f IRSr r:lfH 111 l f' ntlHTj

SI.Alf 11f 11 r wt-il

f l i l1 .
WOODRUFF K. SOLDNER 4023-0
NICOLE KALAKAU 9508-0 2urn JUL 12 AM 8: 33
SHARON PARIS 10549-0
LEAVITT, YAMANE & SOLDNER
Pacific Guardian Center, Mauka Tower
737 Bishop Street, Suite 1740
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
Telephone: (808) 521-7474
Facsimile: (808) 521-7749

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
as Co-Personal Representative of the Estates of
BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased,
MELBA DILLEY, Deceased; and
PHILIP RELLER, Individually and as
Co-Personal Representative of the Estates of
BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased
and MELBA DILLEY, Deceased JPC
C1VIL NO . _ _ _ _~_-_.- -
MARK S. DA VIS 1442-0
MICHAEL K. LIVINGSTON 4161-0
CLARE E. CONNORS 7936-0
THOMAS M. OTAKE 7622-0
DAVIS LEVIN LIVINGSTON
851 Fort Street, Suite 400
Honolulu, Hawai 'i 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-7500
Facsimile: (808) 356-0418

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased; and
DAWN DUNBAR, as Co-Personal
Representative of the Estate of
JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased

I do hereby certify I at this TS'fl full, true, and

correct copy of the or. ina! on file in this office.
TERRANCE M. REVERE 5857-0
CLARISSE M. KOBASHIGAWA 9314-0
REVERE & ASSOCIATES
970 North Kalaheo Avenue, Suite A301
Kailua, Hawai'i 96734

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
MARILYN VANGIESON; and
MICHAEL VAN GIESON,
Individually and as Co-Personal
Representative of the Estate of
MARILYN J. VANGIESON, Deceased

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAI'I
~a-1-1n01-,-07
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION Civil No.
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
---------
(Other Non-Vehicle Tort)
a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, Co-
Personal Representative of the Estates of COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY
BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased, TRIAL; SUMMONS
MELBA DILLEY, Deceased; PHILIP
RELLER, Individually and as Co-
Personal Representative of the Estates of
BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased and
MELBA DILLEY, Deceased;
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, Co-
Personal Representative of the Estate of
JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased;
DAWN DUNBAR, Co-Personal
Representative of the Estate of JOANN
MIBAE KUWAT A, Deceased;
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, Co-
Personal Re resentative of the Estate of

2
 MARILYN J. VAN GIESON, Deceased;
MICHAEL VAN GIESON, Individually
and as Co-Personal Representative of the
Estate of MARILYN J. VANGIESON,
Deceased,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

ASSOCIA, aka ASSOCIATIONS, INC., a

Texas for-profit corporation; HAWAll
FIRST, INC., a Hawai'i for-profit
corporation; CERTIFIED
MANAGEMENT, INC. dba ASSOCIA
HAWAII, a Hawai'i for-profit
corporation; TOUCHSTONE
PROPERTIES, LTD., a Hawai'i for-profit
corporation; ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE
MARCO POLO APARTMENTS, a
Hawai 'i corporation; OHANA
CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., a Hawai'i
for-profit corporation; JOHN DOES 1-
100; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100,
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-100 and DOE
ENTITIES 1-100,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

COME NOW Plaintiffs, COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE

SAFETY AND RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, as Co-Personal

Representative of the Estates of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased, MELBA

DILLEY, Deceased; and PHILIP RELLER, Individually and as Co-Personal

Representative of the Estates of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased and MELBA

3
DILLEY, Deceased, by and through their attorneys, WoodruffK. Soldner, Nicole

Kalakau and Sharon Paris; and

COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND

RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, as Co-Personal Representative of the

Estate of JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased; and DAWN DUNBAR, Co-Personal

Representative of the Estate of JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased, by and through

their attorneys, Mark S. Davis, Michael K. Livingston, Clare E. Connors and Thomas M.

Otake; and

COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND

RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, as Co-Personal Representative of the

Estate of MARILYN J. VANGIESON, Deceased; and MICHAEL VANGIESON,

Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of MARILYN J. VAN

GIBSON, by and through their attorneys, Terrance M. Revere and Clarisse M.

Kobashigawa, who, for causes of action against Defendants above-named, allege and

aver as follows:

1. After a long history of blatant disregard for fire and life safety, a July 14,

2017 fire in Marco Polo Condominium killed Britt Reller, Melba Dilley, Joann Kuwata

and Marilyn Van Gieson.

2. Plaintiff COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY

AND RECOVERY is a charitable Hawai'i organization with the purpose of promoting

fire safety and recovery within our community.

4
 3. COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND

RECOVERY is the Co-Personal Representative of the Estates of BRITT DANIEL

RELLER, Deceased and MELBA DILLEY, Deceased.

4. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff PHILIP RELLER, Individually and as

Co-Personal Representative of the Estates of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased and

MELBA DILLEY, Deceased, was a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of

Hawai'i.

5. COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND

RECOVERY is or will be appointed the Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of

JOANN MIBAE KUWATA.

6. Plaintiff DAWN DUNBAR, is the Co-Personal Representative of the Estate

of JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased. Plaintiff Dunbar is a resident of the City and

County of Honolulu, State ofHawai'i.

7. COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND

RECOVERY is or will be appointed the Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of

MARILYN J. VANGIESON.

8. Plaintiff MICHAEL VANGIESON is or will be appointed Co-Personal

Representative of the Estate of MARILYN J. VANGIESON, Deceased. Plaintiff

MICHAEL VANGIESON, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate

of MARILYN J. VANGIESON, Deceased, is a resident of the City and County of

Honolulu, State of Hawai'i.

5
 9. At all times relevant herein, Defendant HAWAii FIRST, INC. was a for-

profit Hawai 'i corporation in the business of real property and condominium association

management and doing business in the City and County of Honolulu, State ofHawai'i.

10. At all times relevant herein, Defendant CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT,

INC. dbaASSOCIA HAWAII was a for-profit Hawai'i corporation in the business of real

property and condominium association operation and management doing business in the

City and County of Honolulu, State ofHawai'i.

11. At all times relevant herein, Defendant ASSOCIA, also known as

ASSOCIATIONS, INC., was a for-profit Texas corporation, doing business in the City

and County of Honolulu, State ofHawai'i. Defendant ASSOCIATIONS, INC. also does

business in Hawai'i by and through its for-profit companies, DEFENDANT HAWAii

FIRST, INC. and DEFENDANT CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT, INC., also known as

and/or doing business as "ASSOCIA HA WAii."

12. Defendant ASSOCIA, aka ASSOCIATIONS, INC., purports to be the

largest association and property management company in the United States and the world

and the foremost experts on managing condominiums. Defendants ASSOCIA, aka

ASSOCIATIONS, INC., HAWAii FIRST, INC., and CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT,

INC. dba ASSOCIA HAWAll are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendant

ASSOCIA."

13. At all times relevant herein, Defendant TOUCHSTONE PROPERTIES,

LTD. (hereinafter "TOUCHSTONE") was a for-profit Hawai'i corporation in the

business of real estate brokerage and condominium operation and management and

6
property management and doing business in the City and County of Honolulu, State of

Hawai'i.

14. At all times relevant herein, Defendant ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT

OWNERS OF THE MARCO POLO APARTMENTS was a Hawai'i corporation, doing

business in the City and County of Honolulu, State ofHawai'i. DEFENDANT

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE MARCO POLO

APARTMENTS is hereinafter referred to as "MARCO POLO AOAO."

15. At all times relevant herein, Defendant OHANA CONTROL SYSTEMS,

INC. (hereinafter "OHANA") was a for-profit Hawai 'i corporation doing business in the

City and County of Honolulu, State ofHawai'i.

16. All events material to this Complaint occurred within the City and County

of Honolulu, and within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of

Hawai'i.

17. JOHN DOES 1-100; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, DOE

PARTNERSHIPS 1-100 and DOE ENTITIES 1-100 are sued herein under fictitious

names for the reason that their true names and identities are unknown to Plaintiffs, except

that they are connected in some manner with Defendants, and are agents, servants,

employees, employers, representatives, co-venturers, associates, officers, directors or

independent contractors of Defendants and/or were in some manner presently unknown

to Plaintiffs engaged in the activities alleged herein and/or were in some manner

responsible for the injuries or damages to Plaintiffs and that their true names, identities,

7
capacities, activities and/or responsibilities are presently unknown to Plaintiffs or their

attorneys.

18. The Marco Polo condominium, located at 2333 Kapiolani Boulevard,

Honolulu, Hawai'i 96826, was built in 1971 and consists of 569 residential condominium

units and four commercial rental spaces.

19. Defendant MARCO POLO AOAO controls and is responsible for the

common areas and elements of Marco Polo.

20. Each of the residential condominium units within the Marco Polo was built

and equipped with an appropriately constructed Fire Door that is Self-Closing

(hereinafter "Self-Closing Fire Door") that connects with the means of egress or exit, the

hallways and the common areas of the condominium.

21. Self-Closing Fire Doors are part of the most basic fire and life safety

measures required for condominiums, and Self-Closing Fire Doors are required by every

fire code that has ever been applicable to the Marco Polo.

22. Self-Closing Fire Doors are required so that a fire within any individual

condominium unit can be contained to that unit for as long as possible, thereby allowing

residents in other units to escape the building utilizing the designed means of egress or

exits and for the fire to be put out before spreading to other units within the building.

23. At all times relevant herein, Defendants ASSOCIA, TOUCHSTONE, and

MARCO POLO AOAO allowed Louvered Doors to be installed on the exterior of the

Self-Closing Fire Doors that lead to the common hallways and means of egress or exit.

8
 24. At all times relevant herein, the Marco Polo AOAO "House Rules"

provided:

A louvered door may be installed outside an apartment's

solid door provided that it conforms to standards established

by the Board ofDirectors. Both single and bi-fold-type

louvered doors are permitted provided that they meet City

and County code safe-exit requirements.

25. Defendants ASSOCIA, TOUCHSTONE, and MARCO POLO AOAO

further allowed the Self-Closing Fire Doors to be propped open with Prop-Open Devices,

thereby allowing air to flow through the Louvered Doors into the hallway, presumably to

allow wind cooling of the condominium units. As of the time of the fire at issue herein,

Louvered Doors with Fire Door Prop-Open Devices were installed on most of the Marco

Polo condominium units.

