Feindt, et al v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
PATRICK FEINDT, JR., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________
JESSICA WHALEY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________
JACLYN HUGHES, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 22-00397 LEK-KJM
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
UNITED STATES’ PETITION FOR
GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
DETERMINATION
Civil No. 23-00457 LEK-KJM
Civil No. 24-00059 LEK-KJM
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT UNITED STATES’
PETITION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION
On January 30, 2026, Defendant United States of America (“Defendant”)
filed a Petition for Good Faith Settlement Determination (“Petition”), seeking a
determination of good faith settlement for 630 settling plaintiffs (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”)1. ECF No. 670.2 The Petition states that Plaintiffs consent to the
Petition. Id. at 2. On February 24, 2026, non-parties Ohana Military
Communities, LLC (“Ohana”) and Hunt MH Property Management, LLC (“Hunt”)
timely filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Petition. ECF No. 677. On
March 6, 2026, non-parties CP IV Waterfront, LLC d/b/a Kapilina Beach Homes
(“Kapilina”) and GREP Southwest, LLC (“GREP”), untimely filed a Statement of
Position to the Petition.3 ECF No. 694. On March 10, 2026, Defendant filed a
Reply. ECF No. 695.
On April 1, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the Petition via video
conference. ECF No. 719. Lyle S. Hosoda, Esq., Kristina Baehr, Esq., Frederick
1 See ECF No. 670-3 for a list of the settling plaintiffs that are the subject of the
Petition.
2 The Court cites to the Feindt docket, unless otherwise noted.
3 Kapilina and GREP did not file their Statement within 25 days of the mailing of
the Petition. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663–15.5(b). For purposes of completeness,
however, the Court considers their statement in deciding the Petition.
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

3
C. Baker, Esq., and Cynthia A. Solomon, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Eric A. Rey, Esq., and Alanna Horan, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant.
Randall C. Whattoff, Esq., appeared on behalf of Ohana and Hunt. Calvert G.
Chipchase, Esq., and Lisa K. Swartzfager, Esq., appeared on behalf of Kapilina
and GREP.
After carefully considering the memoranda, applicable law, record in this
case, and the oral arguments of counsel, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS
that the district court GRANT the Petition for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
I. 	The Instant Matter
This matter is one of a number of cases filed in this district in which the
plaintiffs assert claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against
the United States arising from the 2021 releases of jet fuel at the Red Hill Bulk
Fuel Storage Facility (“Red Hill”). The Feindt plaintiffs filed their Complaint in
August 2022. ECF No. 1. The Whaley plaintiffs filed their Complaint in
November 2023. Whaley, ECF No. 1. The Hughes plaintiffs filed their Complaint
in February 2024. Hughes, ECF No. 1. On February 23, 2024, Defendant filed a
motion to consolidate the Feindt, Whaley, and Hughes cases. ECF No. 277. On
April 11, 2024, the Court granted the motion to consolidate and consolidated the
three cases for all purposes. ECF No. 413.
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

4
The district court conducted a ten-day bench trial for 17 bellwether plaintiffs
beginning on April 29, 2024. ECF No. 633 at 1, 2025 WL 2254119, at *1 (D.
Haw. Aug. 7, 2025). The trial included, among other things, testimony from 20
retained experts, over 650 exhibits, and extensive pre- and post-trial briefing and
other filings.
On May 7, 2025, the district court issued its Preliminary Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law. ECF No. 621, 2025 WL 1348465 (D. Haw. May 7,
2025). On August 7, 2025, the district court issued its Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law (“Final FOFCOL”). ECF No. 633, 2025 WL 2254119 (D.
Haw. Aug. 7, 2025). In the Final FOFCOL, the district court awarded general
damages for each bellwether plaintiff in amounts ranging from $3,000 to $75,000
“for pain and suffering, and, in the case of some Plaintiffs, emotional distress[.]”
2025 WL 2254119, at *61. In general, the minor bellwether plaintiffs received less
than the adult bellwether plaintiffs. See id. (awarding plaintiffs T.F. and D.J, both
of whom were under two years of age as of the November 2021 spill, $3,000 to
$5,000 and awarding adult plaintiffs Aubart, Dietz, Feindt, Jessup, and Witt
$37,500 each). The district court also awarded $1,000 in hedonic damages to each
bellwether plaintiff and special damages in varying amounts to five bellwether
plaintiffs. Id.
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

