2009-02-02_County_of_Hawaii_v_Coupe_Family_and_Robert_Nigel_Richards_-_Memorandum_in_Opposition_to_Defendant-Appellant's_Request_for_Statutory_Damages

Home

plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount even where the plaintiff's claims were interrelated, nonfrivolous, and raised in good faith.' (emphasis added). In addition, in Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawaii 408, 44445, 32 P.3d 52, 88-89 (2001), the Hawaii Supreme Court remanded and directed the trial court to engage in a Hensley analysis to determine whether it was reasonable to award attorney's fees for the entire time spent on the case, noting that time spent on unsuccessful claims unrelated to the plaintiffs successful claims could not be part of any award of" `reasonable attorney's fees' under Hawaii fee-shifting statutes."Schefke, 96 Hawaii at 445, 32 P.3d at 89. The court directed that the trial court "consider whether Plaintiffs successful and unsuccessful claims `involved a ` common core of facts