Gurrobat v. HTH Corp., SCAP–12–0000764.
| Decision Date | 27 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. SCAP–12–0000764.,SCAP–12–0000764. |
| Citation | 135 Hawai'i 128,346 P.3d 197 |
| Parties | Raymond GURROBAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner/Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant, v. HTH CORPORATION; Pacific Beach Corporation, Respondents/Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
135 Hawai'i 128
346 P.3d 197
Raymond GURROBAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner/Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant,
v.
HTH CORPORATION; Pacific Beach Corporation, Respondents/Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees.
No. SCAP–12–0000764.
Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.
March 27, 2015.
James J. Bickerton, and Stephen M. Tannenbaum, Honolulu, for petitioner.
Jeffrey H.K. Sia, Diane W. Wong, Honolulu, and Brandon H. Ito, for respondents.
RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, and WILSON, JJ.
Opinion of the Court by McKENNA, J.
I. Introduction
Following the publication of our opinion in Gurrobat v. HTH Corp., 133 Hawai‘i 1, 323 P.3d 792 (2014), Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant Raymond Gurrobat ("Gurrobat"), individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, requested that we award him attorneys' fees and costs for his appeal and cross-appeal, and provide for interest on the judgment. Gurrobat bases his request for fees and costs on Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure ("HRAP") Rule 39 (2007), and on the fee shifting provisions found in Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") §§ 388–11(c) (Supp. 1999) and 480–13(a) (2008). He bases his request for interest on HRAP Rule 37 (2000). In total, Gurrobat requests an award of attorneys' fees based on a lodestar of $90,422.50 and enhanced based on a multiplier to be determined by the court, 4.712% general excise tax on the awarded fees, $535.55 in costs,1 and an award of post judgment interest on the damages affirmed in our opinion.
Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees HTH Corp. and Pacific Beach Corp. ("Defendants") acknowledge that Gurrobat is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under HRS § 388–11(c) for prevailing on their appeal, but contend he is not entitled to fees and costs under HRS § 480–13(a)(1) for his successful cross-appeal. In addition, Defendants oppose many individual time entries in Gurrobat's fee request as being vague and/or block billed. Defendants also claim that any fees awarded should be subject to a downward adjustment of thirty percent because the key issue underlying Defendants' appeal was largely decided by this court in Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., 130 Hawai‘i 130, 306 P.3d 175 (2013). Defendants oppose all but $18.85 of Gurrobat's costs requested on various grounds. Finally, Defendants assert that an award of interest should be denied as premature, and is better left to the discretion of the trial court.
We hold that Gurrobat is entitled to attorneys' fees for both the appeal and cross-appeal, in the amount of $84,032.50, plus $3,959.61 in general excise tax. We also award costs in the amount of $435.55. In addition, we hold Defendants jointly and severally liable for the payment of Gurrobat's attorneys' fees and costs. Finally, we hold that post judgment interest is not appropriate under the circumstances of this case.
II. Background
Gurrobat filed a class action complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit ("circuit court"), asserting claims for damages under both Hawaii's wage laws, HRS §§ 388–6 (1993) and 388–10 (Supp.1999), and under Hawaii's unfair methods of competition ("UMOC") provisions, HRS §§ 480–2(e) (2008) and 480–13(a). Gurrobat, 133 Hawai‘i at 3, 323 P.3d at 794. The lawsuit was based on Defendants' violations of HRS § 481B–14 (2008) for charging customers of the Pacific Beach Hotel and the Pagoda Hotel service charges without fully disclosing to customers that the charges were not entirely being distributed to nonmanagerial service employees. Id.
The circuit court ultimately granted summary judgment for Gurrobat on the wage law claims, awarded $1,678,783 in damages, and held Defendants jointly and severally liable for the damages. 133 Hawai‘i at 10, 323 P.3d at 801. The circuit court, however, granted summary judgment for Defendants on the UMOC claims. 133 Hawai‘i at 3, 323 P.3d at 794. Defendants appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment on the wage law claims; Gurrobat cross-appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment on the UMOC claims. 133 Hawai‘i at 4, 323 P.3d at 795.
