By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

A MOTION of Bank of Hawaii to transfer the complaint filed by the Bank of Guam to Hawaii has been rejected, as the District Court of Guam gears up to schedule conferences that will establish court trial dates for the litigation.
The counsels for the clashing banks were ordered to file a proposed scheduling order and discovery plan on or before June 25.
The court also told both parties to send legal representatives for a scheduling conference on July 10 at 10 a.m.
Citing the first-to-file rule, the Bank of Hawaii earlier asked the District Court of Guam to dismiss the complaint filed by the Bank of Guam, saying it was a duplicate lawsuit and should not be treated as a separate action.
Instead, it suggested that the complaint should be transferred to the District Court of Hawaii to avoid inconvenience to the parties of interest.
In a reply to the lawsuit involving an alleged check-kiting scheme filed by Bank of Guam on April 11, attorneys for Bank of Hawaii said a prior action involving the same parties and transactions was filed in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii on March 27.
Elyze J. McDonald and Meredith Sayre, lawyers for Bank of Hawaii, said the lawsuit filed by Bank of Guam is a contravention of the first-to-file doctrine and the complaint filed in Guam should be treated as a counterclaim, creating a multiplicity of actions, wasting court resources, and inviting inconsistent rulings.
To avoid inconvenience, the Bank of Hawaii attorneys also asked to transfer venue of the Bank of Guam complaint, saying the evidence relating to the Automated Clearing House transactions including most records and evidence pertinent to the questionable transactions are electronically stored at Bank of Hawaii’s headquarters in Honolulu.
The Bank of Hawaii also stated that most of its witnesses reside in Hawaii and other non-party witnesses residing in the mainland can travel more easily to Hawaii as opposed to Guam.
The Bank of Hawaii further argued that expert testimony regarding the Automated Clearing House system is likely to be provided by one or both parties and that qualified witnesses are likely to be traveling from the U.S. mainland.
To save time and expense for both parties and witnesses and to avoid inconsistent results, the Bank of Hawaii told the District Court of Guam to dismiss the Bank of Guam lawsuit or transfer the case to Hawaii and resolve the matter based on the first action filed.
The court battle started after the discovery of an alleged check-kiting scheme contrived by Jale Management’s Information and Data Services, or IDS.
IDS provided payroll services to employers like Hilton Guam Resort and Spa and Dewitt Transactions. It also forwarded taxes withheld from employees to the appropriate taxing authorities on behalf of its employer-clients. IDS reportedly debited more than $2 million from its Bank of Guam account.