This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Business Law
Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
Unjust Enrichment

Cyril Martin, Jennifer Martin, Russell Baird, Cyndy Baird, Michael Archibald, Shelley Archibald, Steve Olson, Julie Olson, Robert Hazelton, and Alicia Hazelton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marriott International Inc., Kyo-Ya Hotels & Resorts, and Doe Defendants 1-50

Published: Jun. 4, 2021 | Result Date: Feb. 19, 2021 | Filing Date: Nov. 8, 2018 |

Case number: 1:18-cv-00494-JAO-RT Settlement –  $1,825,000

Court

USDC Hawaii


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton
(Bickerton Law Group LLP)

James J. Bickerton
(Bickerton Law Group LLP)


Defendant

Anthony L. Wong
(Chee, Markham, Kato & Kim)

Wesley D. Shimazu
(Yoshimoto Law Group, LLLC)


Facts

Ovalis Inmullah, M.D. and Sana Khalique brought a class action against Marriott International, Inc., and Kyo-Ya Hotels and Resorts LP, seeking monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to disclose to guest prior to their arrival at their Oahu and Maui hotels that several hundred of their hotel workers were on strike. As a result of the strike, numerous hotel services and amenities would be limited or unavailable, and defendants failed to provide all of the services and amenities that are customarily available at the hotels.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended defendants violated Hawai'i law when defendants concealed the employment strike to guests. Plaintiffs contended if defendants fairly disclosed the employment strike, defendants would have been forced to set booking prices closer to market value, which they did not. Plaintiffs contended defendants were unjustly enriched when plaintiffs were deprived from the full service and amenities from defendants' hotels.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all of the contentions.

Result

The case settled for $1,825,000. Class Members will receive an award based on the duration of their visit, the hotel, and the method used in booking their visit.

Other Information

JUDGE: Hon. Jill A. Otake.


#137150

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390