Title: Hawaii Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

00 ---

 

AWAIT VENTURES, LLG, Plaintsff-Appel lant /
Cross-Appellee,

vs. i

(© BUILDING ¢O., LED... formersy

TAKA, INC. ; TAKA
known as Takao Building Development Co., Ltd-7
K.K. KRINT SEVEN, YUKIO TAKAHASHI; HAWAIIAN WAIKIKI
BEACH, INC.; ALAKA'I MECHANICAL CORPORATION; HEWLETT-
PACKARD COMPANY; HAWAII ENERGY MANAGEMENT CO., LLC.,
Defendant s-Appel lees/Cross-Appellants,

and

 

 

 

 

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; BEACH SNACK
EXPRESS, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-51
‘DOE CORPORATIONS 2-50;

DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50;
and DOE GOVERNMENTAL

DOE ENTITIES 1-50
UNITS 1-50, Defendants,

 

and
ILWU LOCAL 142 AFL-CIO, and THEODORE H. SMYTH,
‘Trustee, SNYTH FAMILY TRUSTS, Intervenor
Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
and

 

ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor
Defendant -Appellee/Cross-Appellee,
and
INC.,

OTAKA, INC. and HAWAIIAN WAIKIKI BEACH,
Counterclaimants-Appel lees/Cross-Appellants,

LEUCADIA NATIONAL CORPORATION,
Additional Counterclaim Defendant

 

 

O34
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

PATRICIA KIM PARK, Receiver-Appellee/Cross-Appellee.

 

No. 26820
HAWAII VENTURES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee,

OTAKA, INC.; TAKAO BUILDING CO., LTD., formerly
known as Takao Building Development Co., Ltd.
K.K. KAINI SEVEN, YUKIO TAKAHASHI; EAWATIAN WAIKIKI
BEACH, INC., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appeliees/
Cross-Appellants,

 

 

and

ALAKA'I MECHANICAL CORPORATION; HEWLETT-PACKARD

COMPANY; BUSINESS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. ; BEACH SNACK

EXPRESS, INC.; and HAWAII ENERGY MANAGEMENT CO., LLC.,
Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees,

and
JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50;

DOE CORPORATIONS 2-50; DOE ENTITIES 1-50; and
‘DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50, Defendants,

 

and

THEODORE H. SMYTH, Trustee, SMYTH FAMILY TRUSTS,
Intervenor Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellante/
Cross-Appellees,

 

and
LMU LOCAL 142 AFL-CIO and ARGONAUT INSURANCE
COMPANY, Intervencr Defendants-Appe!lees/
Cross-Appellees/Cross-Appellant,
and

OTAKA, INC. and HAWAIIAN WAIKIKI BEACH, INC.,
Counterclaimants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees,

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

LEUCADIA NATIONAL CORPORATION, Additional counterclaim
‘Defendant -Appellee/Cross-Appellee.

 

 

PATRICIA KIM PARK, Receiver-Appellee/Cross-Appelle:

 

FORMER EMPLOYEES OF HAWAIIAN WAIKIKI BEACH HOTEL,
Party In Interest-Appellee/Cross-Appellee/Cross-Appellant .

 

 

NOS. 25344 & 26820

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES AND COSTS
(CIV. No. 00-1-2427)

November 23, 2007

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

‘AMENDED OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.
on June 1, 2007, receiver-appellee/cross- appellee
Patricia Kim Park (hereinafter, the Receiver or Receiver Park]
timely filed a request for reimbursement of fees and costs*
incurred by her and her retained professionals on appeal in this

forecleeure/receivership case. For the reasons discussed herein,

» awed Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 39(8) (2) (2007)
provides in relevant part that "[a] request for fees and costs cr necessary
mist be filed with the appellate clerk . no later

the notion for reconsideration has been decided.
denying the sotione for reccnsideration of thie court's May 8,
Consolidated publishes opinion, filed by defendant -appeliee /er
Sppeilee/crose-appeliant International Longshore and warehouse Union, Local
ME, AFL-Cio {1LMU) and party dn interest -appel lant /cross-appellee/ezoss.
appellant Former Enployese cf the Hawaiian Nalkiki Beach Hotel (ene Forrer
Employees), wae entered on June 5, 2007,

 

       

 

  

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

we grant in part and deny in part Receiver Park’s request for

fees and costs.

 

BACKGROUND
Briefly stated, this consolidated appeal arose out of

the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s administration of the

 

foreclosure proceedings of a certain real property, previously
known as the Hawaiian Waikiki Beach Hotel (hereinafter, the Hotel
or Estate], which administration included, inter alia, the

appointments of (1) Receiver Park to manage the Hotel pending the

 

foreclosure sale, (2) a commissioner to conduct the sale, and

(3) a special master to review Receiver Park's work, and the
ultimate distribution of the Hotel proceeds to interested
parties, as well as discharge of Receiver Park from her duties
and responsibilities. Appeals and cross-appeals were filed by
numerous parties, challenging actions taken by the Receiver and
approved by the circuit court.? on May 9, 2007, this court

issued its consolidated published opinion (the opinion) ,

4 Specifically, the parties to appeal No. 25344 included: (3)
plaintitt-eppellant/cross-appeliee Hawaii Ventures, LLC (hereinafter, Hevaii
Ventures or the Lender); (2) ILMU (on behalf of 220 nenbere-enpicyees employed
by the Hotel) ; (3) cefendante-appellees/cross-appellees/crocs”
appellante/counterciainants-appellees craks, Inc. (Otaka) sd Nawal iat
Beach, Inc. (HB); and (4) efendants-appeliees/cross appellees /crose
appellants Takse Building co., Ltd., formerly known ap Takao SUsléing
Development Co., Ltd. (Takao Bullding!, Kok. Daini Seven (KK. Dalai’, and
Yukio Takahashi’ thereinafter, the parties ‘named in (3) and (4) ere

tively referred to as the Otaka Defendants). Appeal No. 36620 involved
ine parties as in appeal No. 25344, with the addition of the Former
Enployees. (consisted of seventy-eignt former bargaining ané son.
employees). Intervencr defendant -appeliee/erce
Theodore H. snyth of the Smyth + Trustee s5yth)
which owe a substant fon of the land on which the Hotel site, wae alo
2 party in appeal No. however, Trustee Suyth’s cross sppesl wes
eventually éienisees.

 

vasa

 

 

 

      

 

     

  

   

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

“affirm[ing], in all respect, the circuit court’s August 24, 2004
second amended final judgment,” except that this court

(2) vacated “the awards of fees [to the Receiver and her
professionals] reflected in [certain of] the circuit court
orders’ and remanded the fee orders to the circuit court “for
clarification and, if necessary, a redetermination of the amount”
and (2) dismissed the “Former Employees’ cro
standing." Hawaii Ventures, 1iC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai'i 438,
506-07, 164 P.34 696, 764-65 (2007).”

