H
ONOLULU (AP) — Attorneys for Hawaii real‑estate investor Kevin J. Hayes Sr. and broker Tomoko Matsumoto deny that Shohei Ohtani or his agent Nez Balelo misused the player’s image in a development project, and claim the agent is shifting blame for overruns at Ohtani’s home.

    On Aug. 8, Hayes, Matsumoto, West Point Investment Corp. and Hapuna Estates Property Owners sued Ohtani and Balelo in the Hawaii Circuit Court, alleging “abuse of power” that caused tortious interference and unjust enrichment in a $240 million luxury housing project on the Big Island’s Hapuna Coast. The plaintiffs were removed from the deal by Kingsbarn Realty Capital, the majority owner of the joint venture.

    The complaint, amended on Tuesday, added Creative Artists Agency and CAA Sports as defendants. It accuses Balelo and CAA of scapegoating Hayes for the cost overruns on Ohtani’s home, which the complaint says stemmed from the defendants’ own decisions. Hayes’ lawyers argue the endorsement agreement was never breached; the promotional video posted on the project’s website was sent to Balelo, CAA, and Ohtani’s adviser Mark Daulton, who did not object.

    In a motion to dismiss filed Sept. 14, Ohtani’s attorneys claim the plaintiffs exploited his name and likeness to drive traffic to a website promoting their own development. “This is a desperate attempt to avoid dismissal of a frivolous complaint and to distract from the plaintiffs’ failures and blatant misappropriation of Ohtani’s rights,” said Laura Smolowe of Ohtani’s legal team. She added that Balelo has always protected Ohtani’s image from unauthorized use.

    Hayes’ lawyers maintain they kept Balelo and CAA informed. “Before the site launched, Hayes emailed a link to the entire site, including its promotional content, to Balelo and Terry Prince, CAA Sports’ director of legal and business affairs,” the amended complaint states. The site remained unchanged for 14 months until Balelo suddenly objected and threatened litigation, the complaint alleges, using the issue as a pretext for new demands. It further claims that the demand for Kingsbarn to terminate the plaintiffs was retaliation against Hayes for resisting Balelo’s improper demands, and that the defendants intended to extract financial concessions and enrich themselves at the plaintiffs’ expense.