Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: HAN v Moku'Aina Properties LLC  (Read 7451 times)

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
HAN v Moku'Aina Properties LLC
« on: April 14, 2012, 05:43:44 PM »
STIPULATION TO DISMISS ALL PARTIES
AND ALL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND ORDER
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their
respective counsel, that the following claims in this action are dismissed with
prejudice, with each party to bear his or its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
This stipulation for dismissal with prejudice is made pursuant to Rule
41(A)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has been signed by the
respective counsel for each party who has made an appearance in this action. No Doe
defendants have been identified. There are no other remaining parties and/or issues.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, March 16, 2012.
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: HAN v Moku'Aina Properties LLC
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2012, 09:21:47 PM »
What does it mean?

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: HAN v Moku'Aina Properties LLC
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2012, 09:22:52 PM »
This sounds like they settled which was the likely outcome from the very beginning.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Lettered

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • View Profile
Re: HAN v Moku'Aina Properties LLC
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2012, 09:34:03 PM »
pure speculation on my part, but if we don't hear HAN gloat a number, I would think that would mean a win for our side (as in maybe HAN dropped the suit with stipulation that Moku'Aina not disclose details, so that they can move on to easier targets)?

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: HAN v Moku'Aina Properties LLC
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2012, 12:32:40 AM »
hmmm...
Even if a settlement was paid, it doesn't really prove that HAN could have won if the defendant chose to fight.
It's a bit murky.

S.G.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 01:37:40 PM by Matthew Chan »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: HAN v Moku'Aina Properties LLC
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2012, 10:19:47 AM »
there are also some new item regarding aloha plastic surgery and HAN, will try to go thru the docs this week.
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: HAN v Moku'Aina Properties LLC
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2012, 01:43:30 PM »
Absolutely correct. I think it would have been an uphill and expensive battle. Unlike Getty or Masterfile, I think it would be tough for Glen Carner and HAN to financially go all the way.

Having said that, it would have been tough for Moku'aina Properties as the principal owner/shareholder doesn't have a very good reputation on the Internet. I don't think Moku'aina wanted that kind of publicity.

My guess is that it was a settlement that was highly motivated on both sides. HAN could save face and Moku'aina and its owner can get out of the spotlight.


Even if a settlement was paid, it doesn't really prove that HAN could have won if the defendant chose to fight.
It's a bit murky.

S.G.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.