Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/defendant-appellants-motion-for-reconsi-23509/
Timestamp: 2017-03-24 10:25:50
Document Index: 133095507

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101']

County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P'shipDefendant-Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration
Download PDF t #-No. 28822 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal CIVIL NO. 05-1-015K corporation, (Kona) (Condemnation) Plaintiff-Appellee, APPEAL FROM FIRST AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT vs. (iled September 27, 2007) C&J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED THIRD CIRCUIT COURT PARTNERSHIP, Honorable Ronald Ibarra, Judge Defendant-Appellant, or* m and :» It ROBERT NIGEL RICHARDS, TRUSTEE n 7 r*t j:^-e™j--«— UNDER THE MARILYN SUE WILSON Xs» m TRUST; MILES HUGH WILSON, et ai, if1-rcorfo OO Defendants. en COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal CIVIL NO. 00-1-18IK corporation, (Kona) (Condemnation) Plaintiff-Appellee, APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF THE POST-JUDGMENT MOTION OF vs. DEFENDANT C&J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR ROBERT NIGEL RICHARDS, TRUSTEE STATUTORY DAMAGES PURSUANT UNDER THE MARILYN SUE WILSON TO HAW. REV. STAT. § 101-27 (FILED TRUST; C&J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED OCT. 11,2007) PARTNERSHIP; MILES HUGH WILSON, et ah, THIRD CIRCUIT COURT Defendants-Appellants. Honorable Ronald Ibarra, Judge Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=71daa7b1-f768-439c-b9a8-c3e2fabba165* » DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DECLARATION OF ROBERT H. THOMAS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Of Counsel: DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT Attorneys at Law A Law Corporation KENNETH R. KUPCHAK 1085-0 ROBERT H. THOMAS 4610-0 MARK M. MURAKAMI 7342-0 CHRISTI-ANNE H. KUDO CHOCK 8893-0 1600 Pauahi Tower 1003 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 www.hawaiilawyer.com Telephone: (808)531-8031 Facsimile: (808) 533-2242 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant C&J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 217055.1/RHT Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=71daa7b1-f768-439c-b9a8-c3e2fabba165, * No. 28822 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal CIVIL NO. 05-1-015K corporation, (Kona) (Condemnation) Plaintiff-Appellee, CIVIL NO. 00-1-181K (Kona) (Condemnation) vs. C&J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant-Appellant, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Pursuant to Haw. R. App. P. 40, Defendant-Appellant C&J Coupe Family Limited Partnership ("Appellant") respectfully moves the Court to withdraw and reconsider the following portions of its Opinion iled April 21, 2009 ("Opinion"), and to award Appellant an additional $13,045.40 as damages pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat § 101-27 (1993) : 1. Section 101-27 requires payment of "all" damages incurred traceable to a failed condemnation, whether or not County prevailed on an ancillary procedural motion. The Opinion states the Appellant is not entitled to damages associated with the County of Hawaii's ("County") motion to transfer the consolidated appeals rom the Intermediate Court of Appeals to this Court because "the County prevailed" on that motion. See slip op. at 29-30 ("Furthermore, although Appellant protests that the 6/17/08 and 6/24/08 entries 'were incurred in the course of the Condemnation 1 appeal [,]' it appears that those entries had to do with the County's motion to transfer to this court, a motion upon which the County prevailed. Therefore, those entries will also be excluded from the inal amount."). However, liability for a failed or discontinued condemnation is not reduced or excused under section 101 -27 if the condemnor happens to prevail on issues other than whether the property can be finally be taken, or prevails on ancillary procedural motions. The plain language of the statute compels County's liability for "all such damage as may have been Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=71daa7b1-f768-439c-b9a8-c3e2fabba165%* + r sustained by the defendant by reason of the bringing of the proceedings," and liability is not reduced proportionally if it prevails on motions: [A] defendant who would have been entitled to compensation or damages had the property been inally taken, shall be entitled, in such proceedings, to recover from the plaintiff all such damage as may have been sustained by the defendant by reason of the bringing of the proceedings and the possession by the plaintiff of the property concerned if the possession has been awarded including the defendant's costs of court, a reasonable amount to cover attorney's fees paid by the defendant in connection therewith, and other reasonable expenses. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-27 (1993) (emphasis added). Liability was triggered by County's failure to take the property in Condemnation 1, not by whether it prevailed or lost any intermediate motion in the case. Had County not instituted Condemnation 1, Appellant would never have had to oppose a motion to transfer; having failed to take the property, County is liable for all damages, including fees incurred by Appellant opposing a procedural motion on which County prevailed. The damages award should include an additional $292.50 plus $13.78 GET, for a subtotal of $306.28. This amount is based on the entries of 6/17/08 and 6/23/08. See Opinion 35 n.10. 