Sei sulla pagina 1di 33

BICKERTON LAW GROUP, LLLP

Electronically Filed
A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP
FIRST CIRCUIT
JAMES J. BICKERTON 3085 1CCV-20-0000080
ROBERT S. MIYASHITA 9509 16-JAN-2020
Topa Financial Center, Fort Street Tower 10:15 AM
745 Fort Street, Ste. 801
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
Telephone: (808) 599-3811
Facsimile: (808) 694-3090
Email: bickerton@bsds.com; miyashita@bsds.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU, individually and


in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of
ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased, KANA INUBUSHI,
individually, and LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI,
as natural parents and guardians of T.C., a minor

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT


STATE OF HAWAI‘I

LUCIUS CHIU, individually and in his CIVIL NO. _______________________


capacity as Personal Representative of the (Other Non-Vehicle Tort)
Estate of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased,
KANA INUBUSHI, individually, and LUCIUS COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY
CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, as natural TRIAL; SUMMONS
parents and guardians of T.C., a minor,
Plaintiffs,

v.

MID-PACIFIC INSTITUTE;
PUAKAILIMA DAVIS;
KAEHUKAIOPALEMANO DAVIS;
WENDELL DAVIS as the Personal
Representative of the Estate of MARIA
DAVIS; RICHARD SALGADO;
MELVIANETTE SALGADO; John Does
1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-
10, Doe Corporations 1-10, Doe "Non-
Profit" Organizations 1-10, Doe Trusts 1-
10, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1-10,

Defendants.
COMPLAINT

COME NOW Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU, individually and in his capacity as Personal

Representative of the Estate of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased, KANA INUBUSHI,

individually, and LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, as natural parents and guardians of

T.C., a minor, by and through their attorneys, BICKERTON LAW GROUP, LLLP, and for this

Complaint against Defendants MID-PACIFIC INSTITUTE; PUAKAILIMA DAVIS;

KAEHUKAIOPALEMANO DAVIS; WENDELL DAVIS as the Personal Representative of the

Estate of MARIA DAVIS; RICHARD SALGADO; MELVIANETTE SALGADO; JOHN

DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10,

DOE "NON-PROFIT" ORGANIZATIONS 1-10, DOE TRUSTS 1-10, AND ROE

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10, allege and aver as follows:

PARTIES TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION

1. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA

INUBUSHI (“Plaintiffs”) were and are residents of the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaiʻi.

Plaintiffs, at all material times, have been and are still married to each other.

2. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU is and was the

Personal Representative of the Estate of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased.

3. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA

INUBUSHI are and were natural parents and guardians of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased.

4. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA

INUBUSHI were and are natural parents and guardians of T.C., a minor.

5. At all times material to this Complaint, ALARIC CHIU was five years old at the

time of his untimely and horrific death from drowning as a consequence of an undisclosed and

highly unsafe kayaking activity conducted through its 2019 Spring Break Camp by Defendant

2
MID-PACIFIC INSTITUTE (hereinafter “MPI”) and its employees/agents. ALARIC CHIU was

a camper/student enrolled in the 2019 Spring Break Camp (hereinafter “Subject Camp”) offered

by Defendant MPI as part of its Extended Learning Program.

6. At all times material to this Complaint, T.C. was seven-and-a-half years old. He

is the older brother of ALARIC CHIU and was also a camper/student enrolled in the Subject

Camp offered by Defendant MPI as part of its Extended Learning Program. He had a close and

loving fraternal relationship with ALARIC Chiu.

7. T.C., a minor, was participating in the same excursion as his brother, ALARIC

CHIU, on the day of ALARIC CHIU’s untimely and tragic death. T.C., a minor, traveled in the

tour bus to Ka‘a‘awa beach with his younger brother. T.C., a minor, was on the beach at the time

his younger brother drowned directly off-shore as a result of the unsafe (and undisclosed to

Plaintiffs) kayaking camping activity. T.C., a minor, witnessed attempts to recover ALARIC

Chiu, was present when his younger brother’s body was carried out of the ocean, and witnessed

the recovery of the body. T.C., a minor, returned to Defendant MPI’s campus on the tour bus

without his younger brother while ALARIC CHIU’s body was being transported to the hospital.

8. At all times relevant herein, Defendant MPI was and is a Domestic Nonprofit

Corporation doing business in the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawai‘i as an educational

institution and incorporated in the State of Hawai‘i with its principal place of business located at

2445 Kaala Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

9. Defendant MPI is an independent, co-educational, college-preparatory school for

Preschool, Kindergarten and grades 1-12. Defendant MPI was founded in 1908. The tuition for

each student at Defendant MPI is approximately $25,000 per year. Defendant MPI has

approximately 1,550 students enrolled in its school at all times.

10. Defendant MPI has an Extended Learning Program that offers a wide range of

3
afterschool, spring break, winter break and summer courses.

11. Defendant MPI offered the Subject Camp through its Extended Learning Program

to the public and existing MPI students. The charge was $550 per student for five days of

activities from March 25-29, 2019 between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm each day.

12. ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased, and T.C., a minor, were both enrolled as

campers/students of the Subject Camp for five days of activities.

13. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant PUAKAILIMA DAVIS

(hereinafter “PUA DAVIS”) is and was at all relevant times herein a resident of the City and

County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi.

14. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant PUA DAVIS was hired and

employed by Defendant MPI as the Director and Coordinator of Defendant MPI’s Extended

Learning Program. Defendant PUA DAVIS is the daughter of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain

Wendell Davis and MARIA DAVIS, and she is the sister of Defendant

KAEHUKAIOPALEMANO DAVIS (hereinafter “KAE DAVIS”).

15. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant PUA DAVIS was an employee

and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent by estoppel of

Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment and/or agency

for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI. To the extent her activities were

outside the course and scope of her employment or agency, or claimed by MPI to be outside the

course and scope, MPI nevertheless had a duty to control her under Restatement (Second) of

Torts § 317.

16. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant KAE DAVIS is and was at all

relevant times herein a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi.

17. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant KAE DAVIS was hired and

4
employed by Defendant MPI as the Assistant Supervisor of Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning

Program. KAE DAVIS is the son of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain Wendell Davis and MARIA

DAVIS, and he is the brother of Defendant PUA DAVIS.

18. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant KAE DAVIS was an employee

and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent by estoppel of

Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment and/or agency

for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI. To the extent his activities were

outside the course and scope of his employment or agency, or claimed by MPI to be outside the

course and scope, MPI nevertheless had a duty to control him under Restatement (Second) of

Torts § 317.

19. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant WENDELL DAVIS as the

Personal Representative of the Estate of MARIA DAVIS (hereinafter “Wendell Davis”) is and

was at all relevant times herein a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi.

20. At all times material to this Complaint, MARIA DAVIS, deceased, was hired and

employed by Defendant MPI as the Program Supervisor of Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning

Program. MARIA DAVIS is the wife of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain Wendell Davis and mother

of Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS.

21. At all times material to this Complaint, MARIA DAVIS, deceased, was an

employee and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent by

estoppel of Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment

and/or agency for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI. To the extent her

activities were outside the course and scope of her employment or agency, or claimed by MPI to

be outside the course and scope, MPI nevertheless had a duty to control her under Restatement

(Second) of Torts § 317.

5
22. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant RICHARD SALGADO is and

was a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi. Defendant RICHARD

SALGADO is the owner and resident of the property located at 51-390 Kamehameha Highway,

Ka‘a‘awa, Hawai‘i 96730 (hereinafter “Subject Property”). The Subject Property was used as a

staging area to host Defendant MPI and its campers/students as part of Defendant MPI’s day

excursion on March 28, 2019.

23. In addition, Defendant RICHARD SALGADO was the owner of a single-person

and two-person kayak (hereinafter “Subject Kayak”). Defendant RICHARD SALGADO

supplied the Subject Kayak to Defendant MPI and/or its employees with the knowledge that the

Subject Kayak would be used as part of Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning Program camp

activities.

24. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant RICHARD SALGADO was an

employee and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent by

estoppel of Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment

and/or agency for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI.

25. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant MELVIANETTE SALGADO

is and was at all relevant times herein a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of

Hawaiʻi.

26. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant MELVIANETTE SALGADO

is and was a resident of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaiʻi. Defendant

MELVIANETTE SALGADO is the owner and resident of the property located at the Subject

Property. The Subject Property was used as a staging area to host Defendant MPI and its

campers/students as part of Defendant MPI’s day excursion on March 28, 2019.

27. In addition, Defendant MELVIANETTE SALGADO was the owner of a single-

6
person and the Subject Kayak. Defendant MELVIANETTE SALGADO supplied the Subject

Kayak to Defendant MPI and/or its employees with the knowledge that the Subject Kayak would

be used as part of Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning Program camp activities.

28. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant MELVIANETTE SALGADO

was an employee and/or agent and/or apparent agent and/or an ostensible agent and/or an agent

by estoppel of Defendant MPI, and was acting within the course and scope of such employment

and/or agency for, and/or with the apparent authority of, Defendant MPI.

29. Defendant RICHARD SALGADO and MELVIANETTE SALGADO were long-

time friends of Defendants PUA DAVIS, KAE DAVIS and MARIA DAVIS.

30. The Defendants identified in paragraphs 21-28, above, are hereinafter collectively

referred to as “SALGADOS”.

31. John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10,

Doe "Non-Profit" Organizations 1-10, Doe Trusts 1-10, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1-10

(collectively, the “Doe Defendants”) are sued herein under fictitious names for the reason that

their true names and identities are presently unknown to Plaintiffs except that they were in some

manner presently unknown to Plaintiffs, engaged in the activities alleged herein and/or are in

some manner legally responsible for the damages and/or injuries to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs pray

for leave to certify their true names, identities, capacities, activities and/or responsibilities when

the same are ascertained. Plaintiffs have been unable to identify said Doe Defendants despite

due diligence, including a review of pertinent medical records and/or the records of the

Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and/or internet searches.

32. The Defendants identified in paragraphs 7-30, above, are hereinafter collectively

referred to as “Defendants”.

33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that, at all times herein

7
mentioned, each of the Defendants, except as otherwise alleged, was the agent, servant,

employee and/or joint venture of the other Defendants, and each of them, and at all said times,

each Defendant was acting in the full course and scope of said agency, service, employment

and/or joint venture. Certain Defendants agreed and conspired among themselves, and with

certain other individuals and/or entities, to act, or not to act, in such a manner that resulted in the

wrongful and tragic death of ALARIC CHIU and injury to Plaintiffs; and such Defendants, as

co-conspirators, are liable for the acts, or failures to acts, of other Defendants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

34. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in this

Complaint pursuant to HRS § 603-21.5, and has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant

to HRS § 634-35. Venue is appropriate in the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawai‘i

pursuant to HRS § 603-36.

35. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been satisfied,

waived, or occurred.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

36. At all times material to this Complaint, ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a

minor, were registered campers/students of Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning Program’s 2019

Spring Break Camp.

37. On March 28, 2019, ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor, both attended

the Island Tour and Beach Day Excursion, which was day four of the Extended Learning

Program 2019 Spring Break Camp. The plan for the Island Tour and Beach Day Excursion was

to make various stops around the island of O‘ahu.

38. On the morning of ALARIC CHIU’s death on March 28, 2019, ALARIC CHIU

and his brother, T.C., were dropped off at Defendant MPI’s campus between 7:30 am and 8:00

8
am. The tour bus departed Defendant MPI’s campus at approximately 8:00 am and Defendant

MPI began their Island Tour and Beach Day Excursion.