 

appeal for want of

In her request for fees and costs, Receiver Park

erts that she and her retained professionals are entitled to

 

fees and costs pursuant to HRAP Rule 39, Hawai'i Revised statutes
(HRS) § 607-9 (1993), the circuit court's August 24, 2000 order
appointing the Receiver (the appointment order), and general
receivership principles, discussed infra. Specifically, Receiver
Park seeks fees in the amount of $80,935.77 (which amount
includes $3,485.02 in general excise tax) and costs in the amount

of $372.10 incurred by her and her professionals on appeal for a

) thie court alec vacated an order granting Hawaii Ventures’ noticn for
the circuit

 
  
 

$254,787.00 (which the epecsa and. KB
fo Hawaii Ventures) should be included in the deficiency Judsment; and (2) for
entry of an anensed deficiency judgrent that ineluges the aferenent ioned
Snount in favor of Havaii Ventures and against Otake ang HAD. Ia

 

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

total request of $81,307.87, to be taxed acainst the sstate and
paid from the $150,000.00 reserve held by the circuit court.*
on July 2, 2007, Hawaii Ventures timely filed ite

memorandum in opposition,* arguing that Receiver Park has not met
her burden of showing entitlenent to fees from the Estate and
that, therefore, the request for fees should be denied in its
entirety. However, in apparent recognition of the possibility
that thie court may not agree with its position, Hawaii Ventures
alternatively challenges certain services performed by Receiver
Park and her professionals as inappropriate for reimbursement

from the Esta

 

Additionally, Hawaii Ventures contends that the
request for costs should be denied to the extent that "messenger
fees" is not a chargeable item. On July 9, 2007, Receiver Park

timely f1led her reply to Hawaii Ventures’ objections, discussed

Anza.

+ Ae stated in the Opinion, the elreuit court, in distributing the
Betate proceeds, specifically reserved $250,000.00 to be held in an interest-
bearing account for further feee and coste. 114 Hawai'i at 455, 164 Pod at

+ BRAP Rule 39(4) (4) provides in relevant part that “lolbjections to

requests fer fees and costs must be filed with the sppellate clerk

within 10 daye after service on the party against whom the fees and costs are

to be taxedi.]" WRAP Rule 2€(c) (2007), however, indicates that, *[wlhesever

party 19 required or permitted to do an act within a prescribed tine after

Service of 2 paper, and she paper i & a
"(ephesia added.) The request for fees and

Gosts was serves upcn, inter alia, Havaii Ventures wia first class posta) mai]

 

 

 

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

1. Entitlement to Fi

 

As previously stated, Receiver Park believes that she
and her retained professionals are entitled to appellate fees
pursuant to HRAP Rule 39, the appointment order, and general

Hawaii Ventures, however, contends that

 

eivership principl

 

the Receiver and her professionals have already been “fairly
compensated" and, therefore, “should not be awarded any
additional amounts from the Estate for the work done in this
appeal." Consequently, Hawaii Ventures argues that Receiver Park
has not met her burden of showing entitlement to fees on appeal.

“ordinarily, attorneys’ fees cannot be awarded as
damages or costs unless 80 provided by statute, stipulation, or
agreement.* Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai'i 327, 329, 31 P.3d 164, 186
(2001) (citation ané internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed,
RAP Rule 39() provides that:

fees and cost
13 and verifies
‘statenent of

A party who desires an award of

   

 

Bil of fees and costs, together with

Suthority for each category of items ané, where appropriate,

Copies of invoices, bills, vouchers, and receipte. + A
: © card “8

feen_and costa or neceasary expenses will remit in-ceniel

(Emphasis added.)

 

 

   

 

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

 

In the appointment order, the circuit court determined

that the Receiver and her professionals‘ were entitled to
reasonable compensation and out-of-pocket expenses for the
performance of their duties, which included

institut (199), prosecut (ing) and defendtingl,
conpronis ingl adjust Ling). incerveniag] tn or becon{ing]
sparey to such actions of proceedings in state or federal
Court te the Receiver nay ip the Neceiver's ressonable
Stdgnent deen necessary or proper for the managesent,
drotection, care, maintenance or preservation of the’ Betate
SF the carrying Su of the Receivers duties under the terns
Of thle order, including sumary poss

Shetieseed against tenant

 

 

    

Property.
Hawaii Ventures, LIC, 114 Hawai'i at 460, 164 P.3d at 718
(original brackets omitted). Specifically, the appointment order

 

provided that

‘The fees and costs of the Receiver and the Receiver’
attorneys, sccountante and other professionals, f any,
Shall be cubmitted to the [elourc fer ite approval, it the
form of either a request(s) for feee upon which « hearing ie
held andor a stipulation(s) among all parties tose

 

   

 

 

Id. (brackets in original) (emphasis added).

«the appointnent order authorized Receiver Fark to “employ counsel,
accountants and other professionals with respect to the Receiver" power
Guties and authority herein.” Hawaii Ventures, LLC, 114 Hawall at 460, 164
Pis@at 718. specifically,

 

 

Receiver Park retained the services of various professional
fat her in the operation and nanagenent of the Hote:
(2) Kevching Ring (from the law firs of Ning. Lilly
«a8 the Receiver's general 1ege2 count
iaie'Tom of Ken Som Realty, LLC). ae gem
and accounting advisor: (3) Lorraine W.”akibs
counsel for envivonnentel issues; (a) Robert §. Hatt (of
Torkildeon, Hate, Fonsece, Nore & Hetherington), ae special
Counsel for labor iesues; and (S) Ernest Watar! and h
accounting firm -- PAF Hawaii, LLP (PMP), a8 consultant and

 

 
   
      

   

     

 

   

Ads at 478, 264 Pode at 745.

 
 

*** FOR PUBLICATION
in West's Hawai‘i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

However, Hawaii Ventures argues that the appointment
order did not explicitly provide for fees on appeal, and, thus,

fees should not be allowed. in its view, denial of the

 

Receiver’s request for fees is

 

 

fan appropriate result because the Receiver and her
profersionsis) vere already paid in excess of $400,000.00
For their work at the cireust court level. They should not
be svarded an additional $60,000.00 for spending significant
Snounts of tine briefing legal issues on sppesl that they
had handled below.

 

 

In response, Receiver Park maintains that “[t]he Receiver and her

 

professionals . . . have only been awarded their fees and costs
for work done at the circuit court level; they have not yet been
awarded fees and costs for work done at the appellate level."

