Former Hawaii corruption trial witness argues against time bar in political prosecution civil suit

Now part of her civil case, Laurel Mau's accusations of malicious prosecution were at the center of a federal bribery and corruption case against her former employer and former Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Keith Kaneshiro.

by Jeremy Yurow, CourtHouseNews, February 18, 2025

HONOLULU (CN) — A former engineering firm employee and previous key witness to a federal corruption trial attempted on Tuesday to defend against dismissal of her malicious prosecution suit, as the defendants claimed too much time has passed to sue over her claims of politically-motivated prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel heard multiple motions Tuesday morning to dismiss the civil case brought by Laurel Mau against engineering firm Richard Mitsunaga & Associates, now known as RMA Architects, and the city and county of Honolulu, along with several individuals involved with the firm, including now-acquitted former Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Keith Kaneshiro.

Defense attorneys argued that Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations for civil rights claims had long expired, as Laurel Mau waited approximately seven years after her criminal discrimination case was dismissed to file civil suit.

"This has been going on for years now and needs to end, and putting the defendants through another couple of years of litigation just wouldn't be right," attorney Thomas Otake, representing defendant Chad McDonald, another firm employee, said during the hearing.

In her lawsuit filed in June 2024, Mau says Kaneshiro's office pursued baseless theft charges against her in 2014 as retaliation for her previous complaint against RMA Architects, in which she claimed sexual harassment and age discrimination. Those criminal charges were dismissed in 2017 for lack of probable cause.

Mau's attorney, Carl Osaki, argued that the clock on the statute of limitations shouldn't have started until 2022, when a federal indictment first revealed a reported conspiracy between Kaneshiro and RMA Architects. Federal prosecutors then accused the engineering firm of funneling nearly $50,000 in campaign donations to Kaneshiro in exchange for prosecuting Mau.

Curiel was uncertain about how discovery rules should apply in malicious prosecution cases. The judge questioned whether a plaintiff needs to be aware of all elements of their claim, including malice, before the statute of limitations begins to run. He noted that while this standard applies in securities fraud cases, it's unclear whether it should extend to malicious prosecution claims.

"The question becomes, what does that mean," Curiel said. "Does that mean that a plaintiff needs to know about the elements regarding that injury, and that there's evidence to support each of the elements, or is it just merely that they're aware that …they were prosecuted and that there was no probable cause?"

RMA Architects and other individual defendants — including the firm's former attorney Sheri Tanaka, who came under fire during Kaneshiro's federal trial for reportedly threating witnesses and judges — argue separately that without valid federal claims, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear state law claims for malicious prosecution and fraudulent concealment.

Colleen Hanabusa, attorney for RMA Architects, emphasized the case's complexity.

"The judge is being very careful in ensuring that all the necessary facts are available for this case. It is complicated by the fact that it has been ongoing for approximately 14 years, and the main parties involved are no longer present, except for this model," Hanabusa, who is also a former U.S. Representative, said.

"Having gone through many similar cases, I don't believe there is anything to read into it yet — only that the judge is exercising caution and seeking all the necessary information," she added.

Honolulu also argued Tuesday that even if the statute of limitations hadn't expired, Mau failed to properly show how city policies led to her constitutional rights being violated. The city also claims immunity from punitive damages as a municipality.

Curiel took the matter under submission but ordered additional briefing on how the discovery rule should apply in malicious prosecution cases compared to employment discrimination or securities cases. He gave attorneys two weeks to submit five-page briefs on this narrow question.

The civil case follows a dramatic two-month criminal trial that ended in May 2024 with the acquittal of Kaneshiro and RMA executives on federal conspiracy charges. While prosecutors in that case claimed the campaign contributions were bribes meant to secure Mau's prosecution, a federal jury eventually found that the donations were legitimate political contributions.