HILO — The owner of a Hilo building twice raided during gambling sweeps by police is suing the lessees, asking a judge to determine if tenants used the property for illegal purposes and to order termination of the lease if
HILO — The owner of a Hilo building twice raided during gambling sweeps by police is suing the lessees, asking a judge to determine if tenants used the property for illegal purposes and to order termination of the lease if the law has been broken.
The civil suit was filed Feb. 16 in Hilo Circuit Court by attorney James Okamoto on behalf of S. Yokoyama Inc. It names as defendants WZ Hilo Partners LLC, dba Winner’z Zone, Lance H. Yamada, April S. Whiting-Haraguchi, Glenn Haraguchi and numerous “Doe” entities.
The suit alleges the lease signed by the landlord and tenants on Sept. 13, 2013, prohibits the lessees from “any unlawful, improper, or offensive use of the leased premises.”
According to the complaint, the defendants continued to operate arcade-type video gaming machines at the 511 W. Kawailani St. location in Waiakea Uka, despite raids and seizures of machines and cash at the locations on March 1, 2016, and Jan. 18, 2017. The filing also alleges defendants made renovations to the property without submitting plans to the landlords or obtaining permits for the construction.
During last month’s raid, officers confiscated 19 machines and more than $3,900 cash, according to police Lt. Reed Mahuna of the Hilo Vice Section. Four people were arrested, two employees and two patrons, but no charges have been filed.
Attached to the suit are numerous letters from Okamoto to Brian De Lima and Keith Kiuchi, attorneys representing the defendants, expressing the landlords’ concerns illegal gambling devices were installed in the arcade and threatening legal action if gambling is occurring on the property. Replies by De Lima and Kiuchi state the tenants’ position that the devices are games of skill and not illegal gambling.
The most recent letter from Okamoto to the leaseholders, De Lima and Kouchi is dated Jan. 19, the day after the second raid. Okamoto’s correspondence referred to a Sept. 9, 2016, letter from Hawaii County Prosecutor Mitch Roth to S. Yokoyama Inc. notifying the landlord that seizures during the March 2016 raid “indicate your property is being used to operate a business in violation of Hawaii’s anti-gambling statutes.” The letter said the building “is subject to forfeiture because gambling is a covered offense under the forfeiture statute.”
In addition to lease cancellation, the suit seeks an injunction prohibiting tenants from installing and/or operating the alleged illegal gambling devices on the premises while the suit is active. It also seeks unspecified damages if the tenants are found to be in violation of the lease, costs to restore the premises to comply with county and state laws, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
Okamoto and Kiuchi didn’t return Thursday phone calls seeking comment.
Roth said he couldn’t comment about whether forfeiture proceedings are in the works, adding, “The case is still under investigation.”
De Lima, who represents Yamada, said his client hasn’t been served with the suit, but added the suit was expected. He said Yamada is no longer involved with the arcade, which has since been renamed Waiakea Games &Things. He acknowledged Yamada is still on the lease, “so we’ll have to deal with that.”
Yamada filed suit in November against Roth and former Hawaii Police Chief Harry Kubojiri over two raids at his Triple 7 Amusement establishment on Manono Street in Hilo.
The complaint seeks a court order barring the seizure of computers and terminals used to operate games at the Manono Street game room and any contact by police and prosecutors with the establishment’s landlord “until and unless the games being operated at the plaintiffs (sic) establishments are deemed to be illegal gambling devices by the court” or “plaintiffs are guilty of promoting gambling by the operation of the games presently operated by plaintiffs.” It also seeks unspecified damages should another raid occur without those conditions being met.
Court records indicate there have been no hearings on that suit.
