ERIC A.

SEITZ
ATTORNEY AT LAW
A LAW CORPORATION Electronically Filed
FIRST CIRCUIT
ERIC A. SEITZ 1412 1CCV-21-0000674
DELLA A. BELATTI 7945 21-MAY-2021
GINA SZETO-WONG 10515 11:49 AM
JONATHAN M.F. LOO 10874 Dkt. 7 CMPS
KEVIN A. YOLKEN 10987

820 Mililani Street, Suite 502

Honolulu, HI 96813
Tel. (808) 533-7434
E-mail(s): eseitzatty@yahoo.com
daubelatti@yahoo.com
szetogina@gmail.com
jloo33138@yahoo.com
kevinyolken@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

AKIWINE SYKAP and
YOVITA LUCIO

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII
AKIWINE SYKAP AND ) CIVIL NO. 1CCV-21-0000674
YOVITA LUCIO, ) (Other Civil Action)
)
Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
) AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
vs. ) AND DAMAGES; SUMMONS
)
CITY AND COUNTY OF )
HONOLULU; DOE OFFICER #1, )
in his/her individual capacity as a )
Honolulu police officer; DOE )
OFFICER #2, in his/her individual )
capacity as a Honolulu police officer; )
DOE OFFICER #3, in his/her )
individual capacity as a Honolulu )
police officer; and DOE DEFEND- )
ANTS 4-20, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________ )
 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Plaintiffs AKIWINE SYKAP and YOVITA LUCIO, by and through their

undersigned attorneys, hereby allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises from the fatal shooting of the Plaintiffs’ 16-year-old grandson and

son I.S. by three or more Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) officers.

2. On April 5, 2021, multiple HPD officers allegedly were in pursuit of a stolen vehicle

driven by I.S. and occupied by several other young passengers when the vehicle stopped and the

Defendant officers fired multiple shots into the vehicle, killing I.S.

3. Plaintiffs are informed and allege that the Defendants’ use of deadly force was

unnecessary, unwarranted, and unjustified and in violation of applicable policies and practices of HPD

and laws of the State of Hawaii, inter alia.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff AKIWINE SYKAP is the grandmother and legal guardian of her deceased

minor grandson I.S., and brings this suit for wrongful death as permitted by Hawaii Revised Statutes

(“HRS”) Section 663-3, inter alia. Plaintiff AKIWINE SYKAP reserves her right to bring additional

claims in a representative capacity for the estate of I.S. when duly appointed as such, and to bring any

and all claims permitted on behalf of the siblings of I.S.

5. Plaintiff YOVITA LUCIO is the natural mother of I.S.

6. Plaintiffs are and have been residents of the City and County of Honolulu, State of

Hawaii, at all times pertinent hereto.

7. Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU (hereinafter “City”) is a

municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Hawaiʻi as a political

2
subdivision thereof and Defendant City is sued herein for the actions and/or omissions of one or more

of its officers, officials, employees, and/or departments, including the HPD.

8. Defendant DOE OFFICER #1 (“Doe Officer #1”) is a resident of the City and County

of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, and is and was employed as a police officer by HPD at all times

pertinent hereto. Defendant Doe Officer #1 is sued herein in his or her individual and official

capacities. The true and correct identity of Doe Officer #1 is not yet known to Plaintiffs despite

reasonable investigation and will be supplemented with the actual identity of the officer when it

becomes known.

9. Defendant DOE OFFICER #2 (“Doe Officer #2”) is a resident of the City and County

of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, and is and was employed as a police officer by HPD at all times

pertinent hereto. Defendant Doe Officer #2 is sued herein in his or her individual and official

capacities. The true and correct identity of Doe Officer #2 is not yet known to Plaintiffs despite

reasonable investigation and will be supplemented with the actual identity of the officer when it

becomes known.

10. Defendant DOE OFFICER #3 (“Doe Officer #3) is a resident of the City and County

of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, and is and was employed as a police officer by HPD at all times

pertinent hereto. Defendant Doe Officer #3 is sued herein in his or her individual and official capacity.

The true and correct identity of Doe Officer #3 is not yet known to Plaintiffs despite reasonable

investigation and will be supplemented with the actual identity of the officer when it becomes known.

11. Collectively, Doe Officer #1, Doe Officer #2, and Doe Officer #3 are referred to herein

as “Officer Defendants”).