Receiver Park points out that she

had co file briefe at the appellate level in order to defend
against unfounded allegations mainly mace by Hawaii

Ventures. This [clourt acknowledged thet the appointment
order expressly suthorizea Receiver Park to defend such
fctions cr proceedings in state or federal court a5 she
Scened necessary or proper for the protection of the Estate.
This [clourt also stated that the cost of defending against
Unfounded allegations nay properly be deened receivership
expenses payable out of the estate. Therefore, the Receiver
hd ner professionals should be (and deserve to be) fairly
Compensated for thie necessary work.

(internal quotation marks, citations to the oj

 

 

  

ion, and original
ellipses and brackets omitted.)

Preliminarily, we note that Hawaii Ventures’ reliance

upon Schreiber v. Ditch Road Investors, 105 Cal. App. 34 675
(cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1980), and Melikian v, Aguila, Ltd., 63 cal.

App. 4th 1364 (Cel. Diet. Ct. App. 1998), in support of ite
contention that, because the appointment order did not

specifically provide for fees on appeal, none should be granted,

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

is misplaced. In Schreiber, the appointment order, unlike the

 

one here, did not authorize the receiver to employ counsel or

other prof

 

ionale and did not provide for their compensation.
105 Cal. App. 34 at 676. By separate order, more than two years
after the issuance of the appointment order, the trial court
granted the receiver's application for authority to employ
attorneys “with regard to the final accounting, any objections
thereto, and any related matters pertaining to the disposition of
the proceeds of the receivership estate." Id, at 681. Then,
over a year later, the trial court, again by separate order,
directed the plaintiffs to pay the receiver's attorneys’ fees
Id. at 679, After successfully defending an appeal teken by one
of the creditors, the receiver requested fees incurred on appeal,
which the appellate court denied. In so doing, the appellate
court reasoned that:

Pursuant to ite authority to order payment of the f
counsel for the receiver, the court, in [a separate)
order. .-. directed plaintiffs to pay such feee for
services of receiver's attorneys rendered through October
30, 1978 ithe date of the hearing on objectione to
receiver's final account]. That order ie silent regarding
allowance of fees to receiver's attorneys for their services

in the event of an appeel; however, the sinute order which
wat the basis for the [separatel order... stated: -excent

of

 

 

cific owas
award of attorney's fees to any party or to the receiver ig

allowed or ordered robe paid.”
Id, at 681 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Thus, the court

 

relied upon the par set by the separate fee order, not on
any omission in the appointment order, as well as on other

revealing indicators in the record, including the specific,

-10-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Limiting language of the minute order. Although the court was
not disposed to make an award of fees in that case, it observed
that it "may make an award of fees for the services of a
receiver's counsel rendered on appeal." Id, (citing People v.
Riverside Univ,, 111 Cal. Rptr. 68, 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973)
“IW]e do not intend to preclude the receiver from seeking

additional fees for compensable services rendered by him

 

subsequent to the date of the order from which he appeals. in
this connection it is to be noted that the cost of defending
against an unfounded challenge to a receiver's account is

regarded sary expense incurred in the course of his

 

 

official duties for which he is entitled to reimbursement out of
the estate." (Citation omitted.)).

Likewise, in Melikian, the appellate court did not deny
the receiver his requested fees for the services rendered on
appeal based upon the fact that the eppointnent order was silent
as to fees on appeal. Rather, the court, although recognizing
that it could make an avard of fees to the receiver for work done
on appeal, declined to do so inasmuch as the receiver had

walready been awarded a total fee substantially in excess of an

 

ordinary fee." 63 Cal. App. 4th at 1368. However, in that case,

the only issue on appeal that relate to the receiver was the

 

trial court's alleged abuse of discretion in a @ the
receiver any fee greater than his hourly rate. 1d, Thus, the
receiver's involvement in the appeal related solely to the

sae
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

defense of his fees. As this court concluded in the opinion,

 

such fees are not compensable:

   

Rot entitled to recover fet expen
Ifeagation involving the propriety Cf the
fees to be svarded to them because - .- the law imposes on
a party the duty to pay her own fees and expenses in

n

 

 

  

114 Hawas‘i at 497, 164 P.34 at 755 (internal quotation marks
citation, original brackets, and ellipsis omitted).

In this case, the sppointment order placed no
Limitations on what fees and costs (trial and/or appellate) may
or may not be awarded. In fact, as indicated in the circuit
court's second amended final judgment, filed on August 24, 2004,
the $150,000.00 reserve was set aside specifically “for further

fees and costs to the Receiver . . . in light of anticipated

 

" Moreover, as stated in the Opinion,

 

appeals in this ca

“[blecause it is not practical for the court to do the physical

 

work in connection with taking the possession of and preserving
the property, the court appoints its officer or receiver to act.
Id. at 458, 164 P.3d at 716 (internal quotation marks, citations,
and original brackets omitted). in other words, a receiver is an
officer of the court, whose task is to aseist the court in

managing the estate during the pendency of the foreclosure

action. Id, at 486, 164 P.3d at 744. Consequently,

<12-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporte

 

creceivers have a right to compensation for their services
and expenses. ven though receiver may not have increased
or prevented a decrease in the velue of the collateral, if 3
Feceiver reasonably and diligently lecharges her duties

she is entitied to compensation." 65 Az. Jur. 24 Receivers:
§ 219 at 603 (footnotes omitted); gee also Gaskill ve
Gorden, 27 F.34 248, 253 (Teh Cir. 1594) (same) The
Feceiver bears the burden of proof to show entitlenest to
paysent in the snount clained, 2 Clark, A Treatise on the

au and Practice of Receivers § 641(f) at 103711
Id. at 489-90, 164 P.3d at 747-48 (original brackets omitted) .

 

 

 

‘This court further stated that a receiver

a
services res:

generally entitled to compensation fzon the estate for
red in protecting the estece. fee, e.a.,
Exch. Comm'n v. Elliott, 963 7.20 1seo, i877 {zen Cir~
$352) (Even though a receiver may not have increased, oF
prevented # decrease in, the Value of the collateral, if a
Feceiver reasonably and diligently discharges her dutie
the ia entitied to compensation.” (Citations omieted.1)

 

 

 

Id, at 497, 164 P.34 at 755 (original brackets omitted) .

 

Indeed, as one court, in granting the receive:

 

appellate attorney's fees, recognized,
Ia) receiver 4 an officer of the court, and 1s entitled to
Htasonable compensation, including » ressonsble sum for
attorney's ‘The avard ia Tot made on # "prevailing
party" basis, sithcugh the results obtained in the
Fepresentation can be consicered in determining the snount
of the fee award.

Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Ingrassia, 562 So. 2d 728, 721 (Fla.

