016, March 30, 2017, and
May 12, 2017 led to the assault and threatening of “Defendant Kaaihue’s” life “I’m going
to kill this fucking bitch!”. After receiving numerous letters to “cut her grass”, Defendant
Angela Kaaihue attempted to confront the author of the letters, and address the
complaint at the Newtown Estates Recreational Center. As Ms. Kaaihue was
conversing with NECA’s employee Debbie Jang, another NECA Employee Pele
Teufaatamalii , a 300-LB morbid obese receptionist) approached and attacked
Defendant Kaaihue, threatened to “kill Defendant”, and assaulted “Defendant” Angela
Kaaihue. In the cover-up actions of NECA’s employees, they sought out retraining
orders and an Injunction of Harassment against “Defendants” and lied to police officers
stating that “Defendant” Angela Kaaihue assaulted and striked first, and that “she was
out of control”, Kaaihue defended herself by kicking and fighting back until the “Obese
employee” released Defendant Kaaihue’s neck from being in a choke-hold. However, a
twist in the story, a video-tape recorded on April 5, 2017, NOT initially made available to
the police, was later subpoenaed by the “Defendant Angela Kaaihue’s” public attorney,
and depicts the actual and correct assailants as to be NECA’s employees. The
harassment letters and the physical attack was a planned attack on “Defendant
Kaaihue” to lure her into the Recreational Center with the countless letters of provoking
harassment and violations, meanwhile a 300-lb Obese Receptionist (bodyguard) was
awaiting to attack Defendant. This justifies NECA’s 5-year long harassing and assault
pattern of behavior upon the Defendants, Count IV-Intentional act of Emotional Distress
on “Defendant” Angela Sue Kaaihue, by the NECA employees leaving “Defendant”
Angela Sue Kaaihue suffering from Permanent facial injuries, and neck injuries which
requires ongoing care and treatment. (Reference Case #TRO 1SS171000368 ,
1SS171000364 , 1SS171000365). Defendant Angela Kaaihue is faced with 2
Misdemeanor Assault cases, was arrested, booked, posted bail, and released. The
9. 9
assault cases are pending. Till this day, NECA’s staff and employees have NOT been
arrested or charged for the attacked assault upon Defendant which would constitute a
felony charge based on the injuries Defendant Angela Kaaihue sustained. To futher
cover-up NECA’s attack on Defendants, NECA filed a trespass warning against
Defendant. The Injunction Orders that they obtained with Attorney Timothy Rakieten
further prohibits NECA’s employees from contacting Angela Kaaihue, or sending any
more further harassing letters and violations, in which prohibits NECA’s employees from
further harassing Defendant Kaaihue with letters of violations.
Reiterating and rearguing what was already stated and argued in front of Judge
Castegnetti, as stated by Bay Lung, and Holma law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AS TO COUNT II OF
COMPLAINT FILED AUGUST 7, 2013, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
COSTS FILED MAY 11, 2015”, filed on Sept. 17, 2015, in what seems to be a
“deliberate and intentional plan to ruin Ms. Kaaihue, NECA started citing Ms. Kaaihue
for alleged violations of the MDCCR’s and NECA’s ARC Guidelines.”
(Taken from Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Newtown
Estates Community Associations motions for Summary Judgement as to Count II Of
Complaint filed on Aug. 7, 2013 and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.)
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND (Pages 2-6, Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm
“Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED SEPT. 17,
2015)
The Creation of Newtown’s Estates,
Defendants Purchase of the Property and NECA’S Representation to
Ms. Kaaihue,
NECA’S abrupt Change of Position and Subsequent Admissions,
NECA’s Enforcement Campaign Against Ms. Kaaihue,
B. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (Page 9-12, Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma
law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED
SEPT. 17, 2015)
NECA’s Refusal to Mediate with Ms. Kaaihue twice.
NECAS’s Summary Judgment Motion Regarding Count I and Resulting
Order,
NECA’s Summary Judgment Motion Regarding Ms. Kaaihue’s
Counterclaim,
NECA’s Criminal Contempt Motion,
The Order to Mediation and the Failure to Mediation,
NECA Does NOT Have Authority Over the Property,
NECA Should NOT Receive Any Award of Any Fines or Fees and
Costs,
10. 10
NECA’s Fines are Unlawful,
Neither HRS Chapter 421 J, nor the MDCCR’s Authorize Imposition of
Such Fines,
NECA Failed to Follow Its Own Policies and Procedures,
Unsupported Allegations and Misrepresentations,
NECA’S Refusal to Mediate Precludes an Award to NECA,
NECA’S Attorney’s Fees and Costs are Outrageous
C. NECAS MOTION MUST BE DENIED (Page 12-19, Bay Lung, Rose, and
Holma law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO,
FILED SEPT. 17, 2015)
D. NUMEROUS EMAILS: Defendant Kaaihue was repeatedly told by the NECA
1-“you are not part of this association”, 2-NECA’s lack of supporting
documents, 3- Warranty Deed is ambiguous. NECA now states that
Defendants are part of the Association, after initially ignoring the property for
40+ years, it’s lack of servitude, and DENYING vacant land parcel would be
more than enough for NECA and their attorneys to retract and reconsider
their malice, intentional, tortious, and negligent actions.