12. DOE DEFENDANTS 4-20 (hereinafter “Doe Defendants”) are associates, officers,

employees, agents, and/or representatives of the named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants may

3
have contributed to or may be responsible for the injuries and damages alleged herein. Doe

Defendants are sued herein under fictitious names for the reason that their true names and identities

are presently unknown to Plaintiffs and their attorneys despite due diligence. The true names and

capacities of the Doe Defendants will be substituted as they become known. The Doe Defendants are

sued herein both in their individual and official capacities.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Jurisidction and venue are proper in this Court pursuant to HRS Section 603-

21.5(a)(3) and HRS Section 603-36(5) since all of the acts, omissions, and occurrences alleged herein

took place within the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. On April 5, 2021, I.S. was a sixteen-year-old Micronesian teenager and the youngest

of eight siblings in his family.

15. I.S. was born in Guam and has resided in the City and County of Honolulu, State of

Hawaii, under the legal custody and care of Plaintiff AKAWINE SYKAP at all times pertinent hereto.

16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that on April 5, 2021, a

vehicle operated by I.S. with several other young occupants was pursued by HPD officers until it

stopped along a city street in Honolulu, and the occupants began to alight.

17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that after the vehicle came

to a stop, Officer Defendants fired multiple shots into the vehicle striking and killing I.S. who was

unarmed and posed no risk of harm to any of the Defendants.

18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that after I.S. was shot, the

vehicle then lurched forward and ended up in a ditch while the Defendant Officers continued to

discharge their weapons and fire additional shots at and into the vehicle.

4
 19. In a statement released by HPD Police Chief Susan Ballard, HPD falsely claimed that

the vehicle operated by I.S. rammed police vehicles and that the Defendant Officers fired in self-

defense.

20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all relevant times I.S.

was unarmed and neither he nor any of the passengers in the vehicle ever threatened Defendant

Officers or the Doe Defendants in any manner.

21. According to HPD Policy No. 1-04, HPD is committed to ensuring public safety as

well as preserving the lives and protecting the rights of all individuals and officers without prejudice

to anyone. HPD is also committed to de-escalating incidents to negate the need for the use of force

and only using the amount of force that is necessary to overcome the resistance offered. All

applications of force shall conform to the constitutions and laws of the United States (U.S.) and

Hawaii.

22. Relevant portions of HPD Policy No. 1.04, Section IX C.1. and C.2. provide that:

1. Except as required for traffic control, traffic enforcement, and

similar duties, officers shall not place themselves in the path or
apparent path of a subject’s vehicle.

2. A firearm shall not be discharged at a subject in a vehicle or the

vehicle itself unless:

a. A person in the vehicle threatens the officer or another

person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle;
or

b. Unanticipated movements of the vehicle do not afford the

officer a chance to get to safety; the vehicle’s movement
poses a threat that justifies the use of deadly force; or the
vehicle is being used to cause mass human casualties. . . .

5. A moving vehicle on its own is not a threat that justifies the use of
deadly force. Therefore, except in circumstances in section 2
above, officers shall move out of the path of a vehicle instead of
discharging a firearm at it.

5
 23. Defendants Doe Officer #1, Doe Officer #2, and Doe Officer #3 unlawfully used

deadly force when they discharged their firearms from the side and rear of the vehicle while it was

stopped and then continued firing at the vehicle and its passengers as it lurched into a ditch,

collectively firing more than a dozen rounds and ultimately killing I.S.

24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that Defendant Officers

violated HPD Policy 1.04 and other applicable use of force standards when they discharged their

firearms thereby directly, proximately, foreseeably, and wrongfully causing the death of I.S.

25. Since the death of I.S. on April 5, 2021, up to and until the present time, the

Defendants repeatedly have made false and misleading statements about the relevant events, have

taunted and threatened Plaintiffs and other members of Plaintiffs’ extended family, and repeatedly

have failed and refused to provide any videos or explanation to Plaintiffs or other members of

Plaintiffs’ family or their lawyers regarding the circumstances of I.S.’s death.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing Plaintiffs have incurred medical costs

and the expenses of a funeral and burial for I.S. in amounts to be proven at trial.

27. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing Plaintiffs and the members of

Plaintiffs’ extended family have suffered great mental anguish, suffering, pain, and anger due to the

loss of their young son, grandson, and brother.

COUNT I
(Negligence)

28. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27, above.

29. The conduct of the Defendants as alleged herein was at a minimum negligent or

grossly negligent, and such negligence was a substantial factor in wrongfully causing the death of I.S.

6
 30. At all times pertinent hereto the Defendant Officers and Doe Defendants were acting

herein within the course and scope of their employment with HPD in behalf of Defendant City and

County of Honolulu.

COUNT II
(Assault and Battery)

31. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27, above.

32. The conduct of the Defendants as alleged herein constituted the torts of assault and

battery.

33. The Defendants acted herein knowingly, deliberately, intentionally, and maliciously

thereby wrongfully causing the death of I.S.

COUNT III
(Declaratory Judgment and Injunction)

34. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 32, above.

35. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that unless properly

restrained by this Court the Defendants will continue to harass and threaten Plaintiffs and members

of Plaintiffs’ extended family, refuse to produce records and evidence pertaining to the death of I.S.,

and hide and destroy evidence of the relevant events that resulted in the death of Plaintiffs’ minor

grandson and son.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

a. That judgment be entered in Plaintiffs’ favor on each count of the Complaint;

b. That Plaintiffs be awarded general, special, and punitive damages against

Defendants in amounts to be proven at trial;

c. For reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses herein, including reasonable

provision for attorneys’ fees as permitted by law;

7
d. For an award of pre- and post-judgment interest;

e. For the entry of a Judgment declaring that the deadly force employed by

Defendants was unlawful and unauthorized;

f. For an injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants and their agents, officers,

employees and/or representatives from harassing and threatening Plaintiffs and

members of Plaintiffs’ family and from failing and refusing to release information

pertaining to the circumstances of the death of Plaintiffs’ grandson and son; and

g. For such further relief the Court deems just and appropriate.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii. May 21, 2021.

/s/ Eric A. Seitz

ERIC A. SEITZ
DELLA A. BELATTI
GINA SZETO-WONG
JONATHAN M.F. LOO
KEVIN A. YOLKEN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

AKIWINE SYKAP and
YOVITA LUCIO

8
 STATE OF HAWAI‘I SUMMONS
CASE NUMBER
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TO ANSWER CIVIL COMPLAINT
FIRST CIRCUIT
PLAINTIFF VS. DEFENDANT(S)
AKIWINE SYKAP and YOVITA LUCIO CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; DOE OFFICER #1,
in his/her individual capacity as a Honolulu police officer;
DOE OFFICER #2, in his/her individual capacity as a
Honolulu police officer; DOE OFFICER #3, in his/her
individual capacity as a Honolulu police officer; and DOE
DEFENDANTS 4-20,

3/$,17,))¶6 1$0( $''5(66 7(/ 12

AKIWINE SYKAP and YOVITA LUCIO

c/o Eric A. Seitz, Attorney at Law, a Law Corporation
820 Mililani Street, Suite 502
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 533-7434 Fax: (808) 545-3608
E-Mail: eseitzatty@yahoo.com

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S)

<RX DUH KHUHE\ VXPPRQHG DQG UHTXLUHG WR ¿OH ZLWK WKH FRXUW DQG VHUYH XSRQ
Eric A. Seitz, Attorney at Law, a Law Corporation
820 Mililani Street, Suite 502
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 ,
SODLQWLII¶V DWWRUQH\ ZKRVH DGGUHVV LV VWDWHG DERYH DQ DQVZHU WR WKH FRPSODLQW ZKLFK LV KHUHZLWK VHUYHG XSRQ \RX ZLWKLQ
 GD\V DIWHU VHUYLFH RI WKLV VXPPRQV XSRQ \RX H[FOXVLYH RI WKH GDWH RI VHUYLFH ,I \RX IDLO WR GR VR MXGJPHQW E\ GHIDXOW
ZLOO EH WDNHQ DJDLQVW \RX IRU WKH UHOLHI GHPDQGHG LQ WKH FRPSODLQW

THIS SUMMONS SHALL NOT BE PERSONALLY DELIVERED BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M. ON
PREMISES NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, UNLESS A JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
COURT PERMITS, IN WRITING ON THIS SUMMONS, PERSONAL DELIVERY DURING THOSE HOURS.

A FAILURE TO OBEY THIS SUMMONS MAY RESULT IN AN ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DISOBEYING PERSON OR PARTY.

7KH RULJLQDO GRFXPHQW LV ¿OHG LQ WKH Effective Date of 28-Oct-2019

-XGLFLDU\¶V HOHFWURQLF FDVH PDQDJHPHQW
Signed by: /s/ Patsy Nakamoto
V\VWHP ZKLFK LV DFFHVVLEOH YLD H&RXUW .RNXD
DW KWWSZZZFRXUWVVWDWHKLXV Clerk, 1st Circuit, State of Hawai‘i

,Q DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH $PHULFDQV ZLWK 'LVDELOLWLHV $FW DQG RWKHU DSSOLFDEOH VWDWH DQG IHGHUDO ODZV LI \RX UHTXLUH D
UHDVRQDEOH DFFRPPRGDWLRQ IRU D GLVDELOLW\ SOHDVH FRQWDFW WKH $'$ &RRUGLQDWRU DW WKH &LUFXLW &RXUW $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 2I¿FH RQ
2$+8 3KRQH 1R  77<  )$;  DW OHDVW WHQ  ZRUNLQJ GD\V SULRU WR \RXU KHDULQJ RU
DSSRLQWPHQW GDWH

Form 1C-P-787 (1CCT) (10/19)

Summons to Complaint 5*$&