Title: Loman v. Gerber

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

‘++ NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

No. 26527
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'I

ee

ANTON LOMAN, Plaintiff,

MELISSA GERBER, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants.

 

ANTON LOMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

INEZ BUTTERFIELD, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

 

and g

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, 3
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appeliee, 23 x
and ae OF

JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants. 7 38

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO, 02-1-2710)

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Inez Butterfield
(“sutterfield”) appeals and Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appel lant
Anton Loman (“Loman“) cross-eppeals from the first circust
court's! April 8, 2004 amended judgment (“amended judgment”) (1)
in favor of Defendant-Appellee/Cross Appellee City and County of
Honolulu (“the City”) and against Loman and Butterfield, and (2)

in favor of Loman and against Butterfield.

 

+ the Honorable Victoria S. Marks presided.

agama
 

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.
On appeal, Butterfield argues that (1) the circuit
court erred by awarding the City $5,952.21 in costs against
Butterfield inasmuch as the City was not a “prevailing party”
under Hawai'i Arbitration Rules ("HAR") Rules 25? and 26? and (2)

the circuit court erred by assessing Butterfield and the city

 

$15,000.00 each in attorneys’ fees.

On cross-appeal, Loman argues that the circuit court

+ HAR Rule 25 (1999) states as follows:

The Prevailing Party in the Trial De Novor Costs.
(A) The "Prevailing Party” in a trial de novo is the party who (2)
appealed and inproved upon the arbitration award by 308 ot nore,
OF (2) did not sppeai and the appealing party failed to improve
tipon the arbitration award by 308 or more.

Yule, "improve" or “improved” means to increase thi
plaintife or to decrease the auard for the defendant
(®) The “Prevailing Party" under these rules, as defined above, is
Geened the prevailing party unser any statute or rule of court,
Ae such, the prevailing parey is entitied to costs of trial and
all other remedies 25 provided by lav, unless the Court otherwise
direct:

 

  

  

 

> WAR Rute 26 (1995) provides:

Sanctions for failing to prevail in the trial de novo.
(A) After the verdict 1s Feceived and filed, or the court! s
decision rendered in a trial de novo, the trial court may, in ite
Giscretion, impose sanctions, a2 aet forth below, against the noo
rsvailing sarty whose appeal resulted in the trial de novo.

(e)

(a) Reasonable costs and fees other than attorneys” fees)
actually incurred by the party but not otherwise taxable under the
Taw, including, but not Limited to, expert witness fees, travel
costs, and deposition costs:

(2) Costs of jurors:

G) irses not to excess 2

(C) Sanctions Imposed against a plaintiff will be deducted from
any judgment rendered at trial, If the plaintiff does not receive
a judgment in his or her favor or the judgment is insufficient to
pay the sanctions, the plaineit® will pay the ancunt of the
Geficiency. Sanctions imposed aginst s defendant will be added to
ny Juagnent rendered at trial.

‘o) ing sanctions, it sider al

 

 

 

   

 

 

 
 

(OT _FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

 

abused its discretion by awarding him prejudgment interest
accruing from Septenber 24, 2002 rather than from the date of the
accident, May 19, 1998, pursuant to HRS $ 636-16."

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:

 

ite discretion® by

 

(1) The circuit court did not abusi
awarding the City $5,921.21 in costs against Butterfield because

Lomané as well as the City’ can be prevailing parties under the

+ wns § 636-16 (2593) states:

 
 

jarding interest in civil cases, the judge is authorized
ee the commencement date to conform with the

‘the saxbiest

aire ‘and in cases arising by Breach of
Sontract, Te may be the date when the breach first occurred.

 

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

 

+ See Richardson v, Sport Shinko (Waikiki com, 76 Hawai'i 494,
521, 680 e.2d-Tes, 186 (1998) (holding that when reviewing « circuit court's
Gecision to impose Rule 26 sanctions, “the only relevant inquiries are: (1)

 

\ihether the party against whom the sanctions Were isposed is a. ‘non-prevailing
party,’ in the tf1a! de-nove end (2) whether the decision to inpose sanctions
Constituted an abuse of discretion”).

 

 

"sae Rosa vs Johnston, 3 Haw. App. 420, 431, 651 P.24 1228, 1237
(19e2) ("in multiple parties cases, a party may be & losing party visca-vis,
tno other parties.") (citing suothers z, Renander, 2 Haw. App. 400, 633 Pe2d
556 (19611)

‘Our ruling in Molinar v. Schweizer, 95 Hawai'i 331, 22 P.94 998
(2001), sn which we declined to name two prevailing parties does not apply to
the present case.” In Holinaz, we rejected Molinar’s argunent that she was 2
Sprevailing party” under Hace Rule Sta) because this rule is superceded by
Hak Rule 25, which states that the “prevailing party” pursuant to WAR Rule 25
“is deened the prevailing party under
98 Hawal's at 334, 22 F.34 at 961, However, in the BE
Loman falfiil the requirenents of HAR Pole 25 as “prevailing parties” and
either rely on ARCP Rule S4(d) to argue their status

 

 

 

     

 

HAR Rule 25 defines how a party may qualify as a “prevailing
party” regardless of whether the party 1s 2 plaintiff, defendant, co-
Sefendent, oF co-plaintsff. Thus, HAR Rule 25 doss not preclude a co-
Gefendant’ or any ether party from the status of a “prevailing party.”

