By Leila Fujimori

Copyright staradvertiser

Margotto Hawaii, a high-end Ala Moana area restaurant, announced Aug. 20 it is temporarily closing until 2026, less than two months after a jury awarded
$3.15 million to a former sous chef who sued its executive chef for subjecting him to violent abuse.

Also named in the lawsuit filed by Andrew DeBellis was the restaurant company and owner Kazutomo Robert Hori.

DeBellis filed a motion for a temporary restraining order Aug. 21 to prohibit Hori from liquidating, transferring or dissipating the assets of New Field Honolulu Inc., dba Margotto Hawaii, but the request was dismissed by Circuit Judge Karin Holma Sept. 5.

A Circuit Court jury awarded DeBellis $1.05 million in compensation and $2.1 million in punitive damages in its June 24 verdict. His complaint said that from Oct. 8 to Dec. 25, 2023, executive chef Yohei Yagishita
repeatedly punched the then-22-year-old sous chef in the spine, ribs and shoulder, kicked him in the shin or hip, punched and slapped his face numerous times and caused him to suffer a torn rotator cuff.

As a result, the lawsuit claimed, DeBellis experienced severe post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, chronic anxiety and other conditions and was unable to work for more than a year.

“Getting a judgment is only half the battle,” James DiPasquale, attorney for DeBellis, told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “Collecting the judgment is the other half of the battle.”

He said he was advised that Hori had left for Japan and does not plan to return, at least in the short term.

“We believe with him absconding to Japan, they’re basically divesting New Field of its assets quickly,” DiPasquale said. “We believe this is an attempt to evade all responsibility.”

The attorney alleges that Hori “is an indirect owner of 49% of the restaurant, is president, vice president, secretary and treasurer of the company, and is actively attempting to transfer the lease and the assets to a new company. It’s obvious what he’s trying to do.”

Attorney William Ota, representing New Field and Hori, said in a memorandum opposing the TRO motion that some time after De-Bellis’ lawsuit proceeded to trial, New Field’s shareholders removed Hori from its board of directors and
from all corporate officer

The memorandum said a TRO “would effectively compel New Field to keep Margotto Hawaii in business” and “cannot provide the type of affirmative mandatory relief” the plaintiff is seeking.

Ota also argued Hori never had “complete operational control” over the restaurant.

The judge had earlier dismissed the company as a
defendant in the lawsuit, finding that a workers’ compensation claim was the sole remedy for DeBellis in that regard.

“We intend to appeal that decision,” DiPasquale said.

He asserted that Hori owns 100% of the parent company, which owns
Tokyo restaurant Margotto
e Baciare (aka Margotto
Tokyo), and “in turn owns 49% of New Field Honolulu, so he indirectly owns 49%.”

According to Margotto Hawaii’s website, it is a branch of Margotto e Baciare, a Michelin Tokyo-
selected restaurant.

Ota did not respond to a call from the Star-Advertiser seeking comment.

His memorandum states that New Field’s ownership is split between three shareholders: Takahiro Inouye (50%), Margotto e Baciare (49%) and Hiroyuki Kanda (1%). It also says Hori is neither an officer nor a member of the board of directors of Margotto Tokyo, a Japanese corporation, and never had a controlling interest among New Field’s shareholders.

Ota’s memorandum does say Hori was New Field’s president and one of three members of its board of directors at all times relevant to the underlying lawsuit, and was answerable to the boards of New Field and Margotto Tokyo and New Field’s shareholders.

On Sept. 2, attorneys for Hori filed a motion for judgment in his favor and against DeBellis, and for an order granting a new trial. They argue the plaintiff should not have been permitted to assert claims against Hori in the first place since that was done months after the original complaint was filed.

It also alleges DeBellis should not have been permitted to recover damages for physical pain and suffering since his only claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and no expert testified to establish any physical injuries as a result of emotional distress.

Hori also claims the punitive damages awarded were excessive under Hawaii law and federal due process
requirements.