This court accepted a discretionary transfer from the Intermediate Court of Appeals pursuant to HRS § 602–58(b)(1) (Supp.2011). On February 25, 2014, we issued our opinion in Gurrobat, 133 Hawai‘i 1, 323 P.3d 792 ("Opinion"). The Opinion (1) affirmed the circuit court's order granting Gurrobat's motion for class certification; (2) affirmed the
circuit court's grant of summary judgment as to the unpaid wages under HRS Chapter 388; and (3) affirmed in part the award of damages as to the HRS Chapter 388 claim. 133 Hawai‘i at 23, 323 P.3d at 814. We vacated, however, the portion of the grant of summary judgment as to damages under HRS Chapter 388 that imposed joint and several liability on Defendants and remanded for further proceedings to properly apportion damages between Defendants.2 Id. The Opinion further held that the circuit court erred in granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the UMOC claims, and that Gurrobat had established the necessary elements to recover damages under HRS §§ 480–2 and 480–13 for violations of HRS § 481B–14. 133 Hawai‘i at 23–24, 323 P.3d at 814–15. We therefore vacated the circuit court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Gurrobat's UMOC claim, and remanded the claim to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion. 133 Hawai‘i at 24, 323 P.3d at 815.
Gurrobat then timely filed a "Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Provision of Interest." Defendants filed a Memorandum in Opposition; Gurrobat filed a Reply. We denied the motion without prejudice because it did not substantially comply with HRAP Form 8. Gurrobat then filed a compliant First Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Provision of Interest ("Motion"). Following a substitution of counsel, Defendants filed a new Memorandum in Opposition ("Opposition") on July 28, 2014 that raised objections not found in the prior opposition.3 Gurrobat then filed a new Reply Memorandum ("Reply").
III. Attorneys' Fees and Costs
A. Availability of Attorneys' Fees
The "American Rule" provides that each party is normally responsible for paying his or her attorneys' fees. Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai‘i 408, 444, 32 P.3d 52, 88 (2001). Attorneys' fees are only, therefore, "chargeable against the opposing party when so authorized by statute, rule of court, agreement, stipulation, or precedent." Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai‘i 19, 32, 936 P.2d 655, 668 (1997) (citation omitted).
Gurrobat's attorneys' fees request is based on several statutes. Gurrobat asserted claims based on Defendants' violation of Hawaii's hotel or restaurant service charge law, HRS § 481B–14. HRS § 481B–4 deems violations of Chapter 481B to be "unfair method[s] of competition ... within the meaning of section 480–2." HRS 480–13(a), in turn, provides a private cause of action for those injured by violations of Chapter 480. In addition, we have held that employees harmed by violations of HRS § 481B–4 may bring actions to enforce their rights and seek remedies under HRS § 388–11. See Villon, 130 Hawai‘i at 132–33, 306 P.3d at 177–78.
Gurrobat therefore bases his request for attorneys' fees on the statutory fee shifting provisions found in HRS §§ 388–11(c) and 480–13(a). Defendants acknowledge that Gurrobat is entitled to fees under the former, but claim that fees are not available under the latter under the circumstances of this case.
Defendants' objections are based on their reading of the text of these two statutes, so we begin with a comparison.
HRS § 388–11(c) reads, in relevant part:
The court in any action brought under this section shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow interest of six per cent per year from the date the wages were due, costs of action, including costs of fees of any nature, and reasonable attorney's fees, to be paid by the defendant....
HRS § 480–13(a)(1) reads, in relevant part:
[A]ny person who is injured in the person's business or property by reason of anything forbidden or declared unlawful by this chapter ... [m]ay sue for damages sustained by the person, and, if the judgment is for the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be awarded a sum not less than $1,000 or threefold damages by the plaintiff sustained, whichever sum is the greater, and reasonable attorney's fees together with the costs of suit....
Defendants essentially argue that HRS § 480–13(a) allows for attorneys' fees on appeal only when the trial court decision appealed from resulted in a final judgment for the plaintiff. The circuit court issued a judgment that was for Gurrobat on his HRS...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gurrobat v. HTH Corp.
...128346 P.3d 197Raymond GURROBAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner/Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellantv.HTH CORPORATION; Pacific Beach Corporation, Respondents/Defendants–Appellants/Cross–Appellees.No. SCAP–12–0000764.Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.March 27, 2......