Oral Argument Before the Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-11-0001072, Wednesday, March 13, 2013, 9 a.m.
ROARING LION, LLC, a Montana Limited Liability Company; DAVID COWAN and NATHALIE COWAN; UMANG P. GUPTA and RUTH M. GUPTA, as Trustees of the Umang and Ruth Gupta Trust under Trust Agreement dated January 18, 2000; and PAUOA BEACH 8 LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. EXCLUSIVE RESORTS PBL1, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and EXCLUSIVE RESORTS PBL3, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees, and PAUOA BAY PROPERTIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; WHITE SAND BEACH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; PAUOA BEACH REALTY LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company; John Does 1-50, Defendants.
The above-captioned case was set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants:
Margery S. Bronster, Rex Y. Fujichaku, and Jae B. Park of Bronster Hoshibata
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees:
Robert G. Klein, R. John Seibert, and Lisa W. Cataldo of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP
COURT: Foley, Fujise and Ginoza, JJ.
Appellants Roaring Lion, LLC, David Cowan, Nathalie Cowan, Umang P. Gupta, Ruth M. Gupta, and Pauoa Beach 8 LLC (Plaintiffs) appeal from the December 5, 2011 Amended Final Judgment and related orders entered in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court). The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Appellees Exclusive Resorts PBL1, LLC and Exclusive Resorts PBL3, LLC (Defendants).
This appeal concerns the Pauoa Beach subdivision within the Mauna Lani Resort (Resort) master development in the County of Hawaiʻi. On appeal, Plaintiffs contend the circuit court erred in:
(1) holding that Defendants’ use of their Pauoa Beach lots would not violate certain covenants regarding residential use contained in the Pauoa Beach Subdivision Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and the Resort Association Declaration of Covenants;
(2) holding that Defendants’ use did not constitute a time share use plan as defined under HRS § 514E-1 and therefore, did not violate the CC&Rs’ prohibition of time share use plans;
(3) staying its orders to enforce an interim settlement agreement pending appeal; and
(4) awarding attorneys’ fees to Defendants.