26. The widespread installation and use of Louvered Doors with Prop-Open

Devices for the Self-Closing Fire Door in the Marco Polo was done with the knowledge

and consent of Defendants ASSOCIA, TOUCHSTONE, and MARCO POLO AOAO,

despite this configuration being what Defendants ASSOCIA, TOUCHSTONE, and

MARCO POLO AOAO knew, or should have known, was a dangerous defeat of the fire

and life safety effect of the installed Self-Closing Fire Doors, in violation of building and

fire codes, and blatantly contrary to fire and life safety best practices.

27. In 2000, the Honolulu Fire Department commissioned a fire and life safety

assessment of five high-rise condominiums in Honolulu, including the Marco Polo.

9
 28. The assessment, conducted by S.S. Dannaway Associates, Inc. and

hereinafter referred to as the "First Fire and Life Safety Call to Action," called for an

upgrade of the fire and life safety systems within the Marco Polo, including specific

upgrades to the fire alarm system. The approximate cost of the upgrade to the fire alarm

system was estimated at $345,875.

29. In 2004, a reserve study was performed for and/or by Defendants MARCO

POLO AOAO, which estimated the useful life for the Marco Polo fire and life safety

system at ONE YEAR.

30. In 2005, the Honolulu Fire Department again commissioned a fire and life

safety assessment of four high-rise condominiums in Honolulu, including the Marco

Polo.

31. The assessment, conducted by S.S. Dannaway Associates, Inc. and

hereinafter referred to as the "Second Fire and Life Safety Call to Action," called for an

upgrade of the fire and life safety systems within the Marco Polo, including specific

upgrades to the fire alarm system. The approximate cost of the upgrade to the fire alarm

system was estimated at $432,344.

32. In September 2010, despite having chosen to NOT upgrade the fire alarm

system consistent with the recommendations in the First Fire and Life Safety Call to

Action or the Second Fire and Life Safety Call to Action, Defendants MARCO POLO

AOAO informed Marco Polo residents that "the fire alarm system has been upgraded."

33. On November 23, 2010, there was a fire in Marco Polo Unit 2311 that

caused approximately $225,000 in property damage (hereinafter the "First Fire").

10
 34. In approximately January 2013, Defendant TOUCHSTONE became the

property manager of the Marco Polo.

35. On January 15, 2013, there was a fire in Marco Polo Unit 817 that caused

approximately $1,150,000 in property damage (hereinafter the "Second Fire").

36. After the Second Fire, Defendants were notified that multiple residents of

Marco Polo did not hear the fire alarm during the Second Fire.

37. After the Second Fire, Defendant MARCO POLO AOAO commissioned

S.S. Dannaway Associates, Inc. to assess the fire and life safety of the Marco Polo and

determine necessary fire and life safety systems and the cost of those fire and life safety

systems.

38. In June 2013, Defendants told the Marco Polo residents, "the Marco Polo

AOAO Board of Directors is currently reviewing our fire safety system."

39. In July 2013, the S.S. Dannaway Associates, Inc. report, hereinafter

referred to as the "Third Fire and Life Safety Call to Action," set forth needed fire and

life safety systems, including specific fixes and upgrades to the fire alarm system at the

Marco Polo.

40. The Third Fire and Life Safety Call to Action estimated the cost to provide

a safe fire alarm system to be $1,184,828.

41. After the Third Fire and Life Safety Call to Action, in December 2013,

Defendants promised the residents of the Marco Polo: "The Board is actively pursuing a

project to upgrade our fire alarm system."

11
 42. In December 2013, Defendants told Marco Polo residents: "by taking a

proactive stance on water issues and the fire alarm, it can reduce claims and shows the

insurance underwriters the Association is taking action to reduce claims. This will result

in lower premiums in future years."

43. On October 3, 2014, there was a fire within the Marco Polo involving a

35th-floor trash chute (hereinafter the "Third Fire").

44. After the Third Fire, Defendants were again notified that multiple residents

of Marco Polo did not hear the fire alarm during the Third Fire.

45. In or about January 2015, Defendant ASSOCIA became the property

manager of the Marco Polo.

46. Defendant ASSOCIA purports to be the largest property management

company in the United States and the world and the recognized expert in all areas of the

management of condominium associations.

47. Defendants had a fiduciary duty and obligation to act in the best interests of

the residents and owners of Marco Polo including, but not limited to, making sure that

Marco Polo was reasonably fire and life safe, in compliance with fire and building codes

and utilizing fire and life safety best practices.

48. Defendants knew, or should have known, of the Marco Polo's history of

fires and inadequate fire and alarm safety systems, including a fire detection and alarm

system that could not be heard by residents.

49. Defendants, individually and collectively, but most especially, the Property

Managers of the Marco Polo AOAO, Defendants ASSOCIA and TOUCHSTONE, had a

12
duty and obligation to determine whether the fire and life safety systems within the

Marco Polo were adequate, properly maintained, and working.

50. Defendants, individually and collectively, but most especially, the Property

Managers of the Marco Polo AOAO, Defendants ASSOCIA and TOUCHSTONE, had a

duty and obligation to assess the fire and life safety of the Marco Polo and to take actions

to make the Marco Polo reasonably fire and life safe and in full, substantive compliance

with all building and fire codes.

