Consolidation of Genki Sushi suits is sought

Genki Sushi is seeking to consolidate and take to mediation the six lawsuits filed against it over scallops served at its restaurants that were linked to Hawaii’s worst hepatitis A outbreak.

A petition filed by the restaurant chain in Circuit Court will be heard at 11 a.m. Tuesday by Circuit Judge Jeannette Castagnetti. The filing asks the court to declare the cases “complex litigation,” assign them to a single judge and order the parties to take part in global mediation.

The move is backed by the other defendants in the suits — supplier Koha Foods of Honolulu and wholesaler Sea Port Products Corp. of Kirkland, Wash. Both have filed documents to join Genki in the petition.

The plaintiffs also are amenable. Four have filed documents supporting the petition, and no party has registered any objections so far. The plaintiffs in the suits are Jamilyne Maglangit, Brant Mauk, Bryan Cuelho, Ronald Nomura, D’Ann Ramos and Jaren Chun.

They allege that the restaurant chain and its suppliers are liable for the contaminated bay scallops that were identified by the state Department of Health as the source of the outbreak. The scallops were imported frozen from the Philippines and served raw at Genki Sushi.

Altogether, 292 people came down with confirmed cases of hepatitis A, including 74 who required hospitalization. The date of onset of illness ranged from June 12 to Oct. 9. The scallops were pulled off the market in August after being identified as tainted, but the disease has a long incubation period so the outbreak persisted.

Some plaintiffs fell ill after dining at Genki Sushi and are seeking compensation for their suffering. Others got hepatitis A vaccines to ward off the disease after possible exposure and are also seeking damages. Three of the lawsuits are class actions.

In its petition filed Dec. 28, Genki Sushi says consolidating the cases, and any future ones, under a single judge and using mediation would be more efficient for the Judiciary, ensure fair treatment for all parties and lead to faster resolution of claims.

If taken individually to trial, the cases would require numerous expert witnesses and could drag on for many months.

“The theories of liability are substantially the same in all cases,” Genki’s attorneys wrote in the filing. “In view of the overlap in legal theories, coordinated alternative dispute resolution across these cases would provide a just, efficient and economical way for all stakeholders to investigate whether a mediated settlement is possible and would be preferable to serial trials.”

According to the document, attorneys for the defendants and most plaintiffs have already selected a mediator: Keith Hunter, president of Dispute Prevention &Resolution. He has handled thousands of alternative dispute resolution proceedings, including mediation of sex abuse lawsuits.

Seattle attorney Bill Marler, who is representing Mauk and other plaintiffs, said coordinated mediation makes sense since the underlying facts are relatively clear.

“I’ve tried a lot of cases, and I’ve settled a lot of cases,” said Marler, who specializes in food safety. “In cases where the liability is clear and the argument is over what the damages are, usually good lawyers and insurance carriers and clients can come to a reasonable decision.”

“In those rare cases where they don’t come to a reasonable conclusion,” he added, “you can always take it still in front of the jury.”