Dist. Ct. App. 1990). Similarly, a commentator observed tha:

 

 

 

when a receiver appeals # case for the benefit of the
creditors, they should bear tne expense thereat. The
Feceiver is under no obligation to undertake a cuit or
action for the Benefit of the receivership estate at his own
Gost. It has been held that{,] when an appeal is taken by
the veceiver ..- , costs cn appeal are to be paid cut of
svailable'to pay the claims of all che general

 

 

 

2 Ralph Ewing Clerk, A Treatise on the Law and Practice of
Receivere § 640.8 at 1088 (3d ed. 1959) (footnotes omitted) .

‘Therefore, as long as the receiver’s actions were necessary to

-13-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

preserve the receivership property and were authorized by the
appointment order, she is entitled to compensation for her work.
See 65 Am. Jur. 2d Receivers § 215 at 806 (2001) (*A receiver is,
broadly speaking, entitled to allowances from the corpus of the

estate for costs incurred by him or her in actions involving the

 

protection or the enforcenent of rights of the eatate.").
Accordingly, Hawaii Ventures’ argument that the Receiver should
not be avarded fees based upon the appointment order's silence
with respect to appellate fees is without merit. We now turn to
Hawaii Ventures’ specific challenges relating to certain charged
items.
2. Hawaii Ventures’ specific challenges

Hawaii Ventures contends that the Receiver and her
professionals should net be awarded additional fees from the
Estate because “[t]his receivership was not administered as
economically as reasonably possible." Hawaii Ventures also
argues that fees should not be awarded for (1) briefing the
issues raised by ILWU and the Former Employees ané (2) defending
the Receivers conduct during the receivership. Lastly, Hawaii
Ventures asserts that fees cannot be awarded based on generalized
descriptions, and, thus, "the Receiver has not fulfilled her
burden of showing entitlement to any amount of fees." We address

each contention in turn.

 
 

* FOR PUBLICATION ***
i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

Hawaii Ventures contends that, because “[t]his
receivership was not administered aé econonically as reasonably
possible,“ compensation is inappropriate. However, as the
Receiver points out, we rejected this argunent, in large part, in
our opinion.

We determined that the Receiver was correct in making
most of her paynents, such as her decision to pay the Hotel
employees wages earned the week before her appointment and allow
the employees to use vacation benefite earned prior to her
receivership. 114 Hawai'i at 465, 164 P.3d at 723. We also
rejected Hawaii Ventures’ challenges to the special master’s
report and concluded that the circuit court properly approved the
special master’s report. Id, at 475-76, 16 P.3d at 733-37. In
his report, the special master found that, although (in his view)
the Receiver should not have paid certain pre-receivership
Lisbilities, “euch disputed payments do not rise to the level of
‘bad faith’ or ‘fraud’* on the part of the Receiver. 1d, at 477,
264 P.3d at 735 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
Furthernore, thie court declined to surcharge the Receiver, as

tof

 

requested by Hawaii Ventures, for her alleged misnanager
the Estate. In fact, we announced -- for the first time -- that

absolute judicial inmunity should apply to court-appointed

 

receivers. Id. at 486-87, 164 P.3d at 744-45. Accordingly,

-15-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

Hawaii Ventures’ argunent is without merit inasmuch as this court

has already spoken with regard to the Receivers conduct in this

 

b. briefing issues raised by ii and the Former
Employees

Hawaii Ventures asserts that:

The Receiver chose to incur fees for the (ILMU's) and
[ene Forner] Employees" iseue the Receiver should not
be auarded such fees against [iawall Ventures] and from the
Becate for auch work:

   

Virtually all of the Torkiieon fet
te the [TMU] "=

 

of $31,170.73 were incurred in reepondis

Sppeal and (the Forser] Employees’ sppest
‘Sone of (che) Ming fees were similarly

incurred in response to the [ILMU's] and [the Former!

 

 

 

Here, even though tine was spent by the attorneys, fees
shouid'not be svarded from the Setate for work in connection
with the (ILMU's] and [the Former] Employees’ ser

 

 

Initially, we note that, on direct appeal, Hawaii Ventures
presented a similar argument, ice,, that the Receiver should not
be compensated for any work done in relaticn to the TLNU and the
Former Bnployees. 114 Hawai'i at 493, 164 7.34 at 751. However,
this court rejected Hawaii Ventures’ contention, holding that,
“thlad ehe not done [ac she did], the Receiver could very well
have exposed the Estate to additional liability.” Id. at 494,
164 P.3d at 752.

In appeal No. 25344, the ILNU primarily asserted that
Receiver Park should have paid all of the menbers-enployees’
vacation end severance benefits due and owing at the date of
termination, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement,

which included pre-receivership wages and benefite. Id, at 499,

-26-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

164 P.3d at 757. In appeal No. 26820, the ILNU raised the sane
challenge as in appeal No. 25364, whereas the Forner Employees
eosentially argued that they should have been granted leave to
sue the Receiver for wages and benefite. Id. at $04, 164 P.3d at
762. The Receiver submitted briefs explaining why the circuit
court correctly denied their claims and why there was no basis
for sustaining their cross-appeals. In sun, the Receiver had no
choice but to file anowering briefs in order to protect the

Estate from further liabilities.

 

iad the Receiver not expended
her tine to respond to the allegations of the parties and defend
her decisions made during the receivership, she would have risked
exposing the Estate to additional burdens were this court to have
found merit in those allegations. Therefore, Hawaii Ventures’

contention that Receiver Park and her professionals should not be
compensated for work done in connection with the ILMU's and the

Former Employees’ cross-appeals is unavailing.’

* mawaid Ventures alto argues that the ILMU and the Former Employees
should bear the Burden of the Receiver's and her professionals’ fees because
the iW and the Porser Employees "were the cause of most of the time spent by
the Receiver’s attorneys, and neither the [LMU] nor the [Forner] Employees
prevailed on the issues raised in their respect ive. appes jainet the
Receiver." Me cisagree. The ZLMU's and the Forver Employees’ cross appeals
Solely concerned the ietve of vacation and severance pay allegedly cued to the
former Hotel employees. Contrary to Hawaii Ventures’ contention, *nost of the
Eine" spent by Receiver Fark and her professionals were in response to Hawaii
fegetions against the Recesver in her operation of the
igs the special master in nie review of the Receiver’
performances, The najcrity of the 144-typewritten pages of the Opinion was
Epent acsressing Savaii Ventures’ contentions. for example, from pages 3
through €0, hie court addressed Hawaii Ventures’ argurente ae they related to
the Heceiver's final report; from pages 61 to 75, this court addrereed Havas!
Yentures’ content ione relating to the special master's report, pages 79 to 225
related to the request to surcharge the Receiver and challenges to Both the
Beceiver's and the specisl master's fee. Tne ILaU's cross-appeal wes Linited
(continued. =)

     

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

-17-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai‘i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

c. defending the Receiver’s conduct
Hawaii Ventures, relying upon Tanner v, Ledington, 513
So. 24 255, 256 (Fla, Dist. Ct. App. 2987), contenda that the

iionals should not be awarded fees for

 

