Skip to Content

Oral Argument Before the Intermediate Court of Appeals

No. CAAP-12-0000025, Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 9:00 a.m.

GORAN PLEHO, LLC, a Hawai`i Limited Liability Company (dba Resorts Limousine Services), and GORAN PLEHO, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, and ANA MARIA PLEHO, Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee, vs. DRAGAN RNIC, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellee, and DAVID W. LACY, LACY AND JACKSON, LLLC, a Hawai`i Limited Liability Law Company, Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs/Cross-Claim Plaintiffs/Cross-Claim Defendants/Appellees/ Cross-Appellants.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees GORAN PLEHO, LLC, GORAN PLEHO, and ANA MARIA PLEHO:

Peter Van Name Esser

Attorney(s) for Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants DAVID W. LACY and LACY AND JACKSON, LLLC:

Keith K. Hiraoka, Jodie D. Roeca, and Norman K. Odani of Roeca Luria Hiraoka, LLP

Attorney(s) for Defendant/Appellee DRAGON RNIC:

Robert G. Klein and David J. Minkin of McCorrison Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP

COURT: Nakamura, CJ, Leonard and Ginoza, JJ.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

This appeal arises out of the sale of Resorts Limousine Services, a limousine service located on Hawai`i Island, by Defendant/Appellee Dragan Rnic (Rnic) to Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee Goran Pleho, LLC (GPLLC). Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant David W. Lacy (Lacy) provided legal advice and/or services to one or more of the parties in the transaction. Following the sale, GPLLC, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Goran Pleho (Goran), and Ana Maria Pleho (Maria) (collectively, the Pleho Parties) brought claims sounding in fraud, inadequacy of consideration, negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and spoliation of evidence against Lacy, Lacy’s law firm, Lacy and Jackson, LLLC (L&J) (collectively, the Lacy Parties) and Rnic, as well as legal malpractice claims against the Lacy Parties. Rnic counterclaimed against the Pleho Parties, bringing contract, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment claims; Rnic also filed cross-claims against the Lacy Parties for legal malpractice and indemnification. Rnic was granted summary judgment on a number of the Pleho Parties’ claims, and entered into a settlement agreement with the Lacy Parties. All of the Pleho Parties’ claims against the Lacy Parties were disposed of on motions, except for GPLLC’s legal malpractice claims. A settlement agreement appeared to have been reached between Rnic, Goran, and GPLLC on the remaining claims between them; that settlement was later disputed by the Pleho Parties, but enforced by the circuit court. GPLLC’s legal malpractice claims eventually went to trial, resulting in a jury verdict in favor of the Lacy Parties.

On appeal, the Pleho Parties contend that the circuit court erred when it: (1) granted Rnic’s motion to enforce settlement; (2) granted summary judgment in favor of Rnic on certain of their claims; (3) dismissed or granted summary judgment on many of their claims against the Lacy Parties; and (4) entered an award against them for the Lacy Parties’ attorneys’ fees and costs. On cross-appeal, the Lacy Parties assert that the circuit court erred when it allowed the admission into evidence of certain money and property Goran and Maria allegedly loaned to GPLLC, because those purported obligations were not disclosed as assets in Goran and Maria’s personal bankruptcy schedules.