Authenticity Co. LTD. v. PACREP LLC et al
| Hawaii District Court | |
| Judge: | Derrick K Watson |
| Case #: | 1:24-cv-00322 |
| Nature of Suit | 380 Torts - Personal Property - Other Personal Property Damage |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage |
| Case Filed: | Jul 30, 2024 |
| Last checked: Saturday Jan 25, 2025 10:46 PM HST |
|
Defendant
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company L.L.C.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Doe Corporations 1-10
|
|
|
Defendant
Doe Governmental Entities 1-10
|
|
|
Defendant
Doe Partnerships 1-10
|
|
|
Defendant
Jane Does 1-10
|
|
|
Defendant
John Does 1-10
|
|
|
Defendant
Pacrep LLC
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Authenticity Co. Ltd.
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Jun 09 2026
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 6/9/2026. Authenticity may have until June 23, 2026 to respond to this Order to Show Cause in a brief not to exceed five (5) pages. Should Authenticity fail to properly specify the citizenship of PACREP and Ritz Carlton, or should Authenticity's assertions fail to establish that this is an action between citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign state or that this Court otherwise has subject matter jurisdiction, this action will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (eta) |
|
|
GPO
Jun 25 2026
ORDER REOPENING DISCOVERY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF JURISDICTION - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 6/25/2026. Authenticity may have until August 10, 2026 to complete the discovery set forth above. Thereafter, on or before August 17, 2026, Authenticity shall file a supplemental response to the Order to Show Cause, detailing the citizenship of each and every owner(s)/member(s) of PACREP as explained herein and in the Order to Show Cause. Authenticity must also explain, in light of these jurisdictional facts, why diversity exists in this case. Should Authenticity fail in any relevant respect in this regard, no further opportunity will be provided to establish diversity, and this case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, briefing on the motions for summary judgment scheduled for hearing on July 10, 2026, Dkt. Nos. 134 & 147, shall continue. In other words, given that we are on the eve of the only relevant briefing deadline, summary judgment reply briefs must still be filed on or before June 26, 2026. The hearing on July 10, 2026, however, is VACATED. Also, all unexpired deadlines in the Second Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order, other than the need to file replies as set forth above, are HELD IN ABEYANCE. (eta) |
| Docket last updated: 5 hours ago |
| Wednesday, September 09, 2026 | ||
| 172 | 172
minutes
Telephone Conference
Thu 09/10 11:46 AM
EP: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 09/09/2026. Discussion had. Court notes jurisdictional issues now resolved. First Amended Complaint , [ECF 169 ] filed. Parties agree to engage in further settlement discussions. Parties to meet and confer regarding settlement framework and possible dates. By 9/18/2026 , parties to notify Court of proposed settlement conference dates. (ZOOM / 10:00 am - 10:25 am) (MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER) (jo) |
|