51. Defendants, individually and collectively, but most especially, the Property

Managers of the Marco Polo AOAO, Defendants ASSOCIA and TOUCHSTONE, had a

duty and obligation to hire and retain qualified and competent entities to handle the fire

and life safety systems and fire alarm systems within the Marco Polo.

52. Defendants, individually and collectively, but most especially, the Property

Managers of the Marco Polo AOAO, Defendants ASSOCIA and TOUCHSTONE, had a

duty and obligation to determine whether the widespread use of Louvered Doors and Fire

Door Prop-Open Devices was safe for the people living in the Marco Polo and/or in

compliance with building, life safety and fire safety codes, which it was not.

53. Defendants, individually and collectively, but most especially, the Property

Managers of the Marco Polo AOAO, Defendants ASSOCIA and TOUCHSTONE, had a

duty and obligation to warn residents that Marco Polo was not fire and life safe, not in

compliance with fire and life safety best practices and not in compliance with building

and fire codes.

13
 54. Defendants ASSOCIA and TOUCHSTONE received substantial

compensation from the MARCO POLO AOAO while taking little or no action to comply

with its duties and obligations and to make the Marco Polo fire and life safe and in

substantive compliance with fire and building codes and applicable best practices.

55. Upon information and belief, in approximately March 2015, Defendant

MARCO POLO AOAO became controlled by a group of Directors and Officers

determined to keep Marco Polo's maintenance fees low without regard for the fire and

life safety of the Marco Polo residents. Upon information and belief, this group was

dominated by realtors and landlords and those who placed their money interests over the

fire and life safety of the Marco Polo residents. This Group is hereinafter referred to as

the "No to Fire and Life Safety Expenditures Group."

56. After the No to Fire and Life Safety Expenditures Group took control of

MARCO POLO AOAO, DEFEENDANT ASSOCIA was hired to manage Marco Polo.

Thereafter, all, or substantially all, of any previous initiatives to make the Marco Polo fire

and life safe were dismissed and scrapped. Specifically, the actions called for in The

Third Fire and Life Safety Call to Action were largely dismissed.

57. Upon information and belief, Defendant ASSOCIA was part and parcel of

the decision to scrap the fire and life safety measures called for in the Third Fire and Life

Safety Call to Action, as previously promised by Defendants MARCO POLO AOAO.

58. Upon information and belief, Defendant ASSOCIA was chosen as the

property management company for Marco Polo because of its deserved reputation as a

property management company that would cut costs to please associations, even at the

14
expense of the fire and life safety of those who lived within Defendant AS SOCIA' s

managed properties.

59. Upon information and belief, Defendants hired and/or retained Defendant

OHANA to handle the fire alarm system at the Marco Polo.

60. At the time it was hired, Defendant OHANA had a known history of fire

safety violations and known incompetence with fire alarm systems. Defendant OHANA's

violations and incompetence continued after being hired.

61. Defendants knew or should have known of Defendant OHANA's history,

including its fire safety violations and incompetence.

62. Upon information and belief, Defendants ASSOCIA and TOUCHSTONE

and/or Defendants MARCO POLO AOAO hired and/or retained OHANA, in part,

because OHANA was willing to install a cheap work-around of the fire detection and

alarm system that deliberately avoided substantive compliance with fire and life safety

best practices and applicable building and fire code regulations via a system that did little

or nothing to enhance the life safety, fire detection and alarm system at the Marco Polo.

Among other things, the Marco Polo fire alarm system did not notify the Honolulu Fire

Department upon activation, lacked smoke detectors in key areas, had an arcane

notification system for summoning the Fire Department, and lacked necessary and

appropriate means of alerting residents of a fire within the Marco Polo. The existing

Marco Polo fire detection and alarm system was not appropriately maintained, and alarms

and warning systems did not work adequately, or at all, upon activation of the fire alarm

system, including during the deadly fire at issue herein.

15
 63. The existing Marco Polo fire detection and alarm system was not

appropriately maintained, and alarms and warning systems did not work adequately, or at

all, upon activation of the fire alarm system, including during the deadly fire at issue

herein.

64. Through the actions and inactions of Defendants, individually and

collectively, but most especially DEFENDANT ASSOCIA, the Marco Polo was grossly

deficient in many areas of fire and life safety, fire and life safety best practices and did

not comply with fire and life safety Codes and/or Building Codes. These include, but are

not limited to: the widespread use of Louvered Doors and Prop-Open Devices; an

antiquated fire detection and alarm system; a fire alarm system that was rigged to run

through an antiquated fire alarm panel in order to avoid substantive compliance with the

Building and Fire Code; a fire alarm system that was not monitored by the Honolulu Fire

Department despite a nominal cost to do so; a fire alarm system that was in disrepair such

that substantial number of residents could not hear a fire alarm; an elevator system that

was not maintained and/or configured to assist firefighters access to floors during a fire;

an emergency lighting system that was wholly inadequate to light hallways and/or protect

the safety of residents during a fire; the lack of smoke detectors throughout the building;

the lack of a fire sprinkler system throughout the building; and numerous other problems

reflecting a choice to ignore the fire and life safety of the Marco Polo residents.