39. Nine children, all minors ranging from grades Kindergarten through Fifth,

including ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor, and Defendants PUA DAVIS, KAE

DAVIS, and MARIA DAVIS, deceased, a MPI high school student assistant, and the tour bus

driver, Paolo Migotti (hereinafter “Mr. Migotti”), were present for the Island Tour and Beach

Day Excursion.

40. After making a stop in Hale‘iwa at Matsumoto’s Shave Ice, Defendant MPI

and/or its employees unexpectedly informed Mr. Migotti that there was a change of plans and

instructed him to drive to Defendants SALGADOS’ house instead.

41. Upon arrival sometime between 10:00 am and 11:00 am on March 28, 2019, Mr.

Migotti parked on the street in front of the Subject Property. Defendant RICHARD SALGADO

greeted the tour bus, entered the driver seat of the tour bus, and parked the tour bus onto the

Subject Property.

42. The campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor,

were instructed to exit the tour bus and place their belongings onto the Subject Property. After

getting settled in, the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor,

were taken to the beach located directly across the street from the Subject Property. The children

were allowed to swim in the shallow water and play on the sand.

43. Shortly after, Defendants SALGADOS supplied a two-person kayak (Subject

Kayak) for Defendant MPI’s use while the campers/students were at the beach. Defendants

SALGADOS owned two kayaks – a single-person kayak and a two-person kayak - that were

stored on their property.

44. Defendants SALGADOS did not offer the use of any life vests at the time the

9
Subject Kayak was supplied to Defendant MPI and/or its employees.

45. Defendants SALGADOS did not require the use of any life vests to any of the

foreseeable users of the Subject Kayak at the time the Subject Kayak was supplied to Defendant

MPI and/or its employees.

46. Defendant RICHARD SALGADO carried the Subject Kayak to the beach area

where the campers/students were playing in the sand and in the water.

47. Prior to March 28, 2019, Defendants did not have any policies or procedures

pertaining to kayaking activities and off-campus water safety in effect.

48. The kayaking activity was not a listed activity that was included in Defendant

MPI’s Island Tour and Beach Day Excursion itinerary.

49. Defendants intended the kayaking activity to be a surprise for the

campers/students.

50. The campers’/students’ parents, including ALARIC CHIU’s and his brother,

T.C.’s parents (Plaintiffs) were not informed of the kayaking activity.

51. Plaintiffs did not give their consent to allow their children to participate in any

kayaking activity.

52. Once the Subject Kayak was delivered to the beach area where the

campers/students were swimming and playing on the beach, Defendants enticed and encouraged

the campers/students to board the Subject Kayak.

53. Defendants took a first group of campers/students on the Subject Kayak and

paddled the children around for about five minutes.

54. Defendants then took a second group of campers/students out on the Subject

Kayak. ALARIC CHIU and two other children were placed onto the Subject Kayak with

MARIA DAVIS.

10
55. None of the children, including ALARIC CHIU, were equipped with life vests

while they were on board the Subject Kayak.

56. Defendants did not require or have life vests available for any of the children,

including ALARIC CHIU, who were aboard the Subject Kayak.

57. Hawaii law requires the use of life vests when kayaking with children 12 years

old or younger. See HAR §13-243-1(b)(“no person shall operate or anchor offshore a

recreational vessel unless all children under the age of thirteen wear a properly fitted personal

flotation device whenever the vessel is underway on the ocean waters or navigable streams of the

state”).

58. In addition, Defendants did not have any knowledge of any of the children,

including ALARIC CHIU’s swimming or kayaking experience and capabilities.

59. Defendants did not require or perform swimming assessments or evaluations of

each camper/student, including ALARIC CHIU, at any point in time.

60. Once the children were aboard the Subject Kayak, MARIA DAVIS paddled the

three children, including ALARIC CHIU, farther out into the ocean. MARIA DAVIS was

observed near the first set of breakers approximately 150 yards from shore.

61. Upon information and belief, the Subject Kayak, a two-person kayak, occupied by

four people, was hit by a wave approximately 150 yards from shore.

62. One of the surviving child victims described being hit by a “tsunami.”

63. The occupants, including ALARIC CHIU, were thrown from the Subject Kayak.

64. After the occupants were thrown from the Subject Kayak, MARIA DAVIS

instructed the children to retrieve the Subject Kayak.

65. The two surviving child victims grabbed hold of the capsized Subject Kayak.

66. ALARIC CHIU fought to stay afloat, but he did not know how to swim and

11
ultimately succumbed to drowning.

67. At some point in the sequence of events, after instructing the children to retrieve

the kayak, MARIA DAVIS became unresponsive, possibly as the result of cardiac arrest.

68. The two surviving child victims held onto the capsized Subject Kayak and

helplessly watched ALARIC CHIU become unresponsive and motionless.

69. The capsized Subject Kayak was finally observed from shore after a considerable

time had passed from the time the Subject Kayak departed the shoreline.

70. At approximately 11:30 am, a bystander called 911 to report an emergency. The

bystander heard a child’s voice coming from the water and observed a capsized kayak.

71. Upon information and belief, at some time after the Subject Kayak capsized,

Defendant PUA DAVIS noticed the capsized Subject Kayak and did not see anyone on board the

kayak.

72. Defendant PUA DAVIS assumed the children, including ALARIC CHIU, and her

mother, MARIA DAVIS, were in the water approximately 150 yards from shore.

73. When Defendant PUA DAVIS could not observe anyone on the capsized Subject

Kayak after additional time had passed, Defendant PUA DAVIS decided to paddle out towards

the Subject Kayak using a body board without fins.

74. Defendant PUA DAVIS was progressing slowly to the capsized Subject Kayak,

so Defendant KAE DAVIS finally decided to cross the street to retrieve the one-person kayak

from Defendants SALGADOS’ property.