Receiver and her profe
briefing issues “for the purpose of defending the Receiver’ s
conduct." However, in concluding such argunent had no merit,

this court noted in the Opinion:

 

Im Tanner, the Florida District Court of Appeals reversed an
award of attorney's fees and costs to 6 receiver because the
receiver

Sncurred fees and costs in defending her own
actions (, Lie, for negligence and Bresch of
Hduetary duty.) a5 the receiver. Any benefit
Gerived from the legal services performed at
[the receiver's) benest accrued to her
individually and not to the estate

 

Ad. st 256 (citing Sundale Assoca., Ltd. v, woore, 481 60.24
Sto (ria. oiee. ce. App. i986). "in tum, the Singale
court held that the triei court lacked suthority to.

the receiver attorney's fees and expences for the de
ongoing actions rought by a party against her personally,
Concluding that the fee did hot rise out of the
Feceiverchip and could not in any way have benefitted the
receivership estate. 16, at 1301. Here, Hevaii Ventures
faile to indicate the action or actions in unich the.
Receiver incurred fees and costs in defending herself. we
Gan only speculate that Hawaii Ventures’ argument concerns
the Rectiver's and her professionals’ work in addressing the
parties’ objections to her final report. Nonetheless, we
Indicated eariier that "[t)he cost of defending sgainat
unfounded allegations nay properly be deened receivership
expenses payable out of the estate. Gizsbera v. Katz, €19
ide S85, 998 (wash. Ct. App. 2980) (citation omitted). The
Special Master did not believe Receiver Park acted in bad
faith, Absent from the record is any indication that the
circuit court found Receiver Park violated her apposntnent
order, breached her duties, or negligently managed the
Estate. In fact, the circuit court approves the special

 

   

of

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

*. continued)
to pages 125 to 124, and the Forver Enployees’ cross-appeal was addressed fron
pages 155 to 242. Thus, based upon wawail Ventures’ own rationale, it shoule
Bear moet of the Receiver’s and ier professionals’ fees, Nonethelese, ae
stated above, the $250,000.00 reserve was specifically eet aside for the
purpose of compensating Feceiver rark and her professionals fer any additional
yervices Fendered after the receivership.

 

   

 

-16-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai‘i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

Master's conclusion of no bad faith and refused to surcharge
Che Receiver, Accordingly, Hawaii Ventures’ argument 18
wienoue erie,

 

114 Hawai'i at 498 n.31, 164 P.3d at 756 0.31. Likewise, we
rejected all of Hawaii Ventures’ allegations against the Receiver
-+ including those concerning Receiver Park's mismanagement of
the Estate -- except for the single issue pertaining to fees
incurred in the preparation and defense of the fee applications.
Indeed, this court extended the absolute judicial immunity to the
Receiver, a8 a court-appointed officer, and declined to hold her
personally liable. Id. at 486-87, 166 P34 at 744-45. As such,
Receiver Park's and her professionals’ fees incurred in defending

unfounded allegations” should “properly be deened receivership

 

expenses payable out of the estate.” Ginsberg, 619 P.2d at 998.
Hawaii Ventures’ contention, therefore, is without merit.

d. generalized descriptions
u

 

tly, Hawaii Ventures believes that the invoices

 

attached to the Receiver's request for fees and costs

 

(2) constitute "block billing,” i.e,, “lumping multiple tasks
into a single entry of time,” Cadena v, Pacesetter Corp., 224
F.3d 1203, 1214 (10th Cir, 2000), and (2) are replete with
general descriptions, e.¢., "3/24/2003 Begin drafting answering

brief" and "3/28/2003 Continue drafting anewering brief, review

research." Hawaii Ventures, therefore, maintains that

-19-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

At ie not possible to deternine hew much tine wae epent for
avparticuler leave of porpose. Without such a breakdown,
the Receiver has not net her borden of showing entitiencst
toan sara, and no fees may be awarded.

 

(Bmphasis added.) More specifically, Hawaii Ventures argues that

the Receiver cannot be avarded fees for tine spent in the
appeal researching, briefing and defending the circuit
court's avard of feer to the Receiver snd her professionale
[fnereinafter, the defense of fees tssve)].. The
Geceriptions Teflect generalizes charges for working on =
brief, without specifying the ieeves involved. Ae tt is not
possible to deternine based on the submissions which

entries, or how much of each entry, pertained to this
purpose, the Receiver bas not fuifilied her burden of
Showing entitiesent to any amount of

 

 

 

 

 

In retort, Receiver Park argues that Hawaii Ventures’ arguments

are too general and, therefore, insufficient to oppose her

 

request for fe

Iiayaii ventures] merely complains that it is unclear how
much tine was spent on particular issues or tasks, provides
Some exanples cf work and {ine entries for which it believes
it should not be charged, but faile to provide « specific
calculation of the munerie anount it should sot be cnarged
Based on each specific entry it believes to be unjustified.
Instead, it leaves tais up to the [clourt to figure cut

‘The phrase "block billing” “refers to the time-keeping

   

   

method by which each lawyer and legal assietant enters the total
daily time spent working on a case, rather than itemizing the
time expended on specific tasks.’ Robinson v. City of Bénong,
260 F.3d 1275, 1264 st n.9 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation
narks and citation oitted). This practice can make it
impossible for the court te determine the reasonableness of the

sk. Ag the Robinson court stated, “the use

 

hours spent cn each

of billing practices that camouflage the work a laxyer does

ise suspicions about whether all

 

naturally and quite correc!

-20-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

the work claimed wae actually accomplished or whether it was

   

Ad, at 1284, Another court opined that

 

necessary

 

nike vague or generic tank entries, block billing entri
26 not slways suffer from inadequate deccription. Their

Autivities lumped together ia «tingle entry with ne

at ine wae a Te ste
Feview of These entries, the {elourt vas left to approximate
the amount cf tize which should be allocated to each task
Eannot Setermine with a high degree of certainty, ae it
CNthat the billings are reasonable

Cobell v, Norton, 407 F. Supp. 24 240, 159 (D.D.C. 2005)

(internal quotation marks, citations, original brackets and

 

 

    

 

ellipsis omitted) (enphasie added) .* Bearing the foregoing

principle in mind, we address Hawaii Ventures’ specific

 

of “block-billing,” the Cobell court
cxanplee!

Im demonstrating the
the following eatri

 

    

cheview recent decisions including
PSU.St; continue revieions of interim Telie®; telcos with
Baupiianse, Holt ane Peregoy ve. sane.” (10.0 houre)
(@ingole = ovly 31, 2996)) "Meet Keith and Rick to prepare
for Zim atcorey necting; meet IM attorneys at NARP; meet
Dan Press, candy Harrie at office; meet Keith for follow-up
RU HARP[s] calle Co Dennis and Dany leJalie to Milfred
Gleghorn, graf Cleghorn blo for complaint; review old.”
(sive houra) (Peregey = Dune 6, 2996); *Dratt briefs;
Enalize research and redo laches section; provide coments
for statutes of limitations; confer generally re: cane w/
SP, BG ete." (2) howre) (Harper - August 19, 1998) [.)