5
III. 	Related Cases Against Plaintiffs’ Landlords
In addition to the FTCA cases filed against the United States, residents who
received water from the Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam (“JBPHH”) water system
filed lawsuits against their landlords and property managers for lost rent and
consumer protection issues. See, e.g., Powell v. Ohana Mil. Cmtys., LLC, Civil
No. 24-00184 LEK-KJM (D. Haw.); Island Palm Cmtys., LLC v. Amuro, Civil No.
24-00458 LEK-RT (D. Haw.), on appeal Case No. 25-2153 (9th Cir.); Lethgo v.
CP IV Waterfront LLC d/b/a Kapilina Beach Homes, Case No. 1CCV-22-000005
(Cir. Ct. of the First Circuit, State of Haw.)). In addition, similar cases filed
against landlords seek damages for personal injuries arising from the November
2021 fuel release. See, e.g., Camp v. Ohana Military Cmtys., LLC, Civil No. 24-
00003 LEK-KJM (D. Haw.); Bentley v. Hickam Cmtys., Civil No. 24-00007 LEK-
KJM (D. Haw.)).
The landlords include Ohana and Kapilina, which lease land from the United
States to operate military housing communities. Hunt serves as the property
manager for the communities leased by Ohana. GREP serves as the property
manager for the community leased by Kapilina. Pursuant to their lease and utility
agreements with the United States, Ohana and Kapilina purchase water from the
United States, which is transported from the JBPHH water system to residents. In
the Camp and Powell lawsuits, Ohana and Hunt filed a third-party complaint
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 5 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

6
against the United States for contribution, indemnification, and negligence. Camp,
ECF No. 43.
IV. 	Settlements in the Instant Matter
The Petition states that 630 plaintiffs have reached a settlement of their
claims against Defendant. ECF No. 670 at 2. The parties submitted an exemplar
settlement agreement that all settling plaintiffs will execute. ECF No. 670-4.
Plaintiffs settled their claims against Defendant in exchange for a full release of
claims, as follows:
4. 	Settling Plaintiff hereby agrees to accept the Settlement
Amount in full settlement, satisfaction, and release of any and all
Claims which Settling Plaintiff or his/her predecessors, successors,
and assigns now has or may hereafter acquire against the United
States of America, its agents, servants, or employees by reason of the
above-captioned case or the facts asserted therein. This Settlement
Agreement does not release any Claims which Settling Plaintiff or
his/her predecessors, successors, and assigns now has or may
hereafter acquire against any other persons, including any Claims
Settling Plaintiff currently may have against his/her landlord or
property manager.
Id. at 2 ¶ 4.
On January 30, 2026, Defendant filed the Petition. ECF No. 670.
DISCUSSION
The parties seek a determination that the settlements between the settling
plaintiffs and Defendant were made in good faith pursuant to Hawaii Revised
Statutes (“HRS”) § 663–15.5. “Under Hawai‘i law, a party must petition the court
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 6 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

7
for a hearing on the issue of whether a settlement was made in good faith and must
serve notice to all known joint tortfeasors or co-obligors.” Wyndham Vacation
Resorts, Inc. v. Architects Haw. Ltd., Civil No. 08-00236 DAE-LEK, 2010 WL
2347060, at *3 (D. Haw. May 21, 2010) (citing HRS § 663–15.5(b)), adopted by
2010 WL 2346616 (D. Haw. June 7, 2010). “The petition shall indicate the
settling parties and, except for a settlement that includes a confidentiality
agreement regarding the case or the terms of the settlement, the basis, terms, and
settlement amount.” Id. (citing HRS § 663–15.5(b)). “Any non-settling party [or
alleged joint tortfeasor or co-obligor] may file an objection and such party bears
the burden of proving a lack of good faith. Id. (citing HRS § 663–15.5(b)).
A finding of good faith settlement:
(1) discharges the settling party from liability for contribution to other
joint tortfeasors, (2) reduces a plaintiff’s claims against joint
tortfeasors by the amount stipulated to in the release or in the amount
of the consideration paid for it, whichever is greater, (3) bars other
joint tortfeasors from further claims against the settling joint
tortfeasor, except where there is a written indemnity agreement, and
(4) results in dismissal of all crossclaims against the settling joint
tortfeasor, except where there is a written indemnity agreement.
PacMar Techs. LLC v. Kao, CIV NO. 22-00283 LEK-WRP, 2025 WL 3454786, at
*3 (D. Haw. Dec. 1, 2025) (other citation omitted) (citing HRS § 663–15.5(a), (d)).
“The Hawaii Supreme Court has adopted a ‘totality of circumstances’
analysis to determine whether a settlement is made in good faith under HRS
§ 663–15.5.” Id. (other citation omitted) (citing Troyer v. Adams, 102 Haw. 399,
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 7 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