2. Oral argument preparation in Condemnation 1 was allocated to Condemnation 1. The Opinion also notes that Appellant is not entitled to recover damages for time incurred in Condemnation 1 preparing for oral argument (30.6 hours). See slip op. at 30 ("Therefore, because Appellant has failed to argue that the speciic entries regarding supplementing the Record on Appeal and those regarding oral argument are related in their entirety to Condemnation 1, the amounts claimed for those entries are excluded rom the lodestar amount."). Counsel did not split the time entries for oral argument preparation because although the time entries were not expressly labeled as having been incurred in Condemnation 1 exclusively, the time was in fact incurred solely in that case, and the entries were in fact segregated. See Defendant-Appellant's Request for Statutory Damages at 5 n.5 (iled Jan. 20,2009) ("Request"); Defendant-Appellant's Response to Objections re: Request for Statutory Damages at 4 n.4 (iled Feb. 19, 2009). In accounting for attorney time, counsel's accounting system assigns a "client number" to each client, with separate "matter numbers" assigned to each separate case. Ater County instituted Condemnation 2, Counsel established a new, separate "matter number" for that case, and began contemporaneously accounting 217055.1/RHT 2 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=71daa7b1-f768-439c-b9a8-c3e2fabba165* * * * for time incurred in each condemnation case separately, although the cases were consolidated for trial. Appellants separately appealed the separate judgments in Condemnation 1 and Condemnation 2, but the ICA sua sponte consolidated the appeals. Counsel maintained separate "matter numbers55 for each appeal, and recorded time separately. Consequently, individual time entries for Condemnation 1 were recorded only with the actual task performed (i.e., "prepare for oral argument"), since they were recorded exclusively under the Condemnation 1 matter number, and further detail would have been redundant. Thus, the time entries for efforts in Condemnation 1 submitted with the Request were not labeled "prepare for oral argument in Condemnation 1" because counsel's time recordation and accounting system had already separated these time entries from those involving the same task in Condemnation 2. There was no need to segregate on the Request, and the damages award should include an additional $9,923.56 plus $446.56 GET for a subtotal of $10, 370.12. This amount is based on the entries rom 08/26/08 through 10/16/08. See Opinion at 35n.l0. 3. "Defendant's costs of court" are not subject to reasonableness inquiry. The Opinion also rejected the Appellant's request for $2,369.00 in copying costs because Appellant did not "make any argument as to why any additional photocopying costs requested [in addition to briefs and appendices] are reasonable." Slip op. at 25. The opinion concluded "recovery of damages under HRS § 101-27 is subject to reasonableness requirement." See slip op. at 25 ("Appellant's argument again fails to acknowledge that despite what 'actual' costs Appellant may have incurred, recovery of damages under HRS § 101-27 is subject to reasonableness requirement."). The plain language of section 101-27, however, relects that recovery of costs of court as a separate element of damages is not subject to a reasonableness requirement. The statute provides that damages includes "the defendant's costs of court," and in the next phrase separately includes "a reasonable amount to cover attorney's fees paid by the defendant in connection therewith, and other reasonable expenses." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-27 (1993) (emphasis added). This language does not limit costs of court to "a reasonable amount" in the same fashion it limits "attorney's fees paid" and "other expenses." Inclusion of the term "reasonable" to modify two elements of damages, but its omission from the other relects a legislative requirement that all costs of court actually incurred by the property owner are a recoverable. See State v. Villeza, 85 Haw. 258,273,942 P.2d 522, 537 (1997) 217055.l/RHT 3 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=71daa7b1-f768-439c-b9a8-c3e2fabba165* * (where a statute with reference to one subject contains a given provision, the omission of such provision rom a similar statute concerning a related subject is signiicant to show that a different legislative intent existed); Levy v. KimbalU 51 Haw. 540, 544, 465 P.2d 580, 583 (1970) (legislature's omission of language contained in a federal statute when it enacted the Hawaii version must be seen as intentional rather than as an oversight). Full recovery of "the defendant's costs of court" provided for in section 101 -27 is not limited to copying costs for briefs and appendices under Haw. R. App. P. 39, and is not limited to non-extraordinary items. See slip op. at 9 (rules and statutes read in pari materia to avoid conlict, but if conlict arises, specific statute prevails). When it instituted Condemnation 1, County bore the risk of "all such damage" that resulted from that action, including "the defendant's costs of court." The damages award should include an additional $2,369.00. May 1 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, , 2009 Respectfully submitted, DAMO KEY l£ON HASTERT :NNETH R. KUPCHAK ROBERT H. THOMAS MARKM. CHRISTI-ANN&H. KUDO CHOCK Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant C&J COUPE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 217055.1/RHT 4 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=71daa7b1-f768-439c-b9a8-c3e2fabba165