E. WARRANTY DEED- Declarant is described in the definitions of the MDDCR,
to be OceanView Ventures, it’s successors and assignees. Through
certificate of titles, the successor can be tracked down through the chain of
title and Defendants are now the inheritors and successors of the fee-simple
disputed property through a warranty deed that serviced by escrow and
realtors that they are now the rightful owners, and have succeeded the rights
as declarants.
F. CONCLUSION (EXHIBIT 1- Page 20, Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm,
DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED SEPT. 17, 2015)
GENUINE MATERIALS OF FACT:
“There are questions of fact in the record which preclude judgment, as a
matter of law, solely on the issues of the reference in the deed.” (Page 11,
Transcript Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney Mark Kawata)
“The only issue before the court . . . “ is whether or not the property is
subjected to the governing documents(p. 6) . . . when you’re asserting a claim for
declaratory relief, you’re asking the court to define her rights, which is what she’s
questioning. The Court would be defining her rights under that. And that would
11. 11
resolve that issue(p.18) . .I would think that going back in time to try to assess
things that may have been due . . or before, may be a difficult proposition for the
Association . . the Association started assessing Ms. Kaaihue and ms. Fryer
when they determined that they were members . . . he doesn’t have a date right
off . . .(p.20) it was after the confusion . . . primarily based on whether or not they
are members and whether or no they’re subject to the master declaration(p. 21). .
. It simply is, am I a member, and am I subject to? And that’s what we’re asking
the Court to decide(p.22-23) . . . Transcript Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney
Matt Tsukuzaki).
“Regardless of whether or not the property is part of Newtown Estates
and whether our client is subject to those governing documents, the method and
manner in which they’ve been enforced against our client lends itself to the
counterclaims, which I think are supported by the documents that are in the
record and precludes summary judgment in favor of the Association(p.8) . . . I
don’t feel comfortable at this time admitting that the property is subject to these
governing documents .. .our counterclaim was based on whether or not the
property was subject to the governing documents, the court dismissed those
claims for lack of jurisdiction . . .what conduct was in good faith or bad faith,
we’re coming back to these questions that are inappropriate for summary
judgment(p. 16) . . . Mr. Guzman is telling our client, once again, I’ve checked
with Hawaiian’s records, this is their general manager, whos done his own
investigation, which is all happening against the backdrop of 40 years in which
Newtown Estates has not treated this property as part of Newtown Estates. And
he’s saying, your parcel of land is not part of Newtown Estates Community
Association . . .(p.17) Transcript Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney JD. Ferry).
“The emails basically said, you have to be annexed to become a party” . .
.regarding the annexation process, if it is desired by the board of directors to
annex any adjacent properties and they decide to move forward, it will require a
three-quarters approval of the Association . . . this is a long process . . . as late
as July 2010, the Association took the position, you’re not in . . . there’s at least a
question of fact as to at what point in time does the owners—Ms. Kaaihue, and
Ms. Fryer, the owners, suddenly become a member? . . .There’s nothing in the
records to indicate that the Association actually changed its position until the time
this lawsuit was filed . . .Ms. Fryer has never been admitted to the Association(P.
16) . . . at what point does the Association now say that whatever you rule is
collateral estoppel on their claims for fees, costs, monthly payments, etc., etc.
(p.22) . . .we haven’t made a determination as to at what point in time that the
Association started billing and whether it was appropriate at that time(p. 22) . . .
Transcript Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney Mark Kawata
“. . . I think there was some initial communications informing the two individuals
that they were not… Now, I understand the Association’s position. That was a mistake. It
was an honest mistake. But, nevertheless, and I’m not making any comment on
summary judgment motions, but it’s led to some misunderstanding and I think some
hostility between the parties(p.25) . . .everybody’s ordered to mediation (p.27 . . .
Transcript Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Hon. Judge Castegnetti, Court)
12. 12
SEPT. 25, 2015- HEARING-Judge Castegnetti (Exhibit 6 & 12- Order denying
Plaintiff’s “NECA” & Counter-Claim Defendants “NECA” motion for Summary
Judgement)
Court was continued until Sept. 25, 2015, in which Judge Castegnetti DENIED all 3
motions in favor for Defendant/CounterClaim Plaintiff for summary judgment on the basis that
there are general issues of material fact that exist (Taken from Hoohiki Minutes, dated Sept. 25,
2015):
1- Motion To Withdraw as counsel for Defendant Yong Nam Fryer (M. Kawata).
GRANTED
2- Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant Newtown Estates Community Association’s Motion
for Summary Judgement as to Count II of Complaint filed 8/7/2013 and motion for
attorneys fees and costs (C. Rosenberg). DENIED
3- Counterclaim Deft. Newtown Estates Community Associations Motion for Summary
Judgment on Counterclaim by Def. Yong Nam Fryer filed 8/13/2014. DENIED
4- Counterclaim Deft. Newtown Estates Community Associations Motion for Summary
Judgment on Counterclaim by Deft Angela Sue Kaaihue. Filed 10/23/2013 (M.
