Opinion ID: 2789836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Following the publication of our opinion in Gurrobat v. HTH Corp., 133 Hawaii 1, 323 P.3d 792 (2014), PlaintiffAppellee/Cross-Appellant Raymond Gurrobat (“Gurrobat”), individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  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 1 Gurrobat initially requested $555.45 in costs, but withdrew entries totaling $19.90 in his reply memorandum; Gurrobat also put his requested costs at $589.25 at one point, but this appears to be a typographical error. 2  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  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.