75. Defendant KAE DAVIS, without any sense of urgency, took the time to rinse off

the one-person kayak before transporting the kayak to the beach. However, before paddling out

to the Subject Kayak, Defendant KAE DAVIS recognized two female campers/students on body

boards returning back to shore. Defendant KAE DAVIS first assisted the two female

12
campers/students on body boards return to shore before paddling out to the capsized Subject

Kayak.

76. When Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS finally reached the Subject

Kayak, one surviving child victim was observed on top of the Subject Kayak and the other

surviving child victim was observed holding onto the side of the Subject Kayak in the water.

77. ALARIC CHIU was observed shortly after floating face up in the water. He was

unconscious and unresponsive.

78. First responders arrived to the scene, assisted with transporting ALARIC CHIU’s

body to shore, and carried ALARIC CHIU’s lifeless body out of the water. T.C., a minor,

ALARIC CHIU’s older brother, was present at the scene and witnessed these events.

79. ALARIC CHIU’s body was then transported to Castle Medical Center.

80. T.C., a minor, ALARIC CHIU’s older brother, returned back to Defendant MPI’s

campus on the tour bus without his younger brother, ALARIC CHIU.

81. Defendants did not inform and/or delayed informing Plaintiffs of their child’s

drowning.

82. Plaintiff KANA INUBUSHI, ALARIC CHIU’s mother, received a vague text

message from Defendant MPI requesting that she contact Defendant PUA DAVIS.

83. Plaintiff KANA INUBUSHI, ALARIC CHIU’s mother, informed her husband

and father of ALARIC CHIU, Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU, of the text message since she is not

fluent in English.

84. Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU, who was in Japan at the time of the incident for

business, contacted Defendant PUA DAVIS, who provided very limited information about his

son and the incident.

85. Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU had to conduct his own investigation and contacted

13
Castle Medical Center directly to inquire about his son, ALARIC CHIU’s condition, at which

time he received the devastating news that ALARIC CHIU was dead and that ALARIC CHIU

had been underwater for approximately 30 to 40 minutes.

86. ALARIC CHIU, who was five years old, was pronounced dead on March 28,

2019 at 1:47 pm. The cause of death was “Drowning.”

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE/NEGLIGENCE PER SE

87. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by

reference as though set forth in full.

88. On March 28, 2019, ALARIC CHIU, a minor, died a horrific death from

drowning during an undisclosed kayaking activity offered by Defendants (hereinafter “Subject

Incident”).

89. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiffs exercised all appropriate due

care and in no way contributed to the occurrence of the Subject Incident and/or the wrongful and

untimely death of ALARIC CHIU and resulting injuries and damages to Plaintiffs.

90. Defendants, to whom ALARIC CHIU, a minor and deceased, and T.C., a minor,

had been entrusted by their parents, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, at all

times relevant stood in loco parentis for ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor. Accordingly,

Defendants had a special relationship with ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor, and their parents,

whereby Defendants owed them a duty of care to take whatever precautions were reasonably

necessary to ensure the safety and welfare of ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor, and to control

and/or warn against harms that were reasonably foreseeable and/or known to them.

91. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant MPI had a duty to ensure all

persons, including MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS, KAE DAVIS, RICHARD

14
SALGADO, and MELVIANETTE SALGADO, as its actual or apparent agent or employee or in

furtherance of its business is fit and competent to maintain a safe school environment and to not

entrust said persons with its minor campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., on its

behalf in furtherance of its regular business activity, by persons unfit to ensure the safety of its

campers/students.

92. Defendants had a duty to each of the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU,

and T.C., a minor, and their parents, to provide a reasonably safe environment for minor

campers/students enrolled in Defendant MPI’s 2019 Spring Break Camp; Defendants had a duty

to each of the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor, and their parents,

to not create a dangerous condition, which placed ALARIC CHIU at greater risk of injury;

Defendants had a duty to each of the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a

minor, and their parents to provide proper warnings of the dangers associated with the improper

and unplanned kayaking activity; and Defendants had a duty to control, supervise and train their

employees and agents dealing with minor children.

93. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants were negligent and/or grossly

negligent in the planning, preparation, training, direction, supervision and/or control of activities

which involved the campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor, enrolled in

Defendant MPI’s 2019 Spring Break Camp, which put ALARIC CHIU in severe risk of danger.

Supplying the Subject Kayak without proper safety equipment or instructions, allowing and

instructing campers/students of minor age, including ALARIC CHIU, to board a kayak and

paddling these innocent and trusting children out into the ocean without exercising reasonable

care and acting with a conscious indifference to consequences and civil obligations, is

unacceptable, gravely unreasonable and exceptionally dangerous, breaching Defendants’ duty to

provide a reasonably safe school/camping environment to all of the students, including ALARIC

15
CHIU and T.C., a minor, enrolled in Defendants MPI’s 2019 Spring Break Camp.

94. Defendants breached their duties of due care owed to Plaintiffs in their actions

and inactions in one or more, but not limited to, of the following ways:

a. Failing to ensure a safe, hazard-free environment;

b. Failing to provide adequate safety equipment for use with the Subject Kayak;

c. Failing to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of the campers/students;

d. Failing to obtain informed consent of the kayaking activity and its inherent risks;

e. Failing to attain assessments of the students’ fitness, experience, or swimming


ability before engaging in a kayaking activity;

f. Failing to verify students’ medical history or physical condition before engaging


in a kayaking activity;

g. Failing to create, implement, or enforce policies and procedures for institutional


kayaking activities;

h. Failing to take proper and necessary safety precautions against drowning and
injuries that were reasonably foreseeable;

i. Failing to assess weather, beach and surf conditions prior to engaging in a


kayaking activity;

j. Failing to inspect the scene to ensure safe conditions for the campers/students;

k. Failing to provide adequate training to Defendants’ employees and/or agents;

l. Failing to provide adequate instruction to Defendants’ employees and/or agents