 

 

 

  

407 F. Supp. 26 at 259-60. The court also cbeerved that:

courts confronted with petitions containing block tine
Entries have responded ina variety of ways. seve, after
SGnciuéing they are unable to determine the appropriate
Snount attribetable to che conversations or conferences
Jacking identifying subject matter, have simply voided the
entive tine entrice billed ae block time, Ochers have
Sheertaken cone attenpt to adjust the fee award in an effort
io reflect an apperticnnent. At least one court geveloped
Ehe'Sevel approach cf Gisalioving entries of thvee cr mere
Reure that contein four or nore taeke or entries of three or
Sore hours that contain evo oF nore tasks -- if one of those
Toeke of then [eic) coulé have taken anyshere from @ snail
teva substantial amount of tine =

     

 

 

 

 

 

{t 260 (internal quotation marke and citations omitted)

 

-21-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

contention that, because the submitted entries are too general,

devoted to the

 

it ie not possible to determine how much tine w
defense of fees issue, which Hawaii Ventures contends ie not
compensable.

Preliminarily, we observe that Hawaii Ventures

rts that the Receiver and her professionals are not

 

correctly

tion for work performed in relation to the

 

entitled to compen:

defense of fees issue, We atated in the Opinion that, although a
receiver is generally entitled to compensation from the estate

for services rendered in protecting the estate,

vers are not entitled to

 

several courte have held that rect
Fecover fees and expences associated with litigation
Involving the propriety of the fees to be avarded to thes
because, se the Unived states Cosrt Of Appesis for the Taird
Circuit explained, “she law imposes on a party the duty co
pay (her) own fee and expenses in vindicating [her]
Personal incereste Te ie our understanding that

‘Fvices necessarily divelved in preparing [fee) application
fol the district court and defending then there are. pot
compensable. 1
Soo rvae (833, Sse tise cis de7oh Ty te 4054
NakL, ings, 432 F.2d 232, 239 (ad Cir. 1970) ("time not
legally compenesble (includes) that spent in applying for or
indefending interin fee avarde") (footnote omitted) Seth
ine F.Supp. 450. (S-D, Tex. i574) (holding that &
*Trleceiver's preparation for and attendance at hearings on
the fees will hot be considered in setting [her] fee") In

, 289 °F. Supp. 712, 718 (D. Conn. 1968)

Tiowance for tine charged’ for preparing the
fee application) +
Tank Force, ince’ #0 ota’ 1058, 088 (Cole, Ce~ Apps ast)
(conclusing chat the services rendered in defending the
receiver's fee request were of bo benefit to the eatate ~~
"the services rendered were for che sole benefit of the
fiduciary ard ite counsel").

   

 

 

 

  

 

{aenyin:
Ervatee:

 

 

 

324 Hawai'i at 497-98, 164 P.3d at 755-56. Consequently, we
remanded the circuit court’s ordere awarding fees to the Receiver

and her professionals for a redetermination inasmuch as the

-22-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

Receiver’s “fee applications included fees relating to the

preparation and defense of the charged fees, which are not

 

chargeable against the Estate and should not have been considered
in awarding fees.” Id, at 798, 164 P.34 at 756. Likewise,
appellate fees incurred by the Receiver and her professionals in
defending the awards of fees by the circuit court should not be
charged to the Estate. See algo City of Detroit v. Grinnell
Corp., 560 F.2d 1093 (24 Cir, 1997) (holding that efforts by
plaintiff's attorneys in defending the fee application in the
district court and on appeal benefitted the attorneys, but did
not “create, increase, protect, or preserve" the class‘ fund),
abrogated on other crounds by Goldbercer v. Integrated Res
Ing., 209 F.3d 43 (24 Cir. 2000).

 

This court has previously stated that “[t]he receiver
bears the burden of proof to show entitlement to payment in the
amount claimed.” Hawaii Ventures, LLC, 114 Hawai'i at 490, 164
sf, Inge Attomey's Fees of
Mohr, 97 Hawai'i 1, 5, 32 P.3d 647, 651 (2002) (under ERS § 802-5

 

P.3d at 748 (citation onitted)

(supp. 2006) (relating to compensation for counsel for indigent

defendant), "requests for fees should be granted if the court

 

certifies that the requesting attorney has set his or her burden
to prove that the fees requested are for hours expended and that

the houre expended were ‘reasonable’ for the services rendered”) ;

Smothers v. Renander, 2 Haw. App. 400, 400, 633 P.2d 556, 558
(1961) (under HRS § 607-14, “[a] party seeking attorney's fees

-23-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

has the burden to show that the fees are reasonable and that the

 

fees are for services reasonably and necessarily incurred"). We

 

now examine whether the invoices submitted by Receiver Park
include charges relating to the defense of fees issue, which, as
stated above, are not compensable.

As previously noted, appeal Nos. 25344 and 26820 were
consolidated, and a single opinion was issued by this court on
May 9, 2007. In appeal No. 25344, Hawaii Ventures appealed from
the circuit court's August 22, 2002 interlocutory order that
approved the Receiver’s final report, as well as three other
related interlocutory orders. Haws tures, LUC, 114 Hawai'i
at 448, 164 P.3d at 706. During the pendency of appeal No.
25344, the circuit court resolved all issues in the underlying
foreclosure action, resulting in entry of a final judgment
‘Thus, in appeal No. 26820, Hawaii Ventures appealed from the
August 24, 2004 second amended final judgment, challenging, inter
alia, the circuit court’s grant of fees to the Receiver and her
professionals. Id. In other words, the defense of fees issue

was first raised in Hawaii Ventures’ opening brief, filed in

 

appeal No. 26820, on January 24, 2005. Consequently, we believe

that services rendered by the Receiver and her professionale
prior to January 24, 2005 are compensable inasmuch as they do not

include the defe:

 

© of fees issue.

In this case, Receiver Park submitted, along with her

 

 

et for fees and coete, invoices prepared by the law firme of

 

-24-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Ning, Lilly & Jones and Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Moore &
Hetherington, as well as those prepared by the Receiver herself.
specifically, of the requested $60,935.77, the law firm of Ning,
Lilly & Jones seeks reinbursenent of $49,235.06; the law firm of
Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Moore & Hetherington seeks $31,170.37;

and Receiver Park seeks $530.34. The invoict

 

attached to the
Receiver’s request for fees and costs revealed that pre-Janvary

24, 2008 charg

 

totaled (1) $12,858.63 for Ning, Lilly & Jones,
and (2) $9,884.78 for Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Moore &
Hetherington. Receiver Park's invoice does not contain any entry
that predated January 24, 2005.