Tsukuzaki) (All Motions RSC FM 8/5/2015 by stipulation) DENIED
SEPT. 25, 2015- MINUTES TAKEN FROM HOOKIKI
“THE COURT WILL MAKE NO DETERMINATION AS TO ANY PARTIES
ACTING IN BAD FAITH. AS TO THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE
COURT DENIED ALL MOTIONS AS THERE ARE GENERAL ISSUES OF MATERIAL
FACT THAT EXIST. MR FERRY DIRECTED TO PREPARE ORDERS AS TO MOTION
2 AND 4. MR KAWATA DIRECTED TO PREPARE ORDERS AS TO MOTIONS 1 AND
3. THE COURT ENCOURAGED COUNSEL TO CONTINUE WITH MEDIATION
EFFORTS AND IF ALL COUNSEL ARE IN AGREEMENT TO HAVE THE COURT AND
THE MEDIATOR TO DISCUSS THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, PLACE IT IN
WRITING AND SUBMIT IT TO THE MEDIATOR AND PROVIDE A COPY TO THE
COURT. CONCLUDED. “
Furthermore, genuine materials of fact, and the same disputed facts remain the
same now, as it remained then. Honorable Judge Castegnetti did not rule on any of
NECA’s summary judgment, and the order that raised from Oct. 22, 2014, was a
“settlement conference”, or a “stipulated agreement”as Mark Kawata stated, in the
transcripts proceedings, to have an Order to remove items that were already removed,
was defective, illogical and incoherent, and has no standing. The question of whether
or not this court has jurisdiction, still remains as an outstanding issue, and if the
MDCCR’s Section 7.10- Reservation to Exclude from the Master Declaration is
incomprehensible and/or does not serve it’s purpose. Judge Castegnetti, and all the
parties involved, including Attorney Phillip Li, acknowledges this is the issue, and these
are “general issues of material fact.” (Judge Castegnetti, Sept. 25, 2015)
Furthermore to address the remaining issues of Counterclaim Plaintiff Angela
Sue Kaaihue for the following counts remaining, Count I, Count IV, and Count VI of
Counterclaim filed Oct. 23, 2013.
13. 13
G. ORDER FILED ON DEC. 29, 2014 IS DEFECTIVE and is based on a
DEFECTIVE ambiguous Land Court Warranty Deed between the Grantor
(Wallace Lean) and Grantee (Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer). As
to Count I of NECA’s Complaint, (EXHIBIT 8-Reference Minutes recorded on
Oct. 22, 2014), Written Transcript has been provided.
ORDER GRANTED ON DEC. 29, 2014 is Defective, AND is based on a
DEFECTIVE Land Court Title, and lack of parties signatures. Both parties
acknowledged that most items were already removed at time of hearing.
Mark Kawata was ordered to write the Order, BUT, instead, NECA’s
attorney’s wrote the order, and misconstrued the order as stated in the
minutes.
The Dec. 29th
, 2017 ORDER lacks authority, and is based on a Defective
Land Court Registered Title.
The 12/29/14 Order did NOT establish that the Property is part of Newtown
Estates and subject to the MDCCR’s or NECA’s authority (Bays, Lung, Rose,
& Holma, MIO, filed Sept. 17, 2015, pg. 13).
Neither Land Owner signed the Order, neither Land Owner’s attorney Mark
Kawata.
There was no effort by either parties attorney’s to abide by Judge
Castegnetti’s order:
“THE COURT ORDERS COUNSEL AND PARTIES TO MEET AND
CONFER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE REMAINING ISSUES
WITHIN THE NEXT 45 DAYS”. (Referenced Minutes recorded on Oct.
22, 2014, Hookiki).
It was a “settlement conference” or “stipulation”, “We agree to remove the
“measly little” items, if they agreed to “drop the lawsuit”, and this case would
have been concluded, as of Dec. 2014 (Taken from transcript, Dated Oct. 22,
2014).
The defective Order, is NECA’s attorneys “biggest victory” and serves the
basis for their subsequent motions and cries for continuous erroneous
demands, pattern of behavior, and method of operation which must be
stopped.
H. ORDER DENYING COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN ESTATES
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
COUNTERCLAIM BY ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE FILED ON OCT. 23, 2013,
FILED JAN. 15, 2015, (EXHIBIT 6).
I. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NECA’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II OF COMPLAINT
FILED AUG. 7, 2013 AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS,
FILED MAY 11, 2015, (EXHIBIT 12).
14. 14
J. Counter-Claim Count I- Bad Faith
I. NECA’s, staff, board of directors, attorneys blatantly, deliberately, and
intentionally continue to ignore their own rules and policies, and their
MDCCR’s.
MDCCR, Article I, Definitions, defines “Owner” (a), shall not include the
Declarant with respect to any “lots” owned by the Declarant. (See Definiton
of “Lot”, as described in MDCCR, Article 1, Lot.)
Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer have inherited developer rights, the rights as
Declarant Herbert Horita, this section excludes Declarant and it’s successors or assignees,
including Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer, the owners of the lot.
MDCCR, Article 1, Definitions, defines “Lot: Shall mean any lot designated
on a subdivision or development map for residential use, or, with respect
to any condominium, an apartment of such condominium, or, with respect
to any townhouse, apartment house, duplex, or multiple dwelling, in low,
medium, or high rise buildings, a complete residential unit, and in each
case, except when clearly contrary to the context, shall include all
improvements thereon. Upon the splitting of any lot pursuant to Section
7.04, the term “lot” shall mean each parcel, condominium apartment, or
residential unit, into which such lot has been split. Upon the consolidation
of two or more lots, pursuant to Section 7.04, the term “lot” shal mean the
parcel consisting of the lots so consolidated.
The MDDCR description of a “lot” excludes Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer’s
lot. Kaaihue’s lot is an undeveloped 82-acre land parcel, consisting of a forest preservation.
There remains no house on this vacant land parcel.
MDCCR, Article I, Defintions, defines “ Declarant: Shall mean OCEANVIEW
VENTURES, a Limited Partnership, it’s successors and assigns.
It’s successors would be described as Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer, from
the previous owner, Wallace Lean, Pacific Aina Development, Herbert Horita, Horita Realty.
These are the subsequent successors, unless otherwise stated, this fact remains.
MDCCR, Article II, Section 2.02: Annexation of Subsequent Development
(a)(1)(2) (b)(c), The association may also annex adjacent property upon
approval by an affirmative vote of 3/4ths of all Class A members and by the
Class B member, if any, at a meeting duly called for this purpose. The
annexation of such property shall become effective only when declarant or
association have recorded a declaration which consists of more than one
document, and declares that such property is held and shall be held, sold,
conveyed, encumbered, leased, occupied, and improved subject to
Newtown Estates Restrictions.
15. 15
There has never been no recorded annexation of Kaaihue’s lot as a Subsequent
Development. None in the records, no recordation, none in Land Court or nothing recorded in
the Land Bureau of conveyances.
MDCCR, Article V, Section 5.01: Membership (a)- The term owner shall
mean an apartment Owner as defined in the Horizontal Property Act (Ch.
514, HRS).
Again, this Section discusses Membership, Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer
do not own an apartment in NECA.
MDCCR, VII, Section 7.10: Reservation to Exclude from the Master
Declaration. Declarant reserves the right to exclude from the operation and
effect of and the provisions contained in this Master Declaration. Declarant
reserves the right to exclude from the operation and effect of and the
provisions contained in this Master Declaration those development
increments, which are isolated and separated from the rest of the
NEWTOWN ESTATES , by it’s natural features, such as cliffs and streams,
so that such part of the common and recreational areas of NEWTOWN
ESTATES, including but not limited to any lots which may be constructed
and developed by Declarant within any Area identified as Area C
designated on the Proposed Newtown Estates Development Plan, which is
separated from the rest of NEWTOWN ESTATES by Waimalu Stream and by
the cliffs next to it.
Again, this Section of the MDDCR is one that is continuously and blatantly ignored by
the attorneys, by NECA’s board of directors, and by NECA’s employees. It is blatantly ignored,
so that the attorneys, NECA’s employees have a frivolous case to pursue. It is described here in
black and white, but neither of NECA’s attorneys acknowledges or even attempts to address
this section as described as such. It clearly explains and describes Angela Sue Kaaihue’s and
Yong Nam Fryers vacant land parcel, as an area that is separated from the rest of NEWTOWN
ESTATES BY Waimalu Stream and by the cliffs next to it, such as Kaaihue’s property is mostly
made up of cliffs and mountains, and has a stream running through the middle of it, unlike any
of the lots in NEWTOWN ESTATES. Furthermore, “Area C” as identified on the Newtown
Proposed Development Plan has never been produced in Discovery. It is highly likely that the
“Area C” calls for a high-rise as suggested in the Preamble of the NECA’s MDCCR, “Develop
and created thereon a residential complex of single family detached homes in low, medium, and
high rise buildings”.
II. “Evidence shows that NECA does not have any authority over the property,
and that by it’s own actions and admissions, it abandoned any rights it may
have had by taking the position for 40 years that the Property was not part of
NECA.” (EXHIBIT 1, Bays, Lung, Rose, & Holma, MIO, filed Sept. 17, 2015).
III. “NECA repeatedly breached its fiduciary obligations through it’s bad conduct.”
16. 16
IV. “NECA abused it’s powers and failed to follow the law and its own
enforcement procedures in fining and dealing with Ms. Kaaihue.” (EXHIBIT 1,
Bays, Lung, Rose, & Holma, MIO, filed Sept. 17, 2015).
V. “NECA’s patently unfair and unreasonable conduct toward Ms. Kaaihue
renders its fines and attorneys’ fees and costs under the circumstance of this
case unconscionable.” (EXHIBIT 1, Bays, Lung, Rose, & Holma, MIO, filed
Sept. 17, 2015).