65. Plaintiffs relied upon Defendants to make sure that the Marco Polo was fire

and life safe, in substantive compliance with fire and life safety Codes, including

applicable Building and Fire Codes, and utilizing fire and life safety best practices.

16
 66. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew, or should have known, of

the fire and life safety deficiencies in Marco Polo but chose to not warn residents.

67. Specifically, as it relates to BRITT DANIEL RELLER and MELBA

DILLEY, Defendant ASSOCIA, through its employees/agents/representatives, falsely

represented the fire history of the Marco Polo as well as the state of the fire and life

safety of Marco Polo.

68. Defendants ASSOCIA, TOUCHSTONE, and MARCO POLO AOAO had

a duty and obligation to maintain and enforce policies, procedures, and protocols

designed to ensure that residents of the Marco Polo did not engage in activities that were

unsafe for other residents, including activities that posed unacceptable fire danger.

69. On the afternoon of July 14, 2017, a fire started in Marco Polo Unit 2602.

70. Unit 2602 had a Fire Door Prop-Open Device and Louvered Door.

71. Although the occupants of Unit 2602 escaped the unit without any

substantial harm, the Fire Safety Door remained propped open and the fire and smoke

spread from Unit 2602 into the means of egress and common hallway and then

throughout substantial areas of the Marco Polo.

72. As a result of the approval and condoning of the widespread use of

Louvered Doors and Fire Door Prop-Open Devices by Defendants, the fire and smoke

spread rapidly through the Marco Polo rather than being contained to Unit 2602.

73. The fire detection and alarm systems and fire and life safety systems within

Marco Polo were grossly inadequate and failed to work properly or at all during the fire.

17
 74. The elevators within the Marco Polo did not work properly or at all during

the fire and prevented first responders, including firemen, from timely accessing and

fighting the fire and assisting and protecting residents.

75. DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, were involved in multiple

actions and inactions that were contrary to the fire and life safety interests of the Marco

Polo residents, including the individuals who died herein, and contrary to applicable fire

and life safety Code, the Building Code, and fire and life safety best practices.

76. As a result of the actions and inactions of DEFENDANTS, individually and

collectively:

BRITT DANIEL RELLER was burnt to death within his home, Unit 2613;

MELBA DILLEY was burnt to death within her home, Unit 2613;

JOANN MIBAE KUWATA suffocated from massive smoke inhalation and

fire within her home, Unit 2615; and

MARILYN J. VAN GIESON died from complications of massive smoke

inhalation within her home, Unit 3216.

77. As a result of the actions and inactions of DEFENDANTS, individually and

collectively, the condominium units owned and/or occupied by BRITT DANIEL

RELLER and MELBA DILLEY, JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, and MARILYN J. VAN

GIESON were destroyed or substantially destroyed. As a result of the actions and

inactions of Defendants, individually and collectively, those condominium units have lost

substantial value and/or are unmarketable/worthless.

18
 78. At the expense of the Estates of the deceased referenced herein, Defendant

AS SOCIA has profited or attempted to profit f~om the rebuilding and restoration of the

Marco Polo through what amounts to a kickback scheme whereby Defendant ASSOCIA

profits from the repairs necessitated by Defendant ASSOCIA's actions and inactions as

alleged herein.

COUNT I -MISCONDUCT
(Negligence, Gross Negligence, Carelessness, Recklessness, etc.)

79. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

80. The actions and/or inactions of DEFENDANTS ("hereinafter collectively

referred to as "misconduct"), individually and collectively, were and are:

a) Negligent and/or;

b) Grossly negligent and/or;

c) Careless and/or;

d) Reckless and/or;

e) Heedless and/or;

f) A reflection of extreme foolhardiness and/or;

g) A reflection of callous disregard and/or callous indifference to the

rights and safety of others, including Plaintiffs and/or;

h) Willful and/or;

i) Wanton and/or;

j) Malicious and/or;

19
 k) A reflection of a conscious disregard for the safety of the public;

and/or

1) A reflection of placing money and/or profit over the safety of the

residents of the Marco Polo, including BRITT DANIEL RELLER,

MELBA DILLEY, JOANN MIBAE KUWATA and MARILYN J.

VANGIESON.

81. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, was a

substantial factor in the deaths of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, MELBA DILLEY,

JOANN MIBAE KUWATA and MARILYN J. VANGIESON and Plaintiffs sustaining

damages as set forth herein.

82. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, was a

substantial factor in the destruction or substantial damage to the apartments formerly

owned and/or occupied by BRITT DANIEL RELLER, MELBA DILLEY, JOANN

MIBAE KUWATA and MARILYN J. VANGIESON and Plaintiffs sustaining damages

as set forth herein.

COUNT II - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY,

DUTY OF CARE AND DUTY OF LOYALTY

83. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

84. Defendant ASSOCIA and/or Defendant TOUCHSTONE and/or Defendant

MARCO POLO AOAO owed the Marco Polo residents fiduciary duties to act in their

best interests and to exercise care and loyalty in the performance of their duties.

20
 85. Defendant ASSOCIA and/or Defendant TOUCHSTONE and/or Defendant

MARCO POLO AOAO breached their fiduciary duties and the duty of care and loyalty

to Plaintiffs.

86. Defendant ASSOCIA and/or Defendant TOUCHSTONE and/or Defendant

MARCO POLO AOAO breached their fiduciary duties under the common law and as set

forth in Hawai'i Revised Statutes, including but not limited to, HRS§ 514B-106(a).

