Opinion ID: 2812843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Briefs

Text: In her Opening Brief, Tagupa argued that the district court erred in its Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees. Tagupa contended that the district court granted VIPdesk’s attorney’s fees and costs prematurely, before the merits of the case had been decided and before a prevailing party was properly identified. Tagupa noted that the district court awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to HDCRCP 41(a)(2) and HRS § 607-14.5 (Supp. 2013) even though VIPdesk “cited only rules 7(b) and 41(a)(2) [of the HDCRCP] as the basis for granting attorney’s fees.” Tagupa argued that to award attorney’s fees under HRS § 5 HRS § 607-14.5(b) (Supp. 1999) provides, in relevant part: (b) In determining the award of attorneys’ fees and costs and the amounts to be awarded, the court must find in writing that all or a portion of the claims or defenses made by the party are frivolous and are not reasonably supported by the facts and the law in the civil action. In determining whether claims or defenses are frivolous, the court may consider whether the party alleging that the claims or defenses are frivolous had submitted to the party asserting the claims or defenses a request for their withdrawal as provided in subsection (c). If the court determines that only a portion of the claims or defenses made by the party are frivolous, the court shall determine a reasonable sum for attorneys’ fees and costs in relation to the frivolous claims or defenses. 7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER 607-14.5, the court must find, in writing, that all or a portion of the claims or defenses made by the party were frivolous and not reasonably supported by the facts and the law in the civil action. Tagupa contended that despite the district court’s authority to award attorney’s fees and costs, the fact that she revised her Complaint prior to filing “does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that [her] claim against [VIPdesk] was ‘manifestly and palpably without merit.’” Tagupa stated that her Complaint had been refiled in the federal district court as a FLSA class action and that it was, at that time, pending trial. Tagupa argued that based on the pending nature of the claim in federal court, the district court had no basis to make a determination as to whether her claim was frivolous, and, therefore, the district court abused its discretion in granting attorney’s fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14.5. Tagupa further claimed that the district court was “simply penalizing [Tagupa], a pro se party, for filing her complaint in the wrong court” and that this was not a proper purpose for an award of attorney’s fees. Lastly, Tagupa argued that, as a general rule, each party is responsible for paying his or her own litigation expenses. VIPdesk filed its Answering Brief, which requested that the Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees and Judgment be upheld 8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER and affirmed on appeal. 6 VIPdesk argued that the district court did not err in awarding VIPdesk’s attorney’s fees and costs under HDCRCP Rule 41(a)(2). VIPdesk maintained that in considering a dismissal under HDCRCP Rule 41(a)(2), a trial court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including equitable factors such as prejudice to the parties. VIPdesk contended that courts typically impose costs and attorney’s fees upon the plaintiff in such cases. Thus, VIPdesk argued that the district court was well within its discretion to award VIPdesk’s attorney’s fees and costs under HDCRCP Rule 41(a)(2), based on the record and its findings that VIPdesk should not have to bear the expense of preparing its defense because Tagupa filed in the wrong court. VIPdesk next argued that the district court did not err in awarding VIPdesk’s attorney’s fees and costs under HRS § 607-14.5. VIPdesk noted that the district court satisfied the requirements of HRS § 607-14.5 by making a specific finding that Tagupa’s claim regarding the jurisdiction amount in her Complaint was frivolous under HRS § 607-14.5(b), and VIPdesk asserted that this finding was sufficiently supported by the 6 Tagupa identified the district court’s Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees as the alleged error in this case. Attorney’s fees had previously been awarded by the district court’s June 4, 2013 order granting Tagupa’s motion to dismiss, although no amount had been specified. VIPdesk presented a counterstatement of Tagupa’s point of error: “Whether the [district court] erred in awarding [VIPdesk’s] attorney’s fees and costs.” 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER record because Tagupa admitted that she intentionally reduced the amount of her claim to fall within the jurisdiction of the district court. VIPdesk also argued that the pendency of Tagupa’s federal court claim had no bearing on the issue of attorney’s fees because the Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees “was not based on the merits of [Tagupa’s] FLSA claim but on the ‘jurisdictional amount’ of the claims that she brought in the [district court].” Lastly, VIPdesk contended that even if the district court erred by awarding VIPdesk attorney’s fees and costs under HRS § 607-14.5(b), such error was harmless and did not warrant setting aside the Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees because the district court was within its discretion to award VIPdesk’s attorney’s fees and costs under HDCRCP Rule 41(a)(2).