With respect to post-January 24, 2005 entries, a review
of the Ning, Lilly & Jones’ invoice demonstrates the possibility
that charges relating to the defense of fees issue could have
been included in the entries. we further observe that certain
entries in the Ning, Lilly & Jones’ invoice could arguably be
deemed “block billing." For example:

ae

02/22/05 | aR | conferences with Xathy regarding | 5.9 | $125.00
‘changing/confsmming £12593

 

  

a =a

   

  

nese

 

 

$737.50,

Geadiine; e-nail/phone call to
Jeff Harris regarding tiling
Geadiines and hie participation;
ork on eide-by-eide compariscn
Chart; discussion with Val Kato
regarding orgenizaion

 

 

 

 

 

 

-25-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***

in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

DATE

wow | esscnvian [wan] parce

vane

 

03/23/05

13K

Work on brief (review chrough 5.2
Grate of brief and review

Pleadings for citations to the
Fecord); conference Jil] Rasnov
regarding payment issue and
review files regarding cbjection
fo 8/01 payments and order
Fegarding sane and conference
Sith JLT Raznov regerding
Endings

 

 

 

$75.00

$390.00

 

03/22/05

“Read Xe-Ching Wing's corrections | 3.2
fo draft of anewering brief!

Fearafe decusent; conference with
Ke-Ching Ning recarding standare
Of review and “tones of answering
brief; conference with Kethy V.
regarding briefs in Forgey and
pending appesie cases to give Ke-
Ching Ning for review

$125.00

$387.50

 

03/23/05

‘Conference with xathy V regarding | 4.5
brief to give Ke-Ching Wing for
Feview in pending and Forgsy
appesis cases and different iating
the two sppeaie; continue to
rearafe sneering brie!
Conference with Fe-Ching Ning
regarding TLWU's and the Forner

Employees’ Briefe

 

$225.00

$562.50

 

(0470205,

 

 

 

Research case lew cited incur | 7.6

brief; reerite standard of

review; work on th Graft of

anewering brief; send to Patricia
research it cases cited in

ii Ventures! brief

 

     

 

 

125.00

 

950.00

 

In addition to the aforementioned defect, Ning, Lilly & Jones

provides little or no reference to the substance of the work

claimed.

Entries auch

 

“Begin drafting answering brief";

“Read appeal briefs and our draft responees*; ‘Research and

revise answe

 

9 brief";

 

brief” are so vaguely generic that it is impossible to

1g brief; conference with Ronald Ton regarding

“Meeting with P. Park regarding answering

distinguieh, in light of the circumstances in this case, between

-26-

 
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

compensable and non-conpensable claims. Because the defense of
fees issue was only one of the many issues addressed by Receiver
Park in retort to Hawaii Ventures’ appeal, we cannot effectively

termine, without a further breakdown of the entries, the amount

 

of time attributable to the non-compensable issue. Such
determination is necessary in order to calculate the amount of
dieallowed versus allowable fees for the law firm of Ning, Lilly

& Jones. Accordingly, the Receiver fails to carry her burden of

 

proving Ning, Lilly & Jones’ entitlement to the post-January 24,
2005 fees.

similarly, a review of Receiver Park's invoice reveals
that three of the four entries (e.a., "read drafte of briefe*;
“telephone call to Ms. Raznov on brief*; and “enail to Mr. Kamida
on typos in brief’) are not sufficiently deseriptive such that an

apportionnent can be made as to the amount of time expended on

 

issues other than the defense of fees issue. In fact, the fourth
entzy appears to charge for work relating to the Receiver’s
defense of fees issue -- “conference with Steve Jones and Ms.
Raznov on fee renand[, as @ result of this court’s opinicn].
consequently, we are compelled to conclude that the Receiver
fails to carry her burden of proving her entitlement to the
requested fees.

By contrast, the majority of the post-January 24, 2005

 

entries in the invoices of Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Moore &
Hetherington contains specific descriptions, identifying the

-27-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

jue researched or worked on. The entries contained

 

particular i

in these invoices sufficiently documented the hours devoted to
the various tasks; for example, the April 15, 2005 invoice

reveals the following entries:

03/20/05 | caK | Review Opening Briefe of Mavai! Ventures Lic, | €.0
Otaks, Ine., IMU Local 142, and Eeployees

(4:00); research on payment of vacation and

severance ny receiver (2-0)

 

 

 

03/13/08 | caK | Research on ERIGA preaption of TLW's and 375
Former Employees’ Clains for vacation and

severance (2-0); research on proof required

dn standard of review of sotion for leave

fue Receiver (1.75)

 

 

  

 

03/24/05 | cax | Review opening briefs of IuMU toca) 142 and 6.25
Former Employees (2.50); research on.

cited by IuvU (1.50); review docunente

Fecord on appeal in preparation for drafting

Answering Brief (2.25)

   

 

 

03/18/05 | caK | outtine of TL¥U's and Former Employees’ pointe | 6.75
on appeals and general responses (2-50);
Feseareh (including LEXIS computerized
Ferearch) on cases discussing liability of
receiver after discharge and whether appeal ie
noctea by change in circumstances oF
Gistribution of funds from receivership estate
(40); drafe letter to ke-Ching Ning regarding
appeals (1.25),

03/29/05 | cak | Research (including LEXIS research) on 7-00
standard of review for stay of sppeale (1.0);
Tesearch (including LEXIS research) on
application of RCP 62 20 sppesie of
Heceivership ordere (2.0); additional research
(neluding Lexis research) on LRA Section 302
preemption as applied to employee cleine for
Unpaid vacation or severance (1-26); draft
Answering Brief to TLWU's Opening Brief (2.75_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As such, a reasonably accurate determination can be made

regarding allowable fees, i.e,, those not attributable to the

 

yt most of the

 

defense of fees issue. The invoices reveal th

work (ise., $16,768.54) rendered by

 

post-January 24, 20

-26-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

‘Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Moore & Hetherington was related to

 

the ILwu's and/or the Forner Employees’ cross-sppeals.
Consequently, we hold that Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Moore &
Hetherington be awarded an additional $16,768.54 in fees for

post-January 24, 2005 service

 

In light of the aforementioned discussion, we award:
(2) Ning, Lilly & Jones fees in the amount of $12,558.63 for pre-
January 24, 2005 work; and (2) Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Moore &
Hetherington fees in the amount of $26,653.32 ($9,884.78 for
pre-January 24, 2005 fees + $16,768.54 for post-January 24, 2005
fees). We, however, decline to grant Receiver Park's request for
her own fees.
B. Request for Costs

‘The Receiver seeks $372.10 for costs incurred by the

law firm of Ning, Lilly & Jones on appeal, which included:

 

7M 5 cannes

 

Printing/copying of briet/appendices $282.30

(2696 pages @ $.10/page plue 4.7128 oT)?