8
77 P.3d 83 (2003)). “The Hawaii Supreme Court set forth a nonexclusive list of
issues that courts may consider when deciding whether a settlement was made in
good faith” (the “Troyer factors”):
(1) the type of case and difficulty of proof at trial, e.g., rearend motor
vehicle collision, medical malpractice, product liability, etc.;
(2) the realistic approximation of total damages that the plaintiff
seeks;
(3) the strength of the plaintiff’s claim and the realistic likelihood of
his or her success at trial;
(4) the predicted expense of litigation;
(5) the relative degree of fault of the settling tortfeasors;
(6) the amount of consideration paid to settle the claims;
(7) the insurance policy limits and solvency of the joint tortfeasors;
(8) the relationship among the parties and whether it is conducive to
collusion or wrongful conduct; and
(9) any other evidence that the settlement is aimed at injuring the
interests of a non-settling tortfeasor or motivated by other wrongful
purpose.
Id. (other citation omitted) (citing Troyer, 102 Haw. at 427, 77 P.3d at 112).
A settlement “is made in good faith when the totality of circumstances show
that the settlement was not collusive or aimed at injuring the interests of the non-
settling parties.” Id. (other citation omitted) (citing Troyer, 102 Haw. at 427,
77 P.3d at 112). In addition, a settlement is made in good faith absent “any
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 8 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

9
evidence of collusion, fraud, dishonesty or other wrongful conduct.” Wyndham,
2010 WL 2347060, at *4 (citing Troyer, 102 Haw. at 430, 77 P.3d at 110).
Here, the non-settling entities, Ohana, Hunt, Kapilina, and GREP
(collectively, the “Non-Settling Entities”), have not satisfied their burden of
proving that the settlements lack good faith. First, the Non-Settling Entities have
not introduced “any evidence of collusion, fraud, dishonesty or other wrongful
conduct.” Id. “The absence of this evidence requires the Court to conclude that
the settlement was in good faith.” Id. (citing Troyer, 102 Haw. at 430, 77 P.3d at
110).
Second, the Non-Settling Entities have not demonstrated that the settlements
are collusive, aimed at injuring the interests of the Non-Settling Entities, or
motivated by any other wrongful purpose. Troyer, 102 Haw. at 427, 77 P.3d 83 at
111. As previously noted, the release in the settlement agreement expressly
excludes claims that the settling Plaintiffs “currently may have against his/her
landlord or property manager,” such as the Non-Settling Entities. ECF No. 670-4
at 2 ¶ 4. Ohana and Hunt take issue with the scope of the release of claims against
Defendant. The settlements, however, are not required to resolve all of the settling
Plaintiffs’ claims against all possible tortfeasors. HRS § 663–15.5 does not turn on
maximizing the benefit of a settlement to non-settling entities or ensuring equitable
apportionment of settlements. Instead, the focus of HRS § 663–15.5 is to
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 9 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