VI. NECA failed to “meet and resolve the remaining issues within 45 days”, as
ordered by Judge Castegnetti on Oct. 22, 2014.
VII.NECA failed to represent Kaaihue in 1LD11-1-000271, NECA extinguished its
rights to the servitude. Numerous parties sued Kaaihue for an easement
across her property as would be NECA’s servitude to defend Kaaihue’s
property as stated in the MDCCR’s of NEWTOWN ESTATES.
VIII. NECA picks and chooses which rules they enforce upon Kaaihue’s
property based on only if it “disadvantages Kaaihue.”
IX. NECA and their employees continued with their pattern of harassing
behavior, sending letters to her address about “cutting of grass, fines, and
penalties” in an area that NECA has been maintaining for 40 years. Now,
they change their stance, and demands that Kaaihue landscapes, maintains
and cuts the grass. The same repeated tactic and approach as to their claim
that “the land parcel is part of NECA”, after ignoring this parcel for 40+ years,
as not being part of Newtown”.
X. NECA and their employees attacked and assaulted Kaaihue while Ms.
Kaaihue at NECA’s recreational center on April 5th
, 2017.
XI. NECA’s employees stated that Kaaihue assaulted, striked first, this led to the
false arrest of Angela Kaaihue in 2 counts of assault.
XII.NECA Later released a Video tape showing that NECA’s employees attacked
first, assaulted and attempted to kill Angela Kaaihue, as she was standing
and talking to one of the employees at the entrance of the building, “Im going
to kill this *ucking bitch!” was stated by their NECA employee!”
XIII. NECA’s employees deliberately lied to the police, and wrote false police
statements, and falsely testified in separate TRO case’s filed simultaneously
on April 7th
, 2017; 1SS171000364 , 1SS171000368 , 1SS171000365, leading
to the granting of an Injunction for Harassment, thus, NECA’s employees are
prohibited from further harassment of Angela Kaaihue through letters sent by
the USPS, or by email of frivolous violations, and NECA therefore, changed
it’s policies.
XIV. NECA’s employees caused permanent facial injuries to Angela Kaaihue ,
permanent facial nerve damage, loss of eye sight, unwarranted headaches,
neck pain, and other undisclosed injuries in which she needs and seeks
ongoing treatment and therapy.
XV.NECA’s blatant tyrant behavior continues as they are empowered to under
the guise of the law as they (1) “continued to ‘overlook and ignore’, it’s
responsibilities for this situation, (2) embarked on a selective enforcement
campaign in which it disregarded its own administrative rules and procedures,
(3) refused Ms. Kaaihue’s multiple request to mediate despite the plain
mandate of section HRS Section 421J-13, and (4) larded Ms. Kaaihue’s
account with unreasonable and insurmountable fines and attorneys’ fees, for
which it now seeks a ‘renewed’ summary judgment, arguing the similar
arguments, but in front of another judge, the Honorable Judge Crabtree.’”
17. 17
(EXHIBIT 1- Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm- DEFENDANT
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED SEPT. 17, 2015).
XVI. NECA, as a result of the tyrant’s behavior, Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer
continue to suffer as a result of their Bad Faith.
XVII. NECA refused to mediate, NECA refused to follow and abide by their own
MDCCR’s NECA failed to abide by Judge Castegnetti’s order on Oct. 22,
2014- NECA deliberately and intentionally wrote the order, NECA disobeyed
the order by failing to “confer and resolve the remaining issues within 45
days”. NECA misconstrued and abused the Order by filling in the blanks with
their own blatant frivolous requests.
K. CounterClaim- Count IV- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
I. All the listed above items under CounterClaim I-Bad Faith contributed to
Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer’s Infliction of Emotional Distress
II. NECA’s pattern of intentional behavior was intentional and calls for serious
concern. “Big associations” such as NECA abusing their power and authority
to steal time. Stealing approximately 5 years of development of home, family,
financial security, resulting in Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
L. CounterClaim- Count VI- Punitive Damages- NECA’s aggressive and non-
compliant behavior, lack of regards of Hawaii State Revised Statutes 421J, refusal to
mediate, their enormous and outrageous fines and fees, campaign of harassment
and assaults,intentional fraud, failure to abide and follow their own MDCCR’s, rules,
covenants, and policies and procedures, NECA’s unsupported allegations and
misrepresentations, unlawful fines, outrageous fees for and costs for their attorneys,
blatant disregards to State laws, and their own politics, misconstruing Judge
Castegnetti’s Orders, failure to acknowledge MDCCR 7.10, to shall be more than
sufficient evidence to determine Counts I, IV, and VI to be in favor for “Defendant
and CounterClaim Plaintiff” Angela Sue Kaaihue.