 

 

ger services $49.00

(20 delivery stops X 66-49 each)

 

 

 

 

TOTAL $372.30

 

Hawaii Ventures, however, argues that “$69.80 in messenger fees

are part of the firm's overhead costs and are not chargeable."

 

+ pursuant to the Janvary 18, 2002 order granting Receiver Park
interim fee application, the circuit court ssplenented 2 guideline, unieh
iheludee that only “€.16 ie allowed per page for in-house copying.*

     

-29-
 

** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Receiver Park does not address Hawaii Ventures’ contention in her

reply nemorandum,

HRAP Rule 39(c) defines costs in the appellate court

(2) the cost of the original and one copy of the reporter's
Granseripte if necessary for the determination of the
appeal; (2) the preniune paid for eupersedeas bonds or other
Bonés to preserve rights pending appeal; (2) the fee for
Filing the appeal; (a) tne cost of printing of otherwise
producing necessary copies of brieft and appendices,
Brovides chet copying coste shall net exceed 20 [eeits] per
Pager (5) necessary postage, costs of facsimiles, interstate
Eeavel, long distance telephone charges; and (6) any other

 

 

   

(Emphasis added.) Although the plain language of HRAP Rule 29(c)

expressly restricts reimbursable costs to specific items, it also

indicates that costs may include those “authorized by statute or

rule."

(Emphasis added.) HRS § 607-5 provides that:

No other costs of court shall be charged in any court
in addition to those prescribed in thie chapter in any ult,
action, of other preceeding, except ae cthereise provided by
Saw.

but cea
ko, intrastate travel expenses for witnesses and counsel
Supenses for deposition transcript originals and copies, and

, aneluging copying costs,

fnerastate long distance Celephone charges, and postage,
2 2 ‘ened ie
Eetermining whether and what costs should be taxed” the
court may consider the equities of the situation

 

 

(Brphases added.) However, in Kikuchi v. Brown, 110 Hawai'i 204,

130 P.3d 1069 (App. 2006), the Intermediate Court of Appeals

(ICA) expressed that

neseenger fees for the routine task of celivering (e
party's docunents to court |] i¢ categorically outside the
Eeneept of "costs."

‘Generally (i overhead office expen
shat an attorney regularly incurs regardless of specific
Sitigation, ineluding telephone charges, in-house delivery
charges, in-house phetocopying, check processing, nevepaper
subscriptions, and in-house paralegal ané secretarial

 

, namely expe:

   

 

 

-30-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

assistance, are not recoverable as costs of Litigation
Such overhead refers naialy to fixed expenses which are,

therefore, lresdy reflected in an attorney's heurly rate:
Ane result, they should not be apportioned to any single
Cause of action so ae to constitute an saditional charge”

 

Td. at 212, 130 P.3d at 1077 (citations omitted). ‘The ICA
further observed that, *[o]aly when such expenses are
extraordinary in terms of voluse and costs, £.¢., in class action
suits requiring extensive mailing or voluminous copying, should
they be recoverable.” id. at 213, 130 P.34 at 1078 (citation
omitted). Consequently, the ICA announced that it

viewled) the function of delivering docurents, as a general
proposition, akin to the other tasks perforned by support
Rtafe. we are avare that gone firme hire support start
chose responsibilities include the delivery snd Tetrieval of
Socusente while other firea subscribe to an outside eervice
{operform thie fonction. The fact that, by ves

thit function, 1t 1s poseible to identify oF sllocal
Goat ateribucable to s particular case aces not change the
ature of the task. The filing end delivery of legal
Gocunents if essential to the provision of legal services
Gnd must be considered & part of the delivery of those
Services. Thue, except in the Fare circumstance shere the
heed ins particular cece is extraordinary in ite volune or
Bature, the cost of thie function... ie treated ae
Srerbesd

dei see also Buscher v. Boning, 114 Hawai'i 202, 222-23, 159

 

     

 

p.3¢ 814, 634-35 (2007) (awarding messenger service costs because
plaintiff's attorneys were on C'ahu, while the case was being
tried in the third circuit (Kona Division) on the island of
Hawaii)

Inasmuch as this case does not fall within the “rare
cixcumstance” that would render messenger services chargeable as
costs, Receiver Park is not entitled to reimbursement of $69.80
in messenger fees. However, in light of the fact that Hawaii
Ventures makes no other cbjections with regard to the remainder

-31-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

a
of the request for costs, the Receiver should be awarded those

 

costs, totaling $262.30 for photocopying services. Hone v.
Takeuchi. 88 Hawai'i 46, 53, 961 P.2d 621, 618 (2998) (*Unlese
there is a specific objection to an expense item, the court
ordinarily should approve the item.* (Citation and interna
quotation marks omitted.)); Blair y, Ing, 9€ Hawai'i 327, 235, 32
P.3d 184, 192 (2002)

 

tating that, “[iJn the absence of

 

opposition [regarding the reasonableness of cost], we presume
the . . . costs were reasonable").
TIT. concuuston

Based on the foregoing, we grant in part and deny in

 

part Receiver Park's request for fees and costs, filed on June
19, 2007. Specifically, Receiver Park's request for fees is
denied in all respects, except that (1) the law firm of Ning,
Lilly & Jones is awarded fees in the amount of $12,556.63 and
(2) the low firm of Torkildson, Katz, Fonseca, Moore &
Hetherington is awarded fees in the amount of $26,653.32. The

Receiver’s request for costs is granted in part in the amount of

: Spi
ff
Katz Fonseca Jaffee Moore & Plana ToL De

Hetherington), for Receiver

Patricia Kim Park, on the
request

Gorm €. Duy dy.

-32-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Stephen K. C. Mau, Susan Tius,
J. Stephen Street (of Rush
Moore, LLP), for Hawaii
Ventures, LIC, in opposition

Attorneys of record:

Sheryl L. Nicholson and
Pamela W. Bunn (of Paul

Johnson Park & Niles), for
Otaka, Inc., Hawaiian’ Waikiki
Beach, Inc., Takao Building Co.,
Led., K. K. Daini Seven, and
Yukio Takahashi

Herbert R. Takahashi, Stanford
H. Masui, Danny J. Vasconcelos,
and Rebecca L. Covert, for

TLWU Local 142, AFL-CIO

Francie P. Hogan and Mi Yung C.
Park (of Ashford & Wriston),

for Theodore H. Smyth, Trustee

of the Smyth Family Trusts, and
karl V. Willig, Special Litigation
Trustee of the Smyth Family Trust

Robert P. Miller, for Former
Employees of Hawaiian Waikiki
Beach Hotel

No. 28344 & 26820 Hawaii Ventures v, Oteka, Inc. -- Amended
opinion of the Court by Moon, C.J. re: request for fees and
costs

-33-