COUNT III - NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

87. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

88. The extreme and outrageous conduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and

collectively, constitutes negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

89. DEFENDANTS failed to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional

distress to Plaintiffs. DEFENDANTS' tortious actions were unreasonable and directly

and proximately resulted in Plaintiffs' severe emotional distress.

90. Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer from extreme emotional distress as

a result of DEFENDANTS' intentional and reckless acts and extreme and outrageous

conduct.

91. DEFENDANTS are liable to Plaintiffs for their negligent and/or intentional

inflection of emotional distress.

21
 COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF H.R.S. § 480

92. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

93. By failing to properly maintain and/or install adequate fire and life safety

systems and by failing to disclose or warn of the defects in the fire and life safety

systems, DEFENDANTS acted in an unfair or deceptive manner in violation of H.R.S. §

480.

94. Plaintiffs herein are "consumers" as that term is used in H.R.S. § 480, and

their property was injured as a result of DEFENDANTS' unfair and deceptive acts and

practices.

COUNT V - BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

95. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

96. H.R.S. § 514B-9 provides that "Every contract or duty governed by this

chapter imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement."

97. H.R.S. § 514B-10 provides that:

(a) The remedies provided by this chapter shall be

liberally administered to the end that the aggrieved
party is put in as good a position as if the other party
had fully performed. Punitive damages may not be
awarded, however, except as specifically provided in
this chapter or by other rule of law.

(b) Any deed, declaration, bylaw, or condominium map

shall be liberally construed to facilitate the operation
of the condominium property regime.

22
 (c) Any right or obligation declared by this chapter is
enforceable by judicial proceeding.

98. DEFENDANTS breached their statutory and common law obligations of

good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiffs.

DAMAGES
ESTATE OF BRITT DANIEL RELLER, DECEASED

99. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

100. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, was a

substantial factor in BRITT DANIEL RELLER experiencing extreme conscious pain and

suffering prior to his death. The Estate of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased, makes

claim for said damages.

I 01. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in the Estate of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased, sustaining and

incurring a loss of earnings and loss of future excess earnings, loss of benefits and loss of

future benefits, funeral and burial expenses, loss of enjoyment of life and other special

and general damages.

I 02. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in BRITT DANIEL RELLER losing the enjoyment of life he would

have experienced in the future. Thus, pursuant to H.R.S. § 663-7 and all other statutes

and applicable law, the Estate of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased, makes claim for

23
his hedonic damages and/or the loss of enjoyment of life of which he was deprived as a

result of the acts and failures of DEFENDANTS.

103. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in BRITT DANIEL RELLER sustaining non-economic damages as

described in H.R.S. § 663-8.5 and damages described in H.R.S. § 663-3. The Estate of

BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased, makes claim for said damages.

104. The Estate of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased, seeks all damages

available by law, including but not limited to property damage, subject to those claims

presented at the time of trial.

DAMAGES
ESTATE OF MELBA DILLEY, DECEASED

105. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

106. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, was a

substantial factor in MELBA DILLEY experiencing extreme conscious pain and

suffering prior to her death. The Estate of MELBA DILLEY, Deceased, makes claim for

said damages.

107. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in the Estate of MELBA DILLEY, Deceased, suffering and incurring a

loss of benefits and loss of future benefits, funeral and burial expenses, loss of enjoyment

of life and other special and general damages.

24
 I 08. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in MELBA DILLEY losing the enjoyment of life she would have

experienced in the future. Thus, pursuant to H.R.S. § 663-7 and all other statutes and

applicable law, the Estate of MELBA DILLEY, Deceased, makes claim for her hedonic

damages and/or the loss of enjoyment of life of which she was deprived as a result of the

acts and failures of DEFENDANTS.

109. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in MELBA DILLEY sustaining non-economic damages as described in

H.R.S. § 663-8.5 and damages described in H.R.S. § 663-3. The Estate of MELBA

DILLEY, Deceased, makes claim for said damages.

110. The Estate of MELBA DILLEY, Deceased, seeks all damages available by

law, including but not limited to property damage, subject to those claims presented at the

time of trial.

DAMAGES
ESTATE OF JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, DECEASED

111. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

112. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, was a

substantial factor in JOANN MIBAE KUWATA experiencing extreme conscious pain

and suffering prior to her death. The Estate of JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased,

makes claim for said damages.

25
 113. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in the Estate of JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased, suffering and

incurring a loss of benefits and loss of future benefits, funeral and burial expenses, loss of

enjoyment of life and other special and general damages.

114. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in JOANN MIBAE KUWATA losing the enjoyment of life she would

have experienced in the future. Thus, pursuant to H.R.S. § 663-7 and all other statutes

and applicable law, the Estate of JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased, makes claim for

her hedonic damages and/or the loss of enjoyment of life of which she was deprived as a

result of the acts and failures of DEFENDANTS.

115. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in JOANN MIBAE KUWATA sustaining non-economic damages as

described in H.R.S. § 663-8.5 and damages described in H.R.S. § 663-3. The Estate of

JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased, makes claim for said damages.

116. The Estate of JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased, seeks all damages

available by law, including but not limited to property damage, subject to those claims

presented at the time of trial.

