noted that settlements would actually be discouraged by a rule stating that a dismissal with prejudice of a nonconsent-ing defendant was a favorable termination even if the dismissal was a condition of settlement with the other defendants. Id. The California courts have recognized that the public policy favoring settlements “would be ill-served by a rule which would virtually compel the plaintiff to continue his litigation in order to place himself in the best posture for defense of a malicious prosecution action.” Id. (citing Oprian v. Goldrich, Kest & Assoc., 220 Cal.App.3d 337, 269 Cal.Rptr. 429, 433 (1990)). This court concludes that the Hawaii Supreme Court would likely follow the California reasoning. See Wailua Assoc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 183 F.R.D. 550, 563-64 (D.Haw.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kim, 121
holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law recognizing that california has a valid interest in protecting a california company from copyright infringement recognizing that federal courts are bound by pronouncements of the california supreme court on applicable state law recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired recognizing that the hawaii supreme court has in the past looked to california for guidance on tort law