Title: Law Office of Hagino v. GTE Hawaiian Telephone Company, Inc.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION *** Is a
No. 24610 ag oo
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAEg =

 

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID M. HAGINO, Petitioner-Appellant

GTE HAWAIIAN TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., and TRAVELERS INSURANCE
‘COMPANY, Enployer/Insurance Carrier-Respondent -Appellees

ee

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD
(CASE NO. AB 2000-035 (2-96-17596))

un DISPOSITION
(sy: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

Petitioner-appellent Law Office of David M. Hagino
[hereinafter “Hagino”) appeals from the Labor and Industrial
Relations Appeals Board’s (hereinafter “LIRABY] Septenber 6, 2001
order partially granting Hagino’s request for attorneys’ fees and
costs against GT Hawaiian Telephone Company [hereinafter “GTE").
on appeal, Hagin claims that: (1) the LIRAB erred when it
reduced the requested hourly fee rate from $175/hour to
$125/nour, a rate below that which was previously approved by the
director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations; (2)
the LIRAB erred when it reduced the requested hours from 89.6
hours to 69.1 hours; and (3) the LIRAB erred by failing to adopt
findings of fact or otherwise provide an explanation for its
order.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that the
LIRAB’s September 6, 2001 order fails to provide a sufficient

basis for meaningful review. In order for this court to

aad
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
meaningfully review the arguments presented by the parties on
appeal, the LIRAB's order must either provide a sufficient
explanation or, absent explanation, the LIRAB’s rationale must be
readily apparent from the record. Inasmuch as the LIRAB!s
September 6, 2001 order is devoid of any explanation whatsoever
and we can decipher no readily apparent rationale from the
record, we have no choice but to remand the present matter for
recalculation or further explanation. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the
appeal is taken is vacated, and the matter is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 17, 2006.
on the brief:

pevitioner-sppellant MBE vinan

 

pro se
Reset Otay Bree

Stanford N.J. wanaia

Se asa apeetion ol

GTE Hawaiian Telephone Co., Ine. Goce, tus be

 

* see Ranger Ine, Co. ts tinghay, 103 Hawai" 26, 33, 79 P.34 115,
126 (2003) (*the reasonableness of an expenditure of attorneys’ fees is =

 

matter within the discretion of the circuit court... . land, thus, 8)
Setalled explanation of the raticnale underlying the reduction in attorne,
feet awarded is unnecessary.’ However, th a

ny citang Euiiex v. hone Ind. Goa, 90
Haveli 25, 35, 875 P-2d 114s, 1189 (1998)) (ellipses in original) [alteration

in original) (emphasis supplied); Einley, 90 Hawai'l st 29, 975 P.2d at 1159
(ipholding the trial court's reduction of attorneys’ fees ~~ despite the trial

court's failure to provice an explanation -~ because the reduction was
supported by the record); Mennix v, Polvaran Group Distribution, Ines, 304

F.5d 123, 134 (Ist Cir. 2002); Kassin v, City of Schenectady, 415 F.3d 246,

256 (2nd cir. 2005); Loughner vs Univ of Pittaburan, 260 F.3¢ 173, 178 (3rd
Giz. 2001); in re MRBM, PAL, 408 F.3d 863, 870 (4th Cir. 2005); Schwere v.

Eolicier, 767 F.2d 125, 133-(Sth Cir. 1985); Louisville Black Police Officers
Ga tne, v. city of Louisville, 700 F.2g 268, 273 (eth cir. 1985) Donot v,

Elegant Bath. Led., 17€ F-24399, 409 (7th Cir. 1959);
Pethe Dollamay. Arkansas school Discs, 714 F.24 823, 625-826 (6m Cir,

{S53}; Chalmers t- City of Los Angeles, 796 F.24 1205, 1213 (Sen Cir. 1986);
v 801 Fe2d 1197, 1201 (10th Cir, 1986); Hever
1982)

 

E_Sulliven, 958 F.20 1023, 1035 (11th Ci

 

2