# Concerned Owners at the Point at Poipu file lawsuit



## artringwald (Apr 11, 2012)

The lawsuit has been filed and is available at:

http://www.poipuowners.org/uploads/Lawsuit.pdf

Very interesting and very readable for a legal document. Any comments?


----------



## alexadeparis (Apr 11, 2012)

Looks interesting. The Class plaintiffs have made some interesting points. The board's actions sounds like a bad soap opera. The fact that the whistleblower feels afraid for her life? That's crazy. 

Hope that the lawsuit is ultimately successful, but I'm glad I don't own there.


----------



## craigrow (Apr 11, 2012)

Section 129 is particularly laughable.

And the relief they're asking for just boggles the mind. If I understand the legal mumbo jumbo correctly, they want the work to remedy the water intrusion project to stop and for DRI to be "fined" a bunch of money. The end results would be...

A resort that soon becomes unusable due to water intrusion (this is better than just letting DRI take back your deed how?) and higher fees from DRI to cover the "increased cost of doing business." Well, actually you'll get the second part regardless as they experience the cost of fighting a stupid lawsuit.


----------



## artringwald (Apr 11, 2012)

craigrow said:


> Section 129 is particularly laughable.
> 
> And the relief they're asking for just boggles the mind. If I understand the legal mumbo jumbo correctly, they want the work to remedy the water intrusion project to stop and for DRI to be "fined" a bunch of money. The end results would be...
> 
> A resort that soon becomes unusable due to water intrusion (this is better than just letting DRI take back your deed how?) and higher fees from DRI to cover the "increased cost of doing business." Well, actually you'll get the second part regardless as they experience the cost of fighting a stupid lawsuit.



I didn't read the document too closely, but after your comment I went back and noticed that they're asking: "For a judicial declaration that the Water Intrusion Project and Assessment are invalid, void and without legal effect; For an order enjoining the Water Intrusion Project and Assessment".

I want the problem fixed soon, and I hope the lawsuit doesn't delay what needs to be done.


----------



## Beefnot (Apr 12, 2012)

I know there are two sides to every story, but I am convinced after reading the lawsuit that DRI is an underhanded company.  Reminds me of a businessweek article I referenced in another poipu thread a few months ago.  I would not be surprised if DRI also has a collusive relationship with the contractor as well.


----------



## dougp26364 (Apr 12, 2012)

I predict nothing substantial will come of this, the lawyers will earn a substantial reward for brokering a "settlement", the plantiffs listed in the suit will be rewarded enough to make them go away, superficial changes may be made, construction work will be delayed causing more inconvenience to owners and owners will see another significant increase in their MF's to cover the cost of the litigation. 

Much like the recent class action against RCI, nothing good is likely to come of this.


----------



## Beefnot (Apr 12, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> I predict nothing substantial will come of this, the lawyers will earn a substantial reward for brokering a "settlement", the plantiffs listed in the suit will be rewarded enough to make them go away, superficial changes may be made, construction work will be delayed causing more inconvenience to owners and owners will see another significant increase in their MF's to cover the cost of the litigation.
> 
> Much like the recent class action against RCI, nothing good is likely to come of this.



You may well be right, although I wouldn't mind hearing about some DRI-tied board member found on a street with two broken kneecaps.  That actually happened to an attorney for the crooked Vegas construction company in that businessweek article


----------



## Cw5986 (Apr 12, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> You may well be right, although I wouldn't mind hearing about some DRI-tied board member found on a street with two broken kneecaps.  That actually happened to an attorney for the crooked Vegas construction company in that businessweek article



Yes but just think of where the headquarters of Diamond is located the mob capital of the west, so if you think they (the plaintiffs) have reason to be concerned they do, and the arrogance of the CEO of Diamond is a good indicator of his relationship to the "organization" Just a common thief.


----------