NECA’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS ARE OUTRAGEOUS
“Finally, the Court must deny NECA’s Motion because, under the circumstances
of this case, NECA and it’s Board went on a “witch hunt” against someone who they
simply do not like, the amounts of the fines and attorneys’ fees and costs it seeks, are
simply shocking. NECA claims that pursuant to HRS Section 421J-10(a) and MDCCR
Section 7.02 (a) it is entitled to an award to its attorneys’ fees and costs, apparently in
excess of $125,000. NECA is wrong. HRS Section 421J-10(a) limits a prevailing
association’s recovery to “reasonable” attorneys’ fees. See HRS 421J-10(a). NECA
makes no effort to portray its “substantial” attorneys’ fees as “reasonable.” See memo.
Supp. Mot., pp.12-13. The same attorneys who seek to recover their fees in this case
(and who have advised NECA or the developer in some capacity for nearly 40 years
(see Ex. C), have: (1) advised NECA while it represented to Ms. Kaaihue that the
Property was not part of Newtown Estates; (2) advised NECA while it reversed course
and claimed that the Property was part of Newtown Estates: (3) advised NECA while it
engineered and pursued its enforcement strategy against Ms. Kaaihue; (4) advised
18. 18
NECA while it declined two requests to mediate from Ms. Kaaihue, and (6) advised
NECA to continues its enforcement and ligitation strategy, which included, among other
things, having Ms. Kaaihue and her mother held in criminal contempt, NECA should not
be allowed to profit from its gross violations and actions.”, (Page 20, Bay Lung, Rose,
and Holma law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO,
FILED SEPT. 17, 2015); and (7) NECA’s failure to abide by Judge Castegnetti’s
Order- Oct. 22, 2014-minutes to “resolve all remaining issues within 45 days”, (8)
NECA’s deliberate misconstruing Judge Castegnetti’s Order by writing a
defective order dated, Dec. 29th
, 2014; (9) NECA’s continued pattern and
behavior of harassment letters; (10) NECA’s employee Physical Assault attack
on April5th, 2017 upon Defendant Angela Kaaihue; (11) deliberate and
intentional false reporting to HPD on April 5th
, 2017,
2. PLAINTIFF NECA’S FAILURE TO ANSWER COUNTER-COMPLAINT FILED BY
ANGELA KAAIHUE ON OCT. 23RD
, 2013, IS INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL
CONDUCT, UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL
3. PLAINTIFF NECA’S FAILURE TO ANSWER COUNTER-COMPLAINT FILED BY
YONG FRYER ON AUG. 13TH
, 2014, IS INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL CONDUCT,
UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL
4. 10TH
, 11TH
, & 12TH
, MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY
PLAINTIFF NECA
This is Plaintiff’s 10th
, 11th
, and 12th
Motions for Summary Judgment that they have
filed in this case, including the Land court Case recently heard in which Plaintiff’s went
against the Defendant’s whom were seeking an answer to their Declaratory Relief.
Instead Plaintiff’s filed a Motion for Summary Judgment denying all aspects, which was
very inappropriate for Land Court. The filed Motions for Summary Judgment are
listed as follows.
a. 9/17/2014- MSJ against Angela Kaaihue/Yong Fryer
b. 5/6/2015- MSJ against Yong Fryer
c. 5/6/2015- MSJ against Angela Kaaihue
d. 8/5/2015- MSJ against Angela Kaaihue/Yong Fryer
e. 8/5/2015- MSJ against Counter Yong Fryer
f. 8/5/2015- MSJ against Counter Angela Kaaihue
g. 1/23/2018- MSJ against Angela Kaaihue
h. 1/23/2018 MSJ against Counter Angela Kaaihue
i. 12/18/2018 MSJ against Angela Kaaihue
j. 12/18/2018- MSJ against Counter Angela Kaaihue
k. 12/18/2018- MSJ against Counter Yong Fryer
l. 7/23/2018- MSJ (Land Court) against Angela Kaaihue/Yong Fryer
19. 19
5. RULES OF THE HRCP, 1; 12, 54(c), 55, 60
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
HRCP Rule 55. DEFAULT.
(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has
failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear
by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party's default.
(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:
(2) BY THE COURT. In all other cases the party entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the
court therefor; but no judgment by default shall be entered against an infant or incompetent
person unless represented in the action by a guardian, or other such representative who has
appeared therein, and upon whom service may be made under Rule 17. If the party against
whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, the party (or, if appearing by
representative, the party's representative) shall be served with written notice of the application
for judgment at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such application. If, in order to enable the
court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to
determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to
make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such
references as it deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the
parties when and as required by any statute.
(d) Plaintiffs, counterclaimants, cross- claimants. The provisions of this rule apply whether the
party entitled to the judgment by default is a plaintiff, a third-party plaintiff, or a party who has
pleaded a cross-claim or counterclaim. In all cases a judgment by default is subject to the
limitations of Rule 54(c).
Rule 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER.
(b) Mistakes; inadvertence; excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, etc. On
motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by
due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
misconduct of an adverse party;; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of
the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and
(3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A
motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its
operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to
relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon
the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the
nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a
judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
(Amended December 7, 1999, effective January 1, 2000; further amended May 30, 2006,
effective July 1, 2006.)
