The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal involving Thirtyone50 Management LLC and defendants Bill K. Kekawa and Valila Auelua. This decision, made on June 17, 2026, affects the parties involved by concluding their legal dispute at this appellate level.
The court's ruling came after the defendants filed a joint stipulation and settlement on May 12, 2026. The stipulation indicated that both parties agreed to dismiss the appeal and would each bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. This decision effectively ends the appellate process for the involved parties.
Thirtyone50 Management LLC is a plaintiff in this case, while Bill K. Kekawa and Valila Auelua are the defendants. Details about the original dispute between these parties were not available in the court filing. However, the case was filed in the District Court of the Third Circuit, North and South Kona Division, under case number 3DRC-XX-XXXXXXX.
The appeal was not yet docketed when the stipulation was filed. The court noted that the stipulation was signed by counsel for all parties involved, which is a necessary step for the dismissal process. The court also addressed a motion by Kirsha K.M. Durante, who sought to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. The court granted this motion, allowing Henderson K. Huihui to remain as counsel for the defendants.
Chief Judge Karen T. Nakasone, along with Associate Judges Clyde J. Wadsworth and Daniel M. Gluck, presided over the case. In their ruling, they stated, "The Joint Stipulation and Settlement, construed as a stipulation to dismiss the appeal, is approved, and the appeal is dismissed." This clear directive from the court indicates that the appellate process has formally concluded.
The impact of this ruling means that the defendants will not be able to pursue their appeal any further in this case. By agreeing to dismiss the appeal, both parties have opted to resolve their dispute without further litigation at the appellate level. This decision may set a precedent for similar cases where parties choose to settle rather than continue with an appeal.
Going forward, this ruling signifies that the original decision made by the lower court will stand, as the appeal has been dismissed. The parties involved will now need to consider their next steps outside of the appellate process. The dismissal of the appeal means that they will not engage in further legal battles regarding this matter.
Details regarding any potential for an appeal to a higher court were not available in the court filing. However, since the appeal has been dismissed, it is unlikely that there will be further legal action related to this case unless new circumstances arise.