on kayaking safety and activities;

m. Failing to create, implement, or enforce a proper and reasonable emergency


response plan;

n. Failing to have emergency equipment available to reasonably respond to the


Subject Incident once an emergency had occurred;

o. Failing to comply with state and federal law regarding Portable Flotation Device
(“PFD”) use for children;

p. Failing to properly load the Subject Kayak;

q. Failing to comply with manufacturer’s specifications and instructions on the

16
proper use of the Subject Kayak;

r. Failing to warn Plaintiffs and ALARIC CHIU of the dangers and risks associated
with the kayaking activity;

s. Failing to train its employees and/or agents of proper safety policies and
procedures;

t. Failing to reduce, minimize or eliminate the known or foreseeable risks and


dangers associated with the kayaking activity;

u. Failing to warn Plaintiffs of the dangers and risks associated with the kayaking
activity;

v. Failing to provide training on and effectively execute self-rescue practices;

w. Failing to manage the emotional needs of the secondary victims in an emergency


situation; and,

x. Failing to effectuate proper organizational crisis communication plans to facilitate


timely and effective communication with victims and family members.

95. The plan for the dangerous and unsafe kayaking activity was known or should

have been known to Defendants. The conduct of Defendants described herein was negligent and

grossly negligent.

96. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior and/or principles of agency,

Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligence and gross negligence of their employees

and/or agents (including but not limited to their apparent agents and/or an ostensible agents

and/or agents by estoppel and/or persons who acted with its apparent authority), including but

not limited to MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS, KAE DAVIS, RICHARD

SALGADO, and MELVIANETTE SALGADO.

97. The aforesaid negligence and/or gross negligence of Defendants’ employees

and/or agents occurred within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant MPI

and/or in their capacity as agents of Defendant MPI.

98. Defendants, jointly and severally, were negligent and/or grossly negligent in their

17
acts and/or omissions, in that they fell far below the acceptable and reasonable standards of care

required of them under the same or similar circumstances.

99. The aforesaid negligence and/or gross negligence of Defendants, jointly and

severally, was a substantial contributing factor and legal cause of the death of ALARIC CHIU

and the resulting severe and permanent injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs.

100. The acts and omissions of the above-named Defendants, furthermore, were in

violation of State of Hawai`i and Federal laws, which required that the use of proper PFD’s for

children under the age of 13 aboard a kayak, were also negligent per se.

101. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the negligence and/or gross

negligence of Defendants, ALARIC CHIU suffered from an untimely and horrific death resulting

in his own injuries prior to his demise and in damages suffered by Plaintiffs in amounts as shall

be proven at trial for pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or diminishment

of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, past and

future earnings losses, and such other special and general damages as will be proven at trial.

102. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and

reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive

damages should be awarded.

COUNT II – NEGLIGENT OR RECKLESS HIRING, RETENTION AND


SUPERVISION AGAINST DEFENDANT MPI

103. The above allegations are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth

herein.

104. Defendant MPI engaged in negligent hiring, retention and supervision, in that

MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS should not have been hired in

the first instance and their employment was in clear violation of an existing nepotism policy.

105. Defendant PUA DAVIS was hired as the Director and Coordinator of Defendant

18
MPI’s Extended Learning Program. She is the daughter of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain Wendell

Davis and MARIA DAVIS. Defendant KAE DAVIS was hired as the Assistant Supervisor for

the 2019 Spring Break Camp. He is the brother of Defendant PUA DAVIS and son of Defendant

MPI’s Chaplain Wendell Davis and MARIA DAVIS. MARIA DAVIS was hired as the Program

Supervisor for the Extended Learning Program. She is the mother of Defendants PUA DAVIS

and KAE DAVIS and wife of Defendant MPI’s Chaplain Wendell Davis.

106. MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS were not hired

and employed by Defendant MPI based on qualification and experience and with child safety in

mind.

107. MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS were not

qualified and properly trained for child safety relating to off-campus and outdoor excursions,

especially kayaking activities, at the time of their hiring and throughout their employment.

108. Upon hiring and during employment, Defendant MPI failed to take reasonable

measures to ensure that MARIA DAVIS and Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS were

qualified to ensure and maintain a safe school environment for its campers/students, including

ALARIC CHIU and Plaintiff T.C., a minor.

109. Defendant MPI had actual or constructive knowledge of MARIA DAVIS and

Defendants PUA DAVIS and KAE DAVIS’ incompetence and lack of fitness as camp

counselors with supervisory authority who were ultimately responsible for and entrusted with

young children, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., a minor.

110. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of the negligence and/or gross

negligence of Defendants, ALARIC CHIU suffered from an untimely and horrific death resulting

in his own injuries prior to his demise and in damages suffered by Plaintiffs in amounts as shall

be proven at trial for pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or diminishment

19
of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, past and

future earnings losses, and such other special and general damages as will be proven at trial.

111. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and

reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive

damages should be awarded.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENT OR RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL


DISTRESS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI

112. The above allegations are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth

herein.

113. Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI lost their youngest son,

ALARIC CHIU, who was five years old at the time of his untimely and horrific death.

114. Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI struggle with the reality of

their son’s unnecessary death especially knowing that ALARIC CHIU died as a result of a

school kayaking activity that was poorly planned and never disclosed to or authorized by

Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI; that this kayaking activity was intended to be

a “surprise” for the children (and the parents of the children); there were no safety policies and

procedures that existed and/or were in effect for off-campus activities, including the kayaking

activity; that the Subject Kayak was supplied for the campers’/students’ enjoyment without

proper assurances and equipment; that Defendants overloaded the two-person Subject Kayak

with four people in violation of manufacturer’s instructions and a complete disregard of common

sense; that ALARIC CHIU and the other children were not equipped with life vests in violation

of and required by state and federal law; that ALARIC CHIU could not swim; that ALARIC

CHIU was underwater for at least 30 to 40 minutes; that there was a considerable delay to

recognize that the Subject Kayak capsized; that there was a considerable delay to respond to the

capsized Subject Kayak; that their other son and ALARIC CHIU’s older brother, T.C., a minor,

20
was on the beach at the time ALARIC CHIU’s lifeless body was carried out of the ocean; that

T.C., a minor, had to ride back on the tour bus without his brother, ALARIC CHIU, while

ALARIC CHIU’s body was being transported to the hospital; that this was the last memory T.C.,

a minor, had of his brother; that the communication by Defendants to Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU

and KANA INUBUSHI to inform them of their son’s situation, injury and/or death after his

drowning was unsympathetic, vague, and/or nonexistent; that Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU was in

Japan for business when he was notified and learned of his son, ALARIC CHIU’s death; that

Plaintiff KANA INUBUSHI is limited in her ability to communicate in English and was required

to wait for someone to translate the devastating news to her at which time she became informed

of her son, ALARIC CHIU’s death; that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI’s last

observation of their son was on the metal hospital table with his lifeless, cold, and blueish body

laid on top; that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI have to find the strength to

appear to be strong for the sake of their son, T.C., a minor, even when they have an extreme

difficulty finding strength for themselves; and, that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA

INUBUSHI have to watch their son, Plaintiff T.C., a minor, miss his brother dearly every single

day.

115. Defendants acts and/or omissions were extremely unreasonable and/or

outrageous.

116. Defendants acted without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency.

117. Defendants’ acts resulted in severe mental and emotional distress to Plaintiffs

LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, the parents of ALARIC CHIU, deceased, and T.C., a

minor. Since ALARIC CHIU’s untimely and tragic death, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA

INUBUSHI suffered and experienced injuries that include, but are not limited to, severe mental

and emotional distress, pain and suffering, depression, nightmares, anxiety, post-traumatic stress,

21
and physical injuries, among other injuries.

118. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence and/or

gross negligence, Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI suffered in amounts as shall

be proven at trial for pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or diminishment

of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, past and

future earnings losses, and such other special and general damages as will be proven at trial.

119. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and

reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive

damages should be awarded.

COUNT IV – NEGLIGENT OR RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS


ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF T.C., a minor

120. The above allegations are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth

herein.

121. Plaintiff T.C., a minor, lost his younger brother, ALARIC CHIU, who was five

years old at the time of the horrific and untimely death.

122. Plaintiff T.C., a minor, struggles with the reality of his younger brother’s

unnecessary death especially knowing that ALARIC CHIU died as a result of a school kayaking

activity that was poorly planned and never disclosed to or authorized by Plaintiffs LUCIUS

CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI; that this kayaking activity was intended to be a “surprise” for the

children (and the parents of the children); there were no safety policies and procedures that

existed and/or were in effect for off-campus activities, including the kayaking activity; that the

Subject Kayak was supplied for the campers/students enjoyment without proper assurances and

equipment; that Defendants overloaded the two-person Subject Kayak with four people in

violation of manufacturer’s instructions and a complete disregard of common sense; that

ALARIC CHIU and the other children were not equipped with life vests in violation of and

22
required by state and federal law; that ALARIC CHIU could not swim; that ALARIC CHIU was

underwater for at least 30 to 40 minutes; that there was a considerable delay to recognize that the

Subject Kayak capsized; that there was a considerable delay to respond to the capsized Subject

Kayak; that T.C., a minor, was on the beach at the time ALARIC CHIU’s lifeless body was

carried out of the ocean; that T.C., a minor, had to ride back on the tour bus without his brother,

ALARIC CHIU, while ALARIC CHIU’s body was being transported to the hospital; that this

was the last memory T.C., a minor, had of his brother; that the communication by Defendants to

Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI to inform them of their son’s situation, injury

and/or death after his drowning was unsympathetic, vague, and/or nonexistent; that Plaintiff

LUCIUS CHIU was in Japan for business when he was notified and learned of his son, ALARIC

CHIU’s death; that Plaintiff KANA INUBUSHI is limited in her ability to communicate in

English and was required to wait for someone to translate the devastating news to her at which

time she became informed of her son, ALARIC CHIU’s death; that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU

and KANA INUBUSHI’s last observation of their son was on the metal hospital table with his

lifeless, cold, and blueish body laid on top; that Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA

INUBUSHI have to find the strength to appear to be strong for the sake of their son, T.C., a

minor, even when they have an extreme difficulty finding strength for themselves; and, that

Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI have to watch their son, T.C., a minor, miss

his brother dearly every single day.

123. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions were extremely unreasonable and/or

outrageous.

124. Defendants acted without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency.

125. Defendants’ acts resulted in severe mental and emotional distress to T.C., a minor,

the brother of ALARIC CHIU, deceased. Since ALARIC CHIU’s untimely and tragic death,

23
T.C., a minor, suffered and experienced injuries that include, but are not limited to, severe

mental and emotional distress, pain and suffering, depression, nightmares, difficulty sleeping,

anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and physical injuries, among other injuries.

126. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence and/or

gross negligence, T.C., a minor, suffered in amounts as shall be proven at trial for pain and

suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or diminishment of enjoyment of life, loss of

consortium, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, past and future earnings losses, and

such other special and general damages as will be proven at trial.

127. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and

reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive

damages should be awarded.

COUNT V – NEGLIGENT/GROSSLY NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

128. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by

reference as though set forth in full.

129. Defendants supplied false information as a result of their failure to exercise

reasonable care or competence in communicating information to Plaintiffs.

130. Defendants knew and were aware that a failure to exercise reasonable care and to

provide and maintain a safe environment for children within well-established standards of

professional and educational care to campers/students would result in harmful and damaging

effects to campers/students, including ALARIC CHIU and T.C., minor.