3
‘+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
plain language of HAR Rule 25;

(2) The circuit court erred by ordering Butterfield to
pay @ total of $30,000.00 in attorneys’ fees, because HAR Rule 26
Limits the sanctions against the non-prevailing party to
$15,000.00 total in attorneys’ fees;

(3) the City and Loman should share the $15,000.00 in

attorneys’ fees in proportion to their work and reasonable rates

 

as calculated under the lodestar doctrine?
(4) The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by
ordering Butterfield to pay prejudgment interest accruing from

Septenber 24, 2002, rather than fron the date of the accident."

 

+ the legislative purpose in establishing the CAAP was to “reduce
delay and cost” and to provide an “alternative to costly and protracted
Litigation." spec. Coan. Rep. No. 88-86, in 1986 Senate Journal Special
Session, at 29. See Kealoha-v. County of Hawai'i, 74 aw. 308, 325-26, 844
Bead 670, 67 y S47 P.24 263 {1993}. HAR Rule 26, which
entorces’ these Objectives, authorizes a trial court to sanction nonprevailing
Parties “shose decision to appeal the arbitration

hove was unre

grounded to sone degree in law or fact.” Aichardschy 76 Hawai'i at S11, 660
Piad'at 166,” HAR Rule 26 1s designed to discourage “incurring further costs
‘and expenses of trial” through "baseless or frivolous sppesis from an
arbitration decision . , « because they prevent proapt and equitable
Fesolutions of actions." “id; Kealoba, 74 Haw. at 326, 844 F.2d at 679.

 

 

   

      

  

+ the “lodestar method” reflects the amount of work done on the
case: the reasonable hourly rate of compensation (in consideration of the
Coamunity's hourly rate) is multiplied by the actual houre worked and then may
bbe adjusted based on the “contingent nature of succes” and "quality of [the]
attorneys’ work.” Montalye ¥. chang, 64 Haw, 245, 358-59, 641 F.2d 1921, 1351
(2982)" (overruled on etner grounds by Chun v. Bd.’ of Trustees of the

4 92 Hawai'i 432, 982 F.2d 127 (2000) (eitatione

 

omitted)

™ this court has previously observed the extent of the trial court's
Giscretion to deny prejudgment interest, as follons:

[ile is clearly within the discretion of the circuit court to deny
Prejudgnent interest where appropriate, for example, where: (1)
the defendant's conduct did not cause any delay in che
proceedings, age “
Haw.°65,] 137, 639 8.20 (10,] 36, (recon, genieg, 74 Haw, 650, 643
Pi2d 144 (1992)]; (2) the plaineige himself has caused or
Teontinved,..)

 

 
 

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

therefore,

IT 15 HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the circuit court's
April 8, 2008 anended judgment with respect to its award of
$30,000 of attorneys’ fees to Loman and the City is vacated and
renanded vith instructions to divide the $15,000.00 in attorneys’
fees between the City and Loman in proportion to their xeasonable
fees and houre, as calculated under the “lodestar method": and
(2) the ekreult court's April 8, 2004 amended judgment is
affizeed in all other respects.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawal'l, December 22, 2007.
on the briets: From
hoy F. Epstein and Carios 0.
Seler-Mese of Epstein & SéecBihat to

Perez-Mesa for Defendant~

 

Appellant /Cross-Appellee Peet OT Radley Our
Inez Butterfield
Yawn © Dubie Ore

 

(continued)

‘contributed to the delay in bringing the action to trial, see
Sehmidt(], 73 Ham. on} ort)
an extraordinary danage award has alré sated
the plaintitt, gee 2es,
295,°788 F.2d 833, 838 (holding that it was an abuse of discretion
for’ the clicust court to auard prejudgnent interest to a treble
Ganages award), recon. denied, 71 law. 664, 839 P.24 899 (1990).

 
 
 

 

Rouge v, Marcos, €9 Hawai'i 91, 153, 9€9 P.2d 1209, 1271 (1998), cecom
Henied, 09 fawai's 91, 969 P.26 1209 (1999) (emphasis added)
Tie have also elaborated that guise recognized that the trial court was
‘to award prejudgment interest:

 

(a) if faute 4
dental of inte:

 

found on the part of the party seeking interest,
ye wil not be considered an abuse of discretion:
(2) if fault is found on the part of the party opposing interest,
an aard of interest. will not be considered an abuse of
lscretion; ana (2) where no fault is found on aither side, the

   

a snging on rar
Teis$ Comp, vs Morld Ins. Cou, 110 Maw, 473, 498, 135 P.3d 62, 107 (2006),
Tecan. denied’ 2006 Haw. LEXIS 462 (2006) (enphasis’ added) -

5
   

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Randall L.K.M. Rosenberg and
Charles E. Mckay of Garcia
Rosenberg & Mckay for
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross~
Appellant Anton Loman

Moana A. Yost, Deputy
Corporation Counsel, for
Defendant ~Appellee/Cross-
Appellee City and County
of Honolulu