DAMAGES
ESTATE OF MARILYN J. VANGIESON, DECEASED

117. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

26
 118. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, was a

substantial factor in MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON experiencing extreme conscious pain

and suffering prior to her death. The Estate of MARILYN J. VAN GIES ON, Deceased,

makes claim for said damages.

119. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in the Estate of MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON, Deceased, suffering and

incurring a loss of benefits and loss of future benefits, funeral and burial expenses, loss of

enjoyment of life and other special and general damages.

120. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON losing the enjoyment of life she would

have experienced in the future. Thus, pursuant to H.R.S. § 663-7 and all other statutes

and applicable law, the Estate of MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON, Deceased, makes claim

for her hedonic damages and/or the loss of enjoyment of life of which she was deprived

as a result of the acts and failures of DEFENDANTS.

121. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON sustaining non-economic damages as

described in H.R.S. § 663-8.5 and damages described in H.R.S. § 663-3. The Estate of

MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON, Deceased, makes claim for said damages.

122. The Estate of MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON, Deceased, seeks all damages

available by law, including but not limited to property damage, subject to those claims

presented at the time of trial.

27
 DAMAGES
PHILIP RELLER

123. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

124. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in Plaintiff PHILIP RELLER suffering non-economic damages as

described in H.R.S. § 663-8.5 and damages as described in H.R.S. § 663-3, including

severe emotional and mental distress, grief, sorrow, and being denied the love, care,

companionship, society, comfort, affection, and guidance of his mother, MELBA

DILLEY.

125. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in Plaintiff PHILIP RELLER suffering severe emotional and mental

distress, grief, and sorrow due to the loss of his brother, BRITT DANIEL RELLER.

126. Plaintiff PHILIP RELLER also has experienced great worry and distress as

a result of DEFENDANTS' failure to accept full responsibility for his harms and losses.

127. Plaintiff PHILIP RELLER seeks all damages available by law.

DAMAGES
MICHAEL VAN GIESON

128. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

129. The misconduct of DEFENDANTS, individually and collectively, is a

substantial factor in Plaintiff MICHAEL VAN GIESON suffering non-economic

28
damages as described in H.R.S. § 663-8.5 and damages as described in H.R.S. § 663-3,

including severe emotional and mental distress, grief, sorrow, and being denied the love,

care, companionship, society, comfort, affection, and guidance of his mother, MARILYN

J. VAN GIBSON.

130. Plaintiff MICHAEL VAN GIBSON also has experienced great worry and

distress as a result of DEFENDANTS' failure to accept full responsibility for his harms

and losses.

131. Plaintiff MICHAEL VAN GIBSON seeks all damages available by law.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

132. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

133. The misconduct of DEFENDANT AS SOCIA, DEFENDANT

TOUCHSTONE AND DEFENDANT OHANA, individually and collectively, warrants

the imposition of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants, jointly and

severally, as follows:

a. For such special damages as will be proven at trial;

b. For treble damages;

c. General damages: the amount of general damages is within the minimum

jurisdictional limits of this Court;

29
 d. Punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants ASSOCIA,

TOUCHSTONE, and OHANA;

e. For prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from July 14, 2017 until

judgment is entered;

f. For attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and

g.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, M

For such other relief as this Court may deem just and equitable.

/17 Po/[{,

£
WOODRUFF K. SOLDNER
NICOLE KALAKAU
SHARON PARIS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE
SAFETY AND RECOVERY, as Co-Personal Representative
of the Estates of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased,
MELBA DILLEY, Deceased, and PHILIP RELLER,
Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estates
of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased and MELBA
DILLEY, Deceased

30
 MARKS. DAVIS
MICHAEL K. LIVINGSTON
CLARE E. CONNORS
THOMAS M. OTAKE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE
SAFETY AND RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i
corporation, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased, and DAWN
DUNBAR, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
JOANN MIBAE KUW ATA, Deceased

TERRANCE M. REVERE
CLARISSE M. KO BASHIGAWA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE
SAFETY AND RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i
corporation, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON, Deceased, and MICHAEL
VAN GIBSON, Individually and as Co-Personal
Representative of the Estate of MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON

COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY, ET AL.

vs. ASSOCIA, aka ASSOCIATIONS, INC., ET AL.; Civil No. _ _ _ _ _ _ __
In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai 'i; COMPLAINT

31
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAI'I

COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION Civil No.~~~~~~~~~

FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY, (Other Non-Vehicle Tort)

a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, Co-
Personal Representative of the Estates of DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased,
MELBA DILLEY, Deceased; PHILIP
RELLER, Individually and as Co-
Personal Representative of the Estates of
BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased and
MELBA DILLEY, Deceased;
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, Co-
Personal Representative of the Estate of
JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased;
DAWN DUNBAR, Co-Personal
Representative of the Estate of JOANN
MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased;
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, Co-
Personal Representative of the Estate of
MARILYN J. VANGIESON, Deceased;
MICHAEL VAN GIESON, Individually
and as Co-Personal Representative of the
Estate of MARILYN J. VANGIESON,
Deceased

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ASSOCIA, aka ASSOCIATIONS, INC., a