10
encourage settlements. Durham v. Cnty. of Maui, CIV. No. 08-00342 JMS, 2011
WL 1135082, at *5 (D. Haw. Mar. 23, 2011) (citing Troyer, 102 Haw. at 426, 77
P.3d at 110). Here, the settling plaintiffs made a calculated decision, with the
assistance of experienced counsel, to resolve their claims against Defendant after
weighing the risks, expenses, and uncertainties of further litigation. HRS § 663–
15.5 encourages such decisions.
Third, the Petition’s reliance on the damages awarded in the Final FOFCOL
does not prove that the settlements lacked good faith. Although the settling
plaintiffs may have been able to recover more at trial than the bellwether plaintiffs,
that claim is speculative and does not evidence collusion or a lack of good faith.
See Kane v. PaCap Aviation Fin., LLC, CIV NO. 19-00574 JAO-RT, 2023 WL
9101973, at *4 (D. Haw. Dec. 19, 2023) (“Defendants have not provided any
argument explaining why the Settlement amount tends to show that the Settlement
may be collusive or injurious to the interest of a non-settling joint tortfeasor.”),
adopted by 2024 WL 50943 (D. Haw. Jan. 4, 2024). That the settling Plaintiffs
“made the calculated choice to settle their claims against Defendant . . . for
substantially less than they may have sought individually against Defendant . . . or
collectively from the other defendants at trial is entirely their prerogative.” Id. In
addition, Ohana and Hunt’s focus on the settlement amounts conflicts with the
Hawaii Supreme Court’s conclusion that “the price of a settlement alone rarely
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 10 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

11
appears to be the outcome-dispositive factor regarding a settlement’s bad faith.”
Troyer, 102 Haw. at 427, 77 P.3d at 111.
The Court has carefully considered the parties’ and Non-Settling Entities’
submissions, the terms of the settlements, the Troyer factors, and the totality of the
circumstances. The parties, represented by experienced counsel, reached the
settlements through extensive, hard fought, and arms-length negotiations. The
Court has had numerous and ongoing settlement discussions with counsel for the
parties to facilitate the resolution of plaintiffs’ claims. The settlement amounts are
tethered to the Feindt bellwether trial decision. The settlements reflect a logical,
fair, and good faith resolution of this complex and contentious case in light of the
risks, costs, and uncertainties of further litigation. Settlements such as these are
the only viable means of efficiently resolving this large and complex docket.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Non-Settling Entities have
not satisfied their burden of proving that the settlements lack good faith. The
Court further finds that the settlements between the 630 settling plaintiffs and
Defendant were entered into in good faith for the purposes of HRS § 663–15.5.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the district court grant the Joint Petition.
In light of this recommendation, the Non-Settling Entities request
confirmation that they: (1) are entitled to an offset for any damages in the full
amount of each settlement; and (2) be permitted to pursue any direct claims against
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 11 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

12
the United States other than for contribution or equitable indemnity. Such
findings, however, are premature because the effect of the settlements is unknown
at this time. See ECF No. 677 at 8 (“In light of the Government’s express
admission of liability for the Red Hill fuel leak and resulting contamination, it
would be fundamentally unfair if, in the event that military housing operators are
somehow held liable for the Housing Claims, they cannot seek equitable
contribution from the Government.” (emphasis added)); id. at 24 n.11 (Ohana and
Hunt identifying potential issues in the tenants’ recovery of housing costs); ECF
No. 694 at 4 (stating that the settlements “could” have consequences to Kapilina
and GREP, such as releasing the Navy from derivative contribution to Kapilina and
GREP despite the Navy’s admitted negligence and control over the Navy water
system). The Non-Settling Entities do not provide specific information regarding
the claims affected by a good faith finding or any damages awards for which any
offsets should be applied. The Court’s good faith finding does not foreclose a
subsequent determination regarding the effect of the settlements on the Non-
Settling Entities.
Under the circumstances, the Court thus declines to make the requested
findings regarding the effect of the settlements on the Non-Settling Entities. See
Wyndham, 2010 WL 2347060, at *4 (“The Court declines to make the specific
finding requested by Notkin that Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 12 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

13
remaining parties be reduced by the amount of consideration stipulated in the
settlement.”).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court FINDS that the settlements between the
630 settling plaintiffs, as listed in ECF No. 670-3, and Defendant United States of
America were made in good faith under HRS § 663–15.5. The Court thus
RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT the Petition for Good Faith
Settlement Determination (ECF No. 670).
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 2, 2026.
Feindt v. United States, Civil No. 22-00397 LEK-KJM; Whaley v. United States, Civil No. 23-00457
LEK-KJM; Hughes v. United States, Civil No. 24-00059 LEK-KJM; Findings and Recommendation to
Grant United States’ Petition for Good Faith Settlement Determination
Case 1:22-cv-00397-LEK-KJM Document 721 Filed 04/02/26 Page 13 of 13
PageID.<pageID>