20. 20
6. PLAINTIFF NECA’S FAILURE TO ANSWER COUNTER-COMPLAINT FILED BY
ANGELA KAAIHUE ON OCT. 23RD
, 2013, IS INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL
CONDUCT, UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL
Defendants are extremely prejudiced. Not only are their multiple filings of Motions for
Summary Judgments, and Motions in Limine come during the Holiday seasons, but they
are bombarding to cause Defendant’s in becoming burdensome and time-consuming.
7. PLAINTIFF NECA’S FAILURE TO ANSWER COUNTER-COMPLAINT FILED BY
YONG FRYER ON AUG. 13TH
, 2014, IS INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL CONDUCT,
UNTIMELY, AND EXTREME PREJUDICIAL
Defendants are extremely prejudiced. Not only are their multiple filings of Motions for
Summary Judgments, and Motions in Limine come during the Holiday seasons, but they
are bombarding to cause Defendant’s in becoming burdensome and time-consuming
8. Defendant’s DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY COURT filed Nov. 20, 2018
Defendant’s Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Fryer a Motion for Default on Nov. 20th
, 2018
for Counter Claims filed on August 13th
, 2013, and October 23rd
, 2014.
a. Extreme Prejudice, No inadvertence, no fraud, no mistake
b. Untimely filing for an answer to Counter-complaints
c. 27 days left till Jury Trial
d. Wasting Valuable Resources, court, and Defendant’s time and resources
9. PLAINTIFF’S ARE PREJUDICED-
Plaintiff’s are seeking Leave to Answer, this is an Untimely filing of an answer to
Counterclaims, only 27 days before trial by Jury.
a. Insufficient time to prepare a defense against their answers would be considered
extreme prejudice.
b. Very untimely, over 5 years has passed, to file an answer to the counter-claim
c. This is willful, and intentional neglect to avoid red flags of a default
d. Unable to formulate defenses
e. So many court cases regarding this land case.
f. It has been a burden, caused emotional distress, stress on personal relationships,
family, this is very unreasonable.
g. They flooded Defendants with numerous Motions for summary Judgments, and
litigation.
21. 21
h. And there is not enough time to formulate a meaningful defense, and intentional
withholding of information.
i. This is not carelessness, this is willfully neglected, if there is such a thing as
willful neglect, this would be the perfect example.
j. The rule says they were to provide a written answer in the certain amount of
time allocated, and they failed because they were so occupied with their fraud,
and attempts to steal one’s property.
k. Nowhere in their multitudes of summary judgments did they address any of the
counts or provide defenses.
l. Their attempts to provide defenses or argue our counter-claim in the motions
for summary judgments does not constitute an answer to a counter-claim.
m. This is substantial prejudice.
n. They failed to disclose discovery and information.
10. ESTIMATED DAMAGES:
Estimated damages have been estimated to be $117 MILLION, FILED APRIL 18TH
, 2018,
Civil Claims Information Sheet. Plaintiffs may defer likewise, when taken into consideration the
costs of five years of litigation instead of developing, building, and constructing. These kinds of
losses can not be underestimated and undervalued at the guise of a community association who’s
underlying attempt is to steal one’s property.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons stated above, Ms. Kaaihue and Yong Fryer
respectfully requests that the Court deny both Motions in it’s entirety.
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS:
A. General and Special damages for “Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff”
ANGELA KAAIHUE AND YONG FRYER, in an amount to be proven
at trial;
B. For Compensatory damages for “Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff”
ANGELA KAAIHUE AND YONG FRYER, in an amount to be proven
at trial
C. For Punitive damages against “Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendant”
Newtown Estates Community Association by It’s Board of Directors” in
an amount to be determined at trial.
D. For Plaintiffs “NECA”s Bad Faith, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress, Puntive Damages
E. Such equitable relief as the court deems just to make the
PLAINTIFFS whole for the damages suffered herein.
F. For Punitive Damages,
G. For Costs and Attorney Fees, Suits, and interest and other such other
and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
22. 22
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, _________________________
_______________________
Angela Sue Kaaihue
ProSe for Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, _________________________
_______________________
Yong Nam Fryer
ProSe for Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff
23. 23
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ) Civil No. 13-1-2161-08 JHC
ASSOCIATION, by it’s Board of Directors ) (Other Civil Action)
)
) DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT
) ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. )
)
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG NAM )
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES )
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50 )
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE )
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50; )
AND DOES ENTITIES 1-50 )
)
_____________________________________________)
DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF,
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
I, ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE, do hereby declare the following under penalty of perjury:
1. I am NOT an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of
Hawaii, and am NOT a member of any law firm. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and could and would competently testify to them if called as
witnesses.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the Defendant Angela
Sue Kaaihue’s Attorney’s Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm for
DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S Motion in Opposition, FILED SEPT.
17, 2015, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy of the DLNR, Office of
Conservation and Environmental Affairs, letter from William Paty, which has
been filed in the above-entitled matter.
