Shohei Ohtani and Agent Move to Dismiss Hawaii Real Estate Suit, Cite Unauthorized NIL Use
Los Angeles Dodgers star and his agent say plaintiffs misused Ohtani’s name, image and likeness and that efforts to protect those rights were protected speech
Los Angeles Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani and his agent, Nez Balelo, filed papers seeking dismissal of a lawsuit in Hawaii that accuses them of causing a developer and broker to be removed from a $240 million luxury housing project on the Big Island.
The suit, filed Aug. 8 in Hawaii Circuit Court for the First Circuit by developer Kevin J. Hayes Sr., real estate broker Tomoko Matsumoto, West Point Investment Corp. and Hapuna Estates Property Owners, alleges abuse of power that resulted in tortious interference and unjust enrichment after the plaintiffs were dropped from the Hapuna Coast development by Kingsbarn Realty Capital, the joint venture’s majority owner. In court papers filed Sunday, lawyers for Ohtani and Balelo said the plaintiffs had previously obtained limited rights to use Ohtani’s name, image and likeness under an endorsement agreement tied to a joint venture marketing a development at the Mauna Kea Resort.
Ohtani’s attorneys contend that Hayes and Matsumoto “exploited” Ohtani’s name and photograph in 2023 to drive traffic to a website promoting the plaintiffs’ separate side project without authorization and without paying for the use, calling the conduct a “self-dealing” misappropriation. The motion argues that Balelo, acting to protect his client’s NIL rights, raised concerns about the unauthorized use and threatened legal action, conduct the lawyers described as constitutionally protected speech.
A lawyer for Ohtani and Balelo said in a statement that Balelo “has always prioritized Shohei Ohtani’s best interests, including protecting his name, image, and likeness from unauthorized use,” adding that the lawsuit is “a desperate attempt by plaintiffs to distract from their myriad of failures and blatant misappropriation of Mr. Ohtani’s rights.” Kingsbarn Realty Capital issued a separate statement after the suit was filed last month calling the allegations “completely frivolous and without merit.” Lawyers for Hayes and Matsumoto did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the motion to dismiss.
The complaint accuses Ohtani and Balelo of actions that led to Hayes and Matsumoto’s removal from the luxury housing venture, a claim the defense papers say rests on plaintiffs’ prior unauthorized use of Ohtani’s NIL. The defense memorandum characterizes the plaintiffs’ subsequent lawsuit as retaliatory, filed after Balelo sought to curtail what the defense calls an improper appropriation of Ohtani’s commercial rights.
The dispute centers on the commercial use of a high-profile athlete’s name, image and likeness — commonly referred to as NIL — in real estate marketing. Since collegiate NIL rules changed in recent years and professional athletes have increasingly monetized their public profiles, endorsement and licensing agreements have become common components of property and luxury-brand promotions. The defense describes the case as an attempt to leverage Ohtani’s fame without authorization, while the plaintiffs’ original complaint frames the defendants’ conduct as improper interference with development and business relationships.
The motion to dismiss asks the court to dispose of the claims against Ohtani and Balelo on legal grounds including protection of speech and lack of merit to the tort allegations. If the court denies dismissal, the case would proceed to evidence-gathering and potentially discovery on the endorsement agreement terms, who authorized which uses of Ohtani’s likeness, and whether any actions by Balelo or Ohtani improperly influenced Kingsbarn’s decision-making regarding the joint venture.
Ohtani, a three-time Most Valuable Player and designated hitter for the defending World Series champion Dodgers, is among the most commercially valuable athletes in baseball, which increases legal and contractual scrutiny over how his likeness is licensed and used. The lawsuit underscores broader legal friction when celebrity endorsements intersect with complex real estate joint ventures and raises questions about how endorsement rights are allocated and enforced in multi-party development arrangements.
The court has not set a public hearing date for the motion to dismiss. Proceedings in the Hawaii Circuit Court could clarify the scope of endorsement agreements tied to real estate projects and the extent to which agents may publicly or legally object to perceived misuses of an athlete’s NIL rights.