131. Defendants negligently failed to explain, disclose and/or misrepresented to the

parents of the enrolled campers/students, including Plaintiffs, the risks associated with the failure

to exercise reasonable care and to provide and maintain a safe environment for children within

well-established standards of professional and educational care.

24
132. Defendants negligently failed to explain, disclose and/or misrepresented to the

parents of the enrolled campers/students, including Plaintiffs, the extreme dangers of a failure to

exercise reasonable care and to provide and maintain a safe environment for children within

well-established standards of professional and educational care.

133. Through Defendants’ omission of material facts, i.e., unplanned kayaking activity

without obtaining parent’s consent, Defendants induced a false belief, and false sense of security

and trust, under these circumstances creating a duty to speak.

134. Plaintiffs could not have reasonably been expected to know or discover the truth

about the risks associated with a failure to exercise reasonable care and to provide and maintain a

safe environment for children within well-established standards of professional and educational

care, or were prevented or misled from obtaining such truthful information. Plaintiffs justifiably

relied on Defendants professional and educational trust, expertise, and qualifications.

135. Given the superior and unique vantage point Defendants had as an educational

institution, Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants to assume the role and responsibilities of a

parent of the children.

136. Despite the knowledge possessed by Defendants who assumed the custody of

Plaintiffs’ children and the fact that Plaintiffs’ children were deprived of the protections from

their parents, Defendants failed to act reasonably by promoting and engaging in a kayaking

activity that was never disclosed to the Plaintiffs, offering the kayaking activity to Plaintiffs’

children without Plaintiffs’ consent, by supplying a two-person kayak without ensuring the

proper use of the Subject Kayak and compliance with state and federal law, and by implementing

and enforcing adequate safety policies and procedures relating to off-campus activities, including

kayaking activities, and child safety. The inaction and concealment by Defendants increased the

risk of suffering and death for ALARIC CHIU and long-term injuries to Plaintiffs and their

25
family.

137. As a substantial contributing factor and legal cause of the aforesaid negligence

and/or gross negligence, Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for damages.

138. As a substantial contributing factor and direct and proximate result of the

negligent and/or grossly negligent misrepresentation, and/or concealment by Defendants,

Plaintiffs suffered pain and suffering, wage loss, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss or

diminishment of enjoyment of life, and such other special and general damages as will be proved

at trial.

139. The conduct by these Defendants as described above evidences a knowing and

reckless disregard of or indifference toward the rights and safety of others for which punitive

damages should be awarded.

COUNT VI – UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT MPI

140. The allegations made in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby incorporated by

reference as though fully set forth herein.

141. Defendant MPI received significant revenues from educational programs,

activities, and services that are offered to children and their families. These educational

programs, activities, and services lack reasonably safe policies and procedures rendering such

educational programs, activities, and services extremely dangerous and at a high risk of harm for

its students.

142. Defendants appreciate and have knowledge of such benefits and risks.

143. Under principles of equity and good conscience, it would be unjust for Defendant

MPI to be permitted to retain the revenues they received at the expense of innocent children and

their families, like Plaintiffs, while refusing to pay damages as a result of their unlawful actions

or otherwise failing to prevent such injuries and death. These revenues should fund the creation,

26
implementation, and enforcement of reasonable policies and procedures and the promotion of

school safety with an emphasis on off-campus activities.

COUNT VIII – UDAP - VIOLATIONS OF H.R.S. SECTION 480-2


AGAINST DEFENDANT MPI

144. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by

reference as though set forth in full.

145. This claim is asserted pursuant to HRS § 480, et seq.

146. Plaintiffs are consumers as defined by HRS § 480-1.

147. Defendant MPI, who is in the business of ownership and/or operation and/or

maintenance of an educational institution and program, specifically the 2019 Spring Break Camp

through Defendant MPI’s Extended Learning Program that was open to the public, including

Plaintiffs and their children, within the State of Hawaiʻi, is engaged in the conduct of trade or

commerce.

148. HRS § 480-2(a), declares unlawful “unfair methods of competition and unfair or

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

149. Defendant MPI violated § 480-2(a), by the conduct alleged above including, but

not limited to, unfairly or deceptively stating the nature, extent and effect of its 2019 Spring

Break Camp it intended to provide to Plaintiffs and their children. Defendant MPI has assumed

the role of each student’s parent under the doctrine of loco parentis when the students are in

Defendant MPI’s custody. Defendant MPI’s promotion of a safe school environment and

emphasis on its reputation of a prestigious educational institution creates an effect to attract and

induce the community to consider enrollment of potential students who are the children of

Hawai‘i. However, Defendant MPI has failed to and continues to fail to disclose its risks

associated with its inadequate programs that are lacking of such policies and procedures relating

to child safety and off-campus activities, including kayaking activities.

27
150. Defendant MPI’s deceptive or unfair conduct created a likelihood of consumer

confusion or of misunderstanding.

151. The acts and practices of Defendant MPI described above were “unfair” and

“deceptive” within the meaning of HRS Section 480-2. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the

unfair and deceptive acts and practices alleged above. Plaintiffs bargained for a safe school

environment and educational program where they could trust Defendant MPI to provide the

necessary security, supervision and care to their children. Plaintiff LUCIUS CHIU and KANA

INUBUSHI relied on Defendant MPI and had a false sense of trust and security. ALARIC CHIU

died an untimely and horrific death from drowning as a result of an undisclosed kayaking

activity that was never considered by the Plaintiffs at any time, but especially prior to and at the

time of the payment of the registration fees in the amount of $550 per student required by

Defendant MPI in order to enroll ALARIC CHIU and his brother, T.C., a minor, in the 2019

Spring Break Camp put forth by Defendant MPI.

152. Defendant MPI gained an unfair advantage in competition with other professional

and educational institutions that (1) made fair and non-deceptive disclosures of their services and

(2) thereby allowed campers/students and their parents to fairly evaluate the assumed benefit

from the educational services that they sought. The nature of the competition was the

competition between professional and educational institutions to attract campers/students and

their parents by offering comparable services, i.e., safe school environment and educational

programs, at competitive prices.

153. By concealing the actual and unsafe and unprepared nature of the services being

offered, Defendant MPI attracted campers/students and their parents, including Plaintiffs, who

otherwise may have sought these services elsewhere.

154. By virtue of the foregoing, the conduct alleged herein constituted unfair methods

28
of competition.

155. As a result of the unfair or deceptive acts and practices and/or the unfair methods

of competition alleged above, Plaintiffs have sustained damages.

156. As redress for Defendant MPI’s repeated and ongoing violations of HRS § 480-

2(a), Plaintiffs are entitled to, inter alia, damages, treble damages, statutory damages, and

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to § 480-13.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants if and where appropriate,

as follows:

A. For general damages in such amounts as will be proved at trial;

B. For special damages in such amounts as will be proved at trial;

C. For punitive damages in such amounts as will be proved at trial;

D. For attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and pre-judgment interest;

E. For disgorgement of the monies derived by Defendants from their misconduct;

F. For actual damages damages, in an amount according to proof;

G. For treble damages Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480;

H. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under HRS Chapter 480 and contract;

I. Pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by applicable law;

J. For post-judgment interest from the date of entry of judgment;

K. For costs and disbursements assessed by Plaintiffs in connection with this action,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to applicable law; and,

L. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

29
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, January 16, 2020.

/s/ James J. Bickerton


JAMES J. BICKERTON
ROBERT S. MIYASHITA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LUCIUS CHIU, individually and in his capacity as
Personal Representative of the Estate of ALARIC
CHIU, a minor, deceased, KANA INUBUSHI,
individually, and LUCIUS CHIU and KANA
INUBUSHI, as natural parents and guardians of
T.C., a minor

30
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAI‘I

LUCIUS CHIU, individually and in his CIVIL NO. _______________________


capacity as Personal Representative of the (Other Non-Vehicle Tort)
Estate of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased,
KANA INUBUSHI, individually, and LUCIUS
CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, as natural DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
parents and guardians of T.C., a minor,
Plaintiffs,

v.

MID-PACIFIC INSTITUTE;
PUAKAILIMA DAVIS;
KAEHUKAIOPALEMANO DAVIS;
WENDELL DAVIS as the Personal
Representative of the Estate of MARIA
DAVIS; RICHARD SALGADO;
MELVIANETTE SALGADO; John Does
1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-
10, Doe Corporations 1-10, Doe "Non-
Profit" Organizations 1-10, Doe Trusts 1-
10, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1-10,

Defendants.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs LUCIUS CHIU, individually and in his capacity as Personal Representative of

the Estate of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, deceased, KANA INUBUSHI, individually, and LUCIUS

CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, as natural parents and guardians of T.C., a minor, by and through

their attorneys, BICKERTON LAW GROUP, LLLP, hereby demand trial by jury on all issues

triable herein.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, January 16, 2020.

/s/ James J. Bickerton


JAMES J. BICKERTON
ROBERT S. MIYASHITA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LUCIUS CHIU, individually and in his capacity as
Personal Representative of the Estate of ALARIC
CHIU, a minor, deceased, KANA INUBUSHI,
individually, and LUCIUS CHIU and KANA
INUBUSHI, as natural parents and guardians of
T.C., a minor

2
STATE OF HAWAl'I CASE NUMBER
SUMMONS
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TO ANSWER CIVIL COMPLAINT
FIRST CIRCUIT
PLAINTIFF VS. DEFENDANT(S)
LUCIUS CHIU, individually and in his capacity as Personal MID-PACIFIC INSTITUTE; PUAKAILIMA DAVIS;
Representative of the Estate of ALARIC CHIU, a minor, KAEHUKAIOPALEMANO DAVIS; WENDELL DAVIS as the
deceased, KANA INUBUSHI, individually, and LUCIUS Personal Representative of the Estate of MARIA DAVIS;
CHIU and KANA INUBUSHI, as natural parents and RICHARD SALGADO; MELVIANETTE SALGADO; John
guardians of T.C., a minor, Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Partnerships 1-10, Doe
Corporations 1-10, Doe "Non- Profit" Organizations 1-10,
Doe Trusts 1-10, and Roe Governmental Agencies 1-10,

PLAINTIFF'S NAME & ADDRESS, TEL. NO.

JAMES J. BICKERTON 3085


ROBERTS. MIYASHITA 9509
BICKERTON LAW GROUP, LLLP
745 Fort Street, Ste. 801
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S)


You are hereby summoned and required to file with the court and serve upon

the above-named attorneys at


BICKERTON LAW GROUP, LLLP, 745 Fort Street, Honolulu, HI 98613

plaintiff's attorney, whose address is stated above, an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within
20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the date of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default
will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

THIS SUMMONS SHALL NOT BE PERSONALLY DELIVERED BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M. ON
PREMISES NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, UNLESS A JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
COURT PERMITS, IN WRITING ON THIS SUMMONS, PERSONAL DELIVERY DURING THOSE HOURS.

A FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUMMONS MAY RESULT IN AN ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DISOBEYING PERSON OR PARTY.

The original document is filed in the Effective Date of 28-0ct-2019


Judiciary's electronic case management
Signed by: Isl Patsy Nakamoto
system which is accessible via eCourt Kokua
at: http:/www.courts.state.hi.us Clerk, 1st Circuit, State of Hawai'i

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other applicable state and federal laws, if you require a
reasonable accommodation for a disability, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the Circuit Court Administration Office on
OAHU- Phone No. 808-539-4400, TTY 808-539-4853, FAX 539-4402, at least ten (10) working days prior to your hearing or
appointment date.

Form lC-P-787 (lCCT) (1QL19)


Summons to Complaint M!RG-AC-508 (10/19)