4. Attached here.to as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of EMAIL BY NECA,
dated July 7, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
24. 24
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy of the LETTER BY NECA,
Dated Aug. 6, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “5” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL BY NECA,
Dated July 7, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit “6” is a true and correct copy of the ORDER DENYING
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIM BY
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE FILED ON OCT. 23, 2013, FILED JAN. 15, 2015.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “7” is a true and correct copy of the MINUTES FROM
Oct. 22, 2014, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit “8” is a true and correct copy of the REAL ESTATE
LISTING 2009, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit “9” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL FROM
NECA, PRESIDENT, DATED NOV. 25, 2011, which has been filed in the
above-entitled matter.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit “10” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL FROM
NECA, NO ANNEXATION, JULY 8TH
, 2010, which has been filed in the
above-entitled matter.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit “11” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL FROM
NECA, OCT. 5TH
, 2009, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit “12” is a true and correct copy of the ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NECA’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II OF COMPLAINT FILED AUG. 7,
2013 AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, FILED MAY 11,
2015, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
25. 25
I declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, Nov. 30th, 2018.
____________________________
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
27. 27
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ) Civil No. 13-1-2161-08 JHC
ASSOCIATION, by it’s Board of Directors ) (Other Civil Action)
)
) DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT
) YONG NAM FRYER
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. )
)
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG NAM )
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES )
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50 )
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE )
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50; )
AND DOES ENTITIES 1-50 )
)
_____________________________________________)
DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF,
YONG NAM FRYER
I, YONG NAM FRYER, do hereby declare the following under penalty of perjury:
1. I am NOT an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of
Hawaii, and am NOT a member of any law firm. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and could and would competently testify to them if called as
witnesses.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the Defendant Angela
Sue Kaaihue’s Attorney’s Bay Lung, Rose, and Holma law firm for
DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S Motion in Opposition, FILED SEPT.
17, 2015, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
3. Attached here.to as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of EMAIL BY NECA,
dated July 7, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy of the LETTER BY NECA,
Dated Aug. 6, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
28. 28
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “5” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL BY NECA,
Dated July 7, 2010, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “6” is a true and correct copy of the ORDER DENYING
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIM BY
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE FILED ON OCT. 23, 2013, FILED JAN. 15, 2015.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit “9” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL FROM
NECA, PRESIDENT, DATED NOV. 25, 2011, which has been filed in the
above-entitled matter.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “10” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL FROM
NECA, NO ANNEXATION, JULY 8TH
, 2010, which has been filed in the
above-entitled matter.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit “11” is a true and correct copy of the EMAIL FROM
NECA, OCT. 5TH
, 2009, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit “12” is a true and correct copy of the ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NECA’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II OF COMPLAINT FILED AUG. 7,
2013 AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, FILED MAY 11,
2015, which has been filed in the above-entitled matter.
I declare under penalty of law that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, Nov. 30th, 2018.
____________________________
YONG NAM FRYER
29. 29
EXHIBITS 1-12
1. EXHIBIT 1- BAY, LUNG, & HOLMA LAW FIRM “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED SEPT. 17, 2015.
2. EXHIBIT 3- EMAIL BY NECA, dated July 7, 2010.
3. EXHIBIT 4- LETTER BY NECA, Dated Aug. 6, 2010.
4. EXHIBIT 5- EMAIL BY NECA, Dated July 7, 2010.
5. EXHIBIT 6- ORDER DENYING COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN
ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
COUNTERCLAIM BY ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE FILED ON OCT. 23, 2013,
FILED JAN. 15, 2015.
6. EXHIBIT 9- EMAIL FROM NECA, PRESIDENT, DATED NOV. 25, 2011.
7. EXHIBIT 10- EMAIL FROM NECA, NO ANNEXATION, JULY 8TH
, 2010.
8. EXHIBIT 11- EMAIL FROM NECA, OCT. 5TH
, 2009.
9. EXHIBIT 12- ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT
NECA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT II OF
COMPLAINT FILED AUG. 7, 2013 AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND
COSTS, FILED MAY 11, 2015.
30. 30
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ) Civil No. 13-1-2161-08 JHC
ASSOCIATION, by it’s Board of Directors ) (Other Civil Action)
)
) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. )
)
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG NAM )
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES )
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50 )
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE )
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50; )
AND DOES ENTITIES 1-50 )
)
Defendants, )
_____________________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing:
DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF(S) ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE AND
YONG FRYER MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO NECA’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
ANSWER DEFENDANT(S)/COUNTER-CLAIM PLAINTIFF(S) (FILED OCT. 23RD
, 2013 &
AUG. 13TH
, 2014) COUNTER-CLAIMS’ FILED ON NOV. 13TH
, 2018
was served via U.S. mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery at their last known
address as follows:
Phillip A. Li, Esq.
733 Bishop Street, Ste. 1770
Honolulu, HI. 96813
Attorney for Counterclaim Defendant
Newtown Estates Community Association
Motooka & Rosenberg
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 801
Honolulu, HI., 96813
Attorney for Plaintiff
Newtown Estates Community Association
31. 31
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, Nov. 30th, 2018
_____________________________
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
ProSe for Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, Nov. 30th
, 2018
_____________________________
YONG NAM FRYER
ProSe for Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff