The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal involving Thirtyone50 Management LLC and Bill K. Kekawa, along with Valila Auelua. The dismissal, ordered on June 17, 2026, means that the parties will bear their own legal costs and fees. This decision is significant as it concludes a legal dispute without further court proceedings.
The case, docketed as CAAP-24-0000728, involved a dispute between Thirtyone50 Management LLC, the plaintiff, and the defendants, Bill K. Kekawa and Valila Auelua. The details of the original dispute were not available in the court filing, but the appeal was filed in the context of a prior ruling from the District Court of the Third Circuit in Hawaii.
In this case, the parties reached a joint stipulation and settlement on May 12, 2026. This stipulation was interpreted by the court as a request to dismiss the appeal under the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 42(a). The court noted that the appeal had not yet been docketed, indicating that it had not progressed far in the appellate process.
The court also addressed a motion from Kirsha K.M. Durante, who sought to withdraw as counsel for the defendants, Kekawa and Auelua. The court granted this motion, allowing another attorney, Henderson K. Huihui, to remain as counsel for the appellants. The court confirmed that Durante had informed the appellants about the request to withdraw.
Chief Judge Karen T. Nakasone, along with Associate Judges Clyde J. Wadsworth and Daniel M. Gluck, presided over the ruling. They approved the stipulation to dismiss the appeal and ordered that the parties would bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.
This ruling effectively ends the legal proceedings related to this appeal, as the parties have agreed to dismiss it. The decision does not set a new legal precedent, but it does reflect the court's willingness to honor the parties' agreement to resolve the matter without further litigation.
Looking ahead, the dismissal of this appeal means that the underlying issues in the original case will not be reviewed by the appellate court. The parties may choose to pursue other legal avenues or settle any remaining disputes privately. Details regarding any potential related cases or further actions by the parties were not available in the court filing.
As it stands, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of mutual agreements in legal disputes. When parties can come to a resolution, it can save time and resources for everyone involved.