Texas for-profit corporation; HAWAll
FIRST, INC., a Hawai'i for-profit
corporation; CERTIFIED
MANAGEMENT, INC. dba ASSOCIA
HAWAii, a Hawai'i for-profit
co oration; TOUCHSTONE
 PROPERTIES, LTD., a Hawai'i for-profit
corporation; ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE
MARCO POLO APARTMENTS, a
Hawai'i corporation; OHANA
CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., a Hawai'i
for-profit corporation; JOHN DOES 1-
100; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100,
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-100 and DOE
ENTITIES 1-100,

Defendants.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND

RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, as Co-Personal Representative of the

Estates of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased, MELBA DILLEY, Deceased; and

PHILIP RELLER, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estates of

BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased and MELBA DILLEY, Deceased, COMMUNITY

KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i

corporation, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of JOANN MIBAE KUWATA,

Deceased; and DAWN DUNBAR, Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of JOANN

MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased, COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE

SAFETY AND RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, as Co-Personal

Representative of the Estate of MARILYN J. VANGIESON, Deceased; and MICHAEL

VANGIESON, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of

MARILYN J. VANGIESON hereby demands a jury trial on all issues.

2
 WOOD
NICOL LAKAU
SHARON PARIS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE
SAFETY AND RECOVERY, as Co-Personal Representative
of the Estates of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased,
MELBA DILLEY, Deceased, and PHILIP RELLER,
Individually and as Co-Personal Representative of the Estates
of BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased and MELBA
DILLEY, Deceased

MARKS. DA VIS / / ~_,

MICHAEL K. LIVIN@.&fON
CLARE E. CONNORS
THOMAS M. OTAKE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE
SAFETY AND RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i
corporation, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased, and DAWN
DUNBAR, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
JOANN MIBAE KUW ATA, Deceased

COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY, ET AL.

vs. ASSOC/A, aka ASSOCIATIONS, INC., ET AL.; Civil No. _ _ _ _ _ _ __
In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai 'i; DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL

3
 TERRANCE M. REVERE
CLARJSSE M. KOBASHIGAWA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE
SAFETY AND RECOVERY, a non-profit Hawai'i
coiporation, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of
MARJLYN J. VAN GIESON, Deceased, and MICHAEL
VAN GIESON, Individually and as Co-Personal
Representative of the Estate ofMARJLYN J. VANGIESON

COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY, ET AL.

vs. ASSOC/A, aka ASSOCIATIONS, INC., ET AL.; Civil N o . - - - - - - - -
In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai'i; DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL

4
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAI'I
te-1-1096-07
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION Civil No. ----~~~~~~~~

FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY, (Other Non-Vehicle Tort)

a non-profit Hawai'i corporation, Co-
Personal Representative of the Estates of SUMMONS
BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased,
MELBA DILLEY, Deceased; PHILIP
RELLER, Individually and as Co-
Personal Representative of the Estates of
BRITT DANIEL RELLER, Deceased and
MELBA DILLEY, Deceased;
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
a non-profit Hawai' i corporation, Co-
Personal Representative of the Estate of
JOANN MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased;
DAWN DUNBAR, Co-Personal
Representative of the Estate of JOANN
MIBAE KUWATA, Deceased;
COMMUNITY KOKUA FOUNDATION
FOR FIRE SAFETY AND RECOVERY,
a non-profit Hawai 'i corporation, Co-
Personal Representative of the Estate of
MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON, Deceased;
MICHAEL VAN GIBSON, Individually
and as Co-Personal Representative of the
Estate of MARILYN J. VAN GIBSON,
Deceased,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ASSOCIA, aka ASSOCIATIONS, INC., a
Texas for-profit corporation; HAWAll
FIRST, INC., a Hawai'i for-profit
corporation; CERTIFIED
MANAGEMENT, INC. dba ASSOCIA
HAWAii, a Hawai'i for-profit
corporation; TOUCHSTONE
PROPERTIES, LTD., a Hawai'i for- rofit
 corporation; ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE
MARCO POLO APARTMENTS, a
Hawai'i corporation; OHANA
CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., a Hawai'i
for-profit corporation; JOHN DOES 1-
100; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100,
DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-100 and DOE
ENTITIES 1-100,

Defendants.

SUMMONS

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the Court and serve

upon Plaintiffs attorneys, Leavitt, Yamane & Soldner, whose address is 737 Bishop

Street, Suite 1740, Honolulu, Hawai 'i 96813; Davis Levin Livingston, whose address is

851 Fort Street, Suite 400, Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813; and Revere & Associates, whose

address is 970 North Kalaheo Avenue, Suite A301, Kailua, Hawai'i 96734, an answer to

the Complaint, which is herewith served upon you, within TWENTY (20) DAYS after

service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the date of service. If you fail to do so,

judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

THIS SUMMONS SHALL NOT BE PERSONALLY DELIVERED BETWEEN

10:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M. ON PREMISES NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC,

UNLESS A JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT PERMITS, IN WRITING

ON THIS SUMMONS, PERSONAL DELIVERY DURING THOSE HOURS. A

FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUMMONS MAY RESULT IN AN ENTRY OF

2
DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DISOBEYING PERSON

OR PARTY.
JUL 12 2018
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i,
---------------

J. KUBO

CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CO