Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Argument Before the Intermediate Court of Appeals–CAAP-16-0000211 (consolidated with CAAP-16-0000581 and CAAP-16-0000622)

CAAP-16-0000211 (consolidated with CAAP-16-0000581 and  CAAP-16-0000622), Wednesday, May 8, 2019, 10 a.m.

VICTORIA WARD CENTER, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, vs. GOLD GUYS HOLDINGS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, dba Gold Guys Hawaii, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and SHANE A. MAGUIRE, Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliʻiolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorneys for Victoria Ward Center, L.L.C. Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant:

Robert H. Thomas, Mark M. Murakami, E. Kumau Pineda-Akiona(Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert)

Attorneys for Gold Guys Holdings, LLC, dba Gold Guys Hawaii, LLC Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff/Appellant/Cross-Appellee and Shane A. McGuire Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee:

Leroy E. Colombe and Effie Ann Steiger (Chun Kerr)

COURT:  Ginoza, C.J., Reifurth and Chan, JJ.

Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

This consolidated appeal arises out of a lease dispute between Gold Guys Holdings, LLC, dba Gold Guys Hawaii, LLC (Gold Guys) and Shane A. Maguire (collectively, Appellants) and Victoria Ward Center, L.L.C. (Ward). Ward initiated this case against Appellants when Gold Guys defaulted on rental payments under a long-term lease agreement for a retail space in Ward Center. Gold Guys asserted a counterclaim against Ward for breach of a 2011 revocable license agreement for a separate retail space in Ward Center, alleging Ward’s sister company, Ward Plaza-Warehouse, LLC, licensed space to Secured Gold Buyers, a Gold Guys competitor, in violation of a clause in the agreement providing: “Prohibited Radius: Within ten (10) miles of the perimeter of Ward Centers or within Kahala Mall.”

The circuit court entered partial summary judgment in Gold Guys’ favor on Gold Guys’ counterclaim, ruling that Ward breached the Prohibited Radius Clause in the 2011 License Agreement, and leaving the issue of damages for trial.

After a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment pursuant to a jury verdict: (1) in favor of Ward and against Appellants as to Ward’s complaint for breach of lease, awarding Ward money damages in the amount of $216,860.02; and (2) in favor of Gold Guys and against Ward as to the damages component of Gold Guys’ second amended counterclaim for breach of contract, awarding Gold Guys money damages in the amount of $1.00.

Appellants appeal, and Ward cross-appeals, from the circuit court’s judgment. The parties also challenge the circuit court’s post-judgment rulings regarding a motion for new trial and motions for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Appellants contend that the circuit court erred in: (1) admitting testimony of a witness insinuating the lack of an exclusivity provision/Prohibited Radius Clause in the 2011 License Agreement; (2) precluding Appellants from cross-examining the same witness regarding said testimony; (3) further modifying jury instruction 3.5 to remove language that had originally been included as set forth in the Jury Instruction Order; (4) allowing Ward, in its closing argument, to improperly suggest that there was no exclusivity provision/radius restriction in the 2011 License Agreement; (5) entering a judgment that was manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to Gold Guys’ damages; (6) denying Appellants’ motion for new trial despite evidentiary errors and the manifest weight of the evidence; (7) deeming additur an unavailable and inappropriate remedy and denying Appellants’ alternative motion for additur; and (8) granting Ward’s motion for attorneys’ fees after the 90-day deadline set forth in HRAP Rule 4(a)(3).

On cross-appeal, Ward contends the circuit court erred by: (1) partially denying Ward’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs; (2) partially granting Gold Guys’ motion for costs; (3) granting Gold Guys’ motion for partial summary judgment on the counterclaim and denying Ward’s motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim; and (4) admitting the testimony, report, and curriculum vitae of Gold Guys’ expert witness, Thomas Loudat, Ph.D.