O
n Sept. 16, Dodgers pitcher Shohei Ohtani was on the mound in a game against the Philadelphia Phillies at Dodger Stadium. (Photo: Gina Ferazzi, Los Angeles Times)

    In Hawaii, a real‑estate investor and broker sued Ohtani and his agent Nez Balelo, claiming the star’s image was used without permission for a luxury development on the Big Island’s Hapuna Coast. The suit, filed Aug. 8 in the Hawaii Circuit Court, was brought by developer Kevin J. Hayes Sr., broker Tomoko Matsumoto, West Point Investment Corp. and Hapuna Estates Property Owners. They allege that Ohtani and Balelo abused their influence, causing tortious interference and unjust enrichment that hurt the $240 million project.

    Hayes and Matsumoto had been removed from the joint venture Kingsbarn Realty Capital, the majority owner of the development. The complaint was later amended to add Creative Artists Agency and CAA Sports as defendants. It accuses Balelo and CAA of blaming Hayes for cost overruns on Ohtani’s home—overruns the defendants themselves caused.

    Josh Schiller, Hayes’ attorney, said the endorsement agreement was never breached. A promotional video posted on the project’s website was sent to Balelo, CAA and adviser Mark Daulton, who did not object. In a motion to dismiss filed Sept. 14, Ohtani’s lawyers argued that the plaintiffs used his name and likeness to drive traffic to their own development website. Laura Smolowe, counsel for Ohtani and Balelo, said the suit was frivolous and that Balelo had always protected Ohtani’s image.

    The amended complaint claims the plaintiffs kept Balelo and CAA informed. Hayes had emailed the full site, including its promotional material, to Balelo and Terry Prince of CAA Sports before it went live. The site remained unchanged for 14 months until Balelo suddenly threatened litigation, allegedly to create a pretext for new demands. The complaint further alleges that the demand for Kingsbarn to terminate the plaintiffs was retaliation against Hayes for resisting Balelo’s improper requests, and that the defendants sought to extract financial concessions and enrich themselves at the plaintiffs’ expense.