ROOSEBELT BALBOA, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
HAWAII CARE AND CLEANING, INC., Defendant.
CIVIL NO. 14-00009 ACK-RLP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JUNE 23, 2015
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANT HAWAII CARE AND CLEANING, INC.'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES1
Before the Court is Defendant Hawaii Care and Cleaning, Inc.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed on May 12, 2015 ("Motion"). ECF No. 40. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition on June 2, 2015. ECF No. 49. Defendant filed its Reply on June 16, 2015. ECF No. 50. After review of the parties' submissions, declarations, exhibits, and the relevant legal authority, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the Motion be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii on December 6,
Page 2
2013, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) withheld wages under Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 388, Hawaii's wage laws; and (3) unjust enrichment. See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiffs, employees of Defendant, alleged that Defendant contracted with Hilton Hawaiian Village Beach Resort & Spa ("Hilton") to provide cleaning services. See ECF No. 1-1 at 7, ECF No. 18 at 2. Plaintiffs alleged that Hilton had an agreement with United Here Local 5 ("Hilton/Union Agreement") that required Hilton's contractors to pay designated wage amounts to its employees. See ECF No. 1-1 at 7. Plaintiffs alleged that pursuant to a services agreement between Hilton and Defendant, Defendant was required to pay to Plaintiffs the minimum wage amounts specified in the Hilton/Union Agreement, but that Defendant failed to pay these amounts. Id. at 7-8.
Defendant removed the case to this court asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185 of the Labor Management Relations Act and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' derivative state law claims. See ECF No. 1 at 4-5. The district court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis of state law on April 28, 2015. See ECF No. 38. Pursuant to the district court's Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Clerk entered judgment in favor of Defendant on April 29, 2015. See ECF No. 39. The present Motion followed.
Page 3
State law governs applications for attorneys' fees in cases where a federal court exercises diversity or supplemental jurisdiction. Lewis v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. C 12-1096 CW, 2014 WL 4953770, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (citing Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under Hawaii law, "[o]rdinarily, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded as damages or costs unless so provided by statute, stipulation, or agreement." Stanford Carr Dev. Corp. v. Unity House, Inc., 141 P.3d 459, 478 (Haw. 2006) (citing Weinberg v. Mauch, 890 P.2d 277, 290 (Haw. 1995)). Here, Defendant requests $162,869.03 in attorneys' fees pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 607-14. Section 607-14 provides that attorneys' fees shall be awarded "in all actions in the nature of assumpsit" and that such fees shall "not exceed twenty-five per cent of the judgment." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14. To award attorneys' fees under Section 607-14, the court must determine whether: (A) the action is in the nature of assumpsit; (B) Defendant is the prevailing party; (C) the fees requested are reasonable; and (D) the fees do not exceed twenty-five percent of the amount sued for. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14.
I. Defendant is Entitled to an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees Under Section 607-14.
A. Action in the Nature of Assumpsit
Page 4
"Assumpsit is a common law form of action which allows for the recovery of damages for the non-performance of a contract, either express or implied, written or verbal, as well as quasi contractual obligations." Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 93 Haw. 1, 5, 994 P.2d 1047, 1051 (2000). Defendant asserts that this entire action is in the nature of assumpsit because Plaintiffs' "[wage law] and unjust enrichment claims are inextricably linked to Plaintiffs' contract claim and the damages that Plaintiffs sought on all claims were essentially contractual." ECF No. 40-1 at 7. Plaintiffs argue that only their breach of contract claim, and not their wage law claim and unjust enrichment claim are actions in the nature of assumpsit. See ECF No. 49 at 8. The Court FINDS that the entire action is in the nature of assumpsit.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant wrongfully withheld wages owed to them because Defendant failed to pay the wages required by its agreement with Hilton. See ECF No. 1-1 at 9. In addition, Plaintiffs alleged that based on Defendant's wrongful withholding of wages, Defendant had been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs. See id. Plaintiffs' wage law and unjust enrichment claims arise from an alleged breach of an agreement, specifically Defendant's agreement with Hilton. Accordingly, the Court finds that these claims are in the nature of assumpsit. See Eckerle v. Deutsche
Page 5
Bank Nat. Trust, No. CIV. 10-00474 SOM, 2012 WL 896266, at *2 (D. Haw. Feb. 21, 2012), adopted by, No. CV 10-00474 SOM-BMK, 2012 WL 896258 (D. Haw. Mar. 14, 2012) (concluding that plaintiff's unjust enrichment, fraud in the inducement, bank fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims were in the nature of assumpsit because the claims arose from an alleged breach of a loan modification agreement); Porter v. Hu, 169 P.3d 994, 1018 (Haw. Ct. App. 2007) (concluding that plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim was an equity action within the realm of assumpsit). The Court FINDS that Defendant is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under Section 607-14 for all of Plaintiffs' claims.
B. Prevailing Party Status
Defendant prevailed on its Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment was entered in its favor. See ECF Nos. 38, 39. Any dismissal that results in judgment is sufficient to support an award for attorneys' fees under Hawaii law. See Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendant is the "prevailing party" for purposes of Section 607-14. See also Blair v. Ing, 31 P.3d 184, 189 (Haw. 2001) ("a defendant who succeeds in obtaining a judgment of dismissal is a prevailing party for the purpose of fees under HRS § 607-14.").
C. Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Page 6
Hawaii courts calculate the reasonableness of attorneys' fees based on a method that is nearly identical to the traditional "lodestar" calculation set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). See DFS Grp. L.P. v. Paiea Props., 131 P.3d 500, 505 (Haw. 2006). Under the lodestar method, the court must determine a reasonable fee by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably expended. See id. 505-06. In addition, the court may consider additional factors including the novelty of the questions involved and charges for similar services in the community. See Chun v. Bd. of Trs. of Emps.' Ret. Sys. of Haw., 106 P.3d 339, 358 (Haw. 2005); Chun v. Bd. of Trs. of Emps.' Ret. Sys. of Haw., 992 P.2d 127, 137 (Haw. 2000). Defendant requests the following attorneys' fees for work performed by its counsel:
|
ATTORNEY
|
HOURS
|
RATE
|
TOTAL
|
| Robert S. Katz, Esq. |
115.60 |
$400 |
$46,240.00 |
| After 7/11/14 |
168.10 |
$450 |
$75,645.00 |
| John S. Mackey, Esq. |
47.90 |
$285 |
$13,651.50 |
| After 7/11/14 |
46.80 |
$300 |
$14,040.00 |
| Kristi K. O'Heron, Esq. |
1.90 |
$265 |
$503.50 |
| Dell M. Nakamura, paralegal |
35.60 |
$150 |
$5,340.00 |
| Margaret A. Kageyama, paralegal |
0.80 |
$150 |
$120.00 |
| SUBTOTAL |
$155,540.00 |
||
