A comment left here overnight asked several good questions about the case discussed in posts here over the past couple of days.

I’m going to present each of the questions, and try to answer them.

Here goes.

What do you mean by “Sai responded to the allegations by triggering the option to move the case out of state court and into federal court“?
You mean he filed a motion seeking to remove the case to federal court? (That’s not necessarily an “option” to be “triggered.”)

Sai was represented by attorney Stephen Laudig, who filed a “Notice of Removal” to transfer the case to federal court. In the civil cover sheet filed in federal court, Lauding check the box identifying Sai as a “citizen or subject of a foreign country,” which he argued gave rise to a federal question for the court to deal with.

If so, has the court ruled on the motion?

Yes. The federal court rejected the removal and remanded the case to state court.

What kind of case is this anyway? A civil lawsuit by the state?

This is the confusing part, which I tried to briefly explain in the original posts.

The case started as a routine foreclosure lawsuit filed by a lender against an Ewa Beach couple.

In early 2018, after the foreclosure matter was almost fully disposed of, the Office of Consumer Protection filed a motion for leave to intervene in the case, to add Sai, Kaiama, and Dradi as parties, and to seek sanctions against them. In its motion, OCP explained that the homeowners in the foreclosure case had been identified as possible victims of mortgage rescue fraud as part of an ongoing OCP investigation.

After the case was remanded to state court, Judge Crabtree eventually ruled that OCP should not have been allowed to intervene in the first place, and instead should have filed separate actions against the parties.

Here’s what I wrote in my May 11 post on the subject.

After a year of legal wrangling, Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Crabtree ruled that the Office of Consumer Protection should not have been allowed to piggyback its case against Dradi, Sai, and Kaiama on the preexisting foreclosure case. Crabtree acknowledged that the Office of Consumer Protection’s allegations were “detailed and comprehensive,” and “concern important issues of consumer protection which are in the public interest.”

However, Crabtree found the consumer agency had “attempted to take a procedural short-cut while trying to move too far too fast,” and concluded it had been procedurally improper to allow OPC to intervene in the bankruptcy. Judge Crabtree then dismissed the OCP case without prejudice, and said the agency could instead pursue its allegations by filing new complaints containing the allegations that have already been spelled out.

On April 16, 2019, OCP filed such a complaint against Dexter Kaiama for failing to use written contracts, failure to deposit client funds in a client trust account, and failure to keep client funds in the trust account until all of the contracted services had been performed.

It is seeking to bar Kaiama from aiding or representing any owners of distressed property in the future in any manner, as well as seeking restitution, fines, and penalties.

What is the state seeking? An injunction? Damages? What?

See above. The Office of Consumer Protect is seeking an injunction, a permanent ban against any future mortgage-related services, restitution and penalties.

If this is alleged fraud, why isn’t it being prosecuted as a criminal case? Or is it?

The Office of Consumer Protection only has civil remedies available. However, it disclosed that it has forwarded the matter to appropriate authorities for potential criminal charges.