Be Carefull What You Wish For (update on HPPOA lawsuit)

[HiloJulie]

I would think it would be fair to present BOTH the Watumull AND the HPPOA Scheduling Conference Statements and as such, if the OP has access to the Watumull set of documents, they would also have access HPPOA's set of documents and post them as well and not ask others go and pay for and download HPPOA's Statement and post it.

Especially if one is claiming to be "transparent" as well as saying "I agree that all info should be shared."

Further, considering that most documents in this lawsuit have already been posted on the OP's own website, I don't think that asking the OP to provide both sides of the story is out of line, nor an argumentative request.

But, as Tom eloquently says, "Here we go again."

[TomK]

Instead of continually pointing to eCourt Kokua, post the case ID. It's a simple solution; people don't have to look up names and search various cases.

[Patricia]

I am all for posting additional statements. I was unaware there were others.

As Obie has posited the fact thar there are other statements which may be of relevance, I feel the onerous is on Obie to produce them.

[TomK]

Just post the case ID.

[HiloJulie]

"Just post the case ID."

Here Tom. This will save us 20 plus posts!

3CCV-23-0000302

[TomK]

Thank you! See, Patricia, that wasn't difficult. Now I can read the filings at leisure without someone continually yapping about going to Court Kokua.

PS. 189 docket entries, most of which you have to pay to read. I'm not going there.

---

So let's see what happens next Friday  but my money isn't on HPPOA especially with the Watumull's Statement today.

Next Friday is a scheduling conference. Undoubtedly, all the shenanigans will come out, or perhaps they'll schedule more hearings.

[Patricia]

Not all 189 docs are even worth paying for. Just proof of service, etc. Still, for the sake of transparency you would think HPPOA would purchase and post ALL of those that actually have info and can educate/inform owners. Which is why I have posted some of these on my website.

[TomK]

Not all 189 docs are even worth paying for. Just proof of service, etc. Still, for the sake of transparency you would think HPPOA would purchase and post ALL of those that actually have info and can educate/inform owners. Which is why I have posted some of these on my website.

Who fecking cares?

[HiloJulie]

Well, as it relates to the filing as posted from Watumull, its nothing new. In sum, it's a "briefing" from each party - in "lay mans" terms and a formal procedure to be filed when a judge sets a Scheduling Conference.

Each party files their "Statement" before the Scheduling Conference, as outlined here, in Hawaii Law.

Instructions (Scheduling Conference Statement)

Further, there really is nothing new in the Watumull response that isn't already known as disclosed on the complaints and answers already filed.

It would be interesting to read HPPOA's response, but I too am not paying to read it. I would also love to see the plaintiffs' Statement, but from what I can tell, that has not been filed as of yet.

Further, at the scheduling conference, the judge may/will:

• Set deadlines for discovery
  
• Manage the case timeline
  
• Identify key issues
  
• Discuss potential settlement options
  
• Rule on motions to amend pleadings
  
• Determine if the case should be assigned to an expedited track
  
• Ultimately create a scheduling order outlining the procedural steps leading up to trial
  
• Essentially overseeing the case's progression
  
• Ensuring efficient litigation by setting parameters for discovery, motions, and trial dates.
  

So, not going to be a big "Perry Mason" case, where all the guilty are unmasked at the very end, it's just going to be all the steps to move this case forward.

However, the one thing that caught my eye that I could not believe, if its true, is Watumull's attorneys are questioning if the filing for the Demand for a Jury Trial was filed on time. Considering that Watumull's only goal is to have the Third Party Complaint be dismissed with prejudice plus attorney's fees, I'm wondering how far they may try to push the envelope if indeed the Demand for Jury Trial was filed late.

And yes, "Here we go again!"

Ohh, God, I love Father Ted!

[Patricia]

All the video clips and lawyer "break-down" aside, bottom line is that the Watamulls seem to feel, as has been stated prior and numerous times, that HPPOA (formerly PHH) wanted the deed restrictions, negotiated the deed restrictions, and petitioned the court to approve the deed restrictions. There was no deceit or coercion involved.