Laserfiche WebLink
***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** <br /> October 9/3/08 MMM Develop and . 20 Consolidation <br /> 21, 2008 Strengthen is not a <br /> Arguments re damage issue <br /> consolidation <br /> and damages <br /> 9/30/08 MMM Abatement . 70 County <br /> Issues prevailed on <br /> RHT Research for 1 . 00 Abatement <br /> Abatement Issue <br /> November 10/1/08 MMM Research and . 40 County <br /> 14, 2008 Review of prevailed on <br /> Record of Abatement <br /> Appeal Issue <br /> regarding <br /> Abatement <br /> Additionally, the County claims that " [i] n billings dated May 22, <br /> June 25, July 23, August 21, and October 21, a substantial amount <br /> of time was spent in supplementing the Record on Appeal, and <br /> there is no clear indication that that time was solely spent for <br /> the damages issue [ ; a] nd in billings dated October 21 and <br /> November 14, 2008, a substantial amount of time by two attorneys <br /> was recorded for the preparation and presentation of oral <br /> argument without identifying the specific amount of time spent <br /> for the damage issue . " Therefore, the County argues that the <br /> "billings that is [sic] not clear enough to identify what issue <br /> they relate to should be excluded because [Appellant] has the <br /> burden of proving any entitlement to reimbursement for attorneys' <br /> fees and costs . " <br /> Appellant maintains in its Errata that its audit <br /> "identified entries that require correction in the original <br /> request" and that the "new lodestar, as supported by the attached <br /> 28 <br />