My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-04-15_County_of_Hawaii_Motion_to_Dismiss_Counter_Claim_to_Expunge_Lis_Pendens
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Legal Opinions
>
2010-04-15_County_of_Hawaii_Motion_to_Dismiss_Counter_Claim_to_Expunge_Lis_Pendens
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:36:27 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:23:52 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
223
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT <br /> STATE OF HAWAII <br /> COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal CIVIL NO. 09-01-264K <br /> corporation of the State of Hawaii, (Other Civil Action) <br /> Plaintiff, <br /> VS. <br /> MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION <br /> UNIDEV, LLC, A Delaware Limited <br /> Liability Company; UNIDEV HAWAII, <br /> LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability <br /> Company; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES <br /> 1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50; DOE <br /> CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE NON- <br /> PROFIT ENTITIES 1-50; DOE LIMITED <br /> LIABILITY COMPANIES 1-50; DOE <br /> ENTITIES 1-50, <br /> Defendants. <br /> MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTON <br /> I. Introduction <br /> In order to meet the needs of the residents of Hawaii County, the County of Hawaii <br /> ("County")decided to have affordable housing built in Waikoloa. UniDev, LLC ("UniDev") <br /> and UniDev Hawaii, LLC ("UniDev Hawaii") (collectively referred to as "Defendants") <br /> represented to the County that they would be able to obtain the financing and oversee the <br /> construction of the affordable housing project. <br /> Defendants made numerous false representations and the project failed to progress. After <br /> several years of Defendants' inability to perform as promised,the contract with Defendants was <br /> finally terminated. Despite failing to provide the services promised, Defendants demanded $3.2 <br /> million from the County.1 <br /> This amount is in addition to money Defendants received in the previous years when the project was pending. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.