Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani and agent accused of sabotaging $240M Hawaii real estate deal
In a high-stakes legal clash that’s stirring headlines from Honolulu to Los Angeles, a Hawaii-based real estate developer and a veteran broker have filed a lawsuit against baseball superstar Shohei Ohtani and his longtime agent, Nez Balelo. The suit, filed in Hawaii state court on August 8, alleges that the Los Angeles Dodgers slugger and his agent deliberately interfered in a $240 million luxury real estate project on the island of Hawaii, ultimately getting the plaintiffs pushed out of a venture they claim they created and nurtured for more than a decade.
At the center of the storm is “The Vista at Mauna Kea Resort,” a 14-home ultra-luxury development near Hapuna Beach, often called one of the most beautiful beaches in the world. The plaintiffs—developer Kevin J. Hayes Sr. and broker Tomoko Matsumoto—say they spent over eleven years planning and structuring the deal, which aimed to attract affluent American and Japanese buyers. In late 2023, the project gained massive momentum when Shohei Ohtani, a two-way MLB phenom revered in both the U.S. and Japan, agreed to endorse the project, allegedly with the intention of purchasing one of the homes and building a personal training facility on the property.
According to the lawsuit, Ohtani’s endorsement was not just cosmetic—it was pivotal. Hayes and Matsumoto argue that his presence gave the project international legitimacy and marketing firepower, especially in Japan, where Ohtani is a national hero. They even dubbed him the “First Resident” in promotional materials and framed his involvement as foundational to the project’s success.
But within months of the endorsement deal being announced, the plaintiffs say everything unraveled. They allege that Balelo, who represents Ohtani through Creative Artists Agency (CAA), began to pressure their development partner, Kingsbarn Realty Capital, to cut them out of the project. The lawsuit describes a series of events that culminated in a coordinated phone call in which both Hayes and Matsumoto were abruptly and, they say, wrongfully removed from their roles—Hayes as the project’s lead developer and Matsumoto as the listing broker.
The plaintiffs contend that Balelo leveraged Ohtani’s celebrity status to force these terminations, all while plotting to enrich himself and others associated with the project. In doing so, they say, Ohtani’s camp wrongfully seized control of a real estate venture they had built from scratch, depriving them of millions of dollars in development fees, broker commissions, and anticipated profits.
Legal experts reviewing the case highlight two major claims at the core of the suit: tortious interference and unjust enrichment. Tortious interference occurs when one party intentionally disrupts another’s contractual or business relationship. Unjust enrichment, meanwhile, refers to one party benefiting financially at another’s expense in a manner deemed legally or morally unfair. The plaintiffs argue both apply here and that the project was hijacked from them due to undue influence and intimidation tactics.
Adding to the intrigue, Hayes and Matsumoto allege that Balelo made escalating demands during the project’s planning phase. These demands allegedly included overreaching control, marketing preferences, and access to internal project decision-making. When those demands were met with resistance or skepticism, Balelo is said to have issued threats—allegedly implying that Ohtani would withdraw from the project if his conditions weren’t met. The plaintiffs say this was the beginning of a pressure campaign that ultimately led to their forced exit.
For Hayes, the loss is especially personal. With over 40 years in Hawaii real estate, he claims this project was to be his crowning achievement. For Matsumoto, the loss is deeply professional: she was poised to earn commissions on sales of homes priced around $17.3 million each, which could have resulted in multi-million-dollar earnings. Both now claim they were discarded from the very deal they originated, with no compensation and no opportunity to defend themselves.
The lawsuit also names Kingsbarn Realty Capital, the Las Vegas-based investment firm brought in as a financing partner. The plaintiffs say Kingsbarn capitulated to Ohtani’s camp’s pressure, participating in a scheme that they claim stripped them of their legal and financial stake in the project. In a public response, Kingsbarn called the allegations “completely frivolous and without merit” but did confirm that it had removed Hayes and Matsumoto from the project. Company representatives insisted, however, that the decision was internal and unrelated to outside influence.
Shohei Ohtani has not personally commented on the lawsuit, and neither has Nez Balelo. A representative for CAA, Balelo’s agency, declined to speak on pending litigation. However, statements from attorneys representing the defendants suggest that Ohtani may not have been fully aware of the behind-the-scenes business dealings that led to the plaintiffs’ removal. In fact, court filings from the plaintiffs allege that Balelo may have misrepresented the nature of the terminations even to Ohtani himself, raising the possibility that the athlete’s name and image were being used without full transparency.
This lawsuit marks the second time in recent memory that Ohtani’s inner circle has come under legal scrutiny. Just last year, his former interpreter, Ippei Mizuhara, was sentenced to federal prison for embezzling over $17 million from Ohtani’s personal accounts. While Ohtani was never accused of wrongdoing in that case, it heightened awareness of who represents the athlete in his financial and professional dealings. This new lawsuit may similarly challenge public perceptions of Ohtani’s business partnerships and raise questions about how closely he monitors the business ventures that bear his name.
Beyond the courtroom, the case has sparked debate about the growing trend of celebrity involvement in luxury real estate. Athletes and entertainers frequently lend their name to developments, often as a means of elevating brand cachet and boosting sales. But this case illustrates how such relationships can become fraught with power imbalances and legal risk. When a celebrity’s endorsement carries such outsized influence, critics say, there’s potential for misuse—particularly if the celebrity’s team seeks to push out longtime stakeholders and seize control.
If Hayes and Matsumoto prevail in court, the ruling could have wide-reaching implications for how celebrity endorsements are negotiated in the real estate sector. It could also establish precedent for holding agents and business managers legally accountable when their influence oversteps the bounds of fair business conduct. On the other hand, if the case is dismissed or resolved in favor of the defense, it may reaffirm the discretion of private entities to change direction on internal business deals—even when those deals involve massive sums and reputational stakes.
At its core, the suit is about more than just money. In the filing, the plaintiffs assert that their professional reputations, livelihoods, and legacy projects have been unjustly tarnished. “This is about integrity,” one person familiar with the case said, “and about whether fame and fortune can be used as a shield against accountability.”
As the legal battle proceeds, the project itself—still in early stages of development—remains in limbo. It’s unclear whether Ohtani still plans to purchase one of the luxury homes or build a private training facility there. It’s also uncertain how potential buyers will respond to the controversy, especially those drawn to the project because of Ohtani’s endorsement.
For now, what began as a marquee endorsement for one of Hawaii’s most ambitious residential developments has devolved into a bitter dispute about power, influence, and betrayal. The resolution will likely hinge on evidence presented in court: contracts, emails, recorded calls, and testimony that could reveal whether Balelo used Ohtani’s name as a battering ram to break through contractual barriers—or whether the plaintiffs are exaggerating their claims in a high-profile business fallout.
As the case unfolds, it will be watched closely by real estate professionals, sports agents, and entertainment lawyers alike. Not only because of the sums involved, but because of the deeper questions it raises about who really controls a brand—and what happens when the business of fame collides with the business of building homes.
For Kevin Hayes Sr. and Tomoko Matsumoto, the fight isn’t just for restitution—it’s for recognition of what they see as their rightful role in a dream project hijacked by star power. For Shohei Ohtani, it may be another test of trust: not from fans, but from courts, contracts, and the very people who once sought to build something legendary in his name.
