2009-04-21_County_of_Hawaii_v_Coupe_Family_and_Robert_Nigel_Richards_Opinion_of_the_Supreme_Court_by_Justice_Acoba

Home

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** 1. Attorney Kudo-Chock billed 7.5 hours and $1, 087 . 50 in connection with a Motion to Disburse Deposit. See entries 12/05/07, 12/07/07, and 12/10/07 . 2. Attorney Kupchak billed 1 hour and $335. 00 to review the Motion for release of deposit. See entry 12/07/07 . 3. Attorney Murakami billed 3. 9 hours and $858.00 for "develop issues and strategy for applying for funds deposited with court. " See entry 12/10/07 . in the Response, Appellant answers that " [the] County complains about the inclusion of five entries on the January 2008 invoice denoting work done on a disbursement of deposit funds issue that was not before this [c] ourt" and admits that Appellant "errantly included this time and modifies its request to exclude the $2, 280 . 50 (plus tax) invoiced for that work. " However, it appears that the County' s specific objection to those entries relating to the disbursement issue was merely exemplary of the fact that all fees and costs in the January 2008 bill appear to have been incurred in connection with the circuit court proceedings . For example, many of the entries have to do with "supplemental briefing" regarding the damages issue . To this court' s knowledge, that supplemental briefing was directed at the circuit court . Therefore, it appears that none of the entries in the January bill should be included in the award of fees and costs on appeal . Accordingly, in its Errata Appellant claims that, although the invoice for the January 24 , 2008 bill was attached to its Request, "the lodestar was not just a summary of the charges on the invoices, but was based on entries from January [15] , 2008 to January 20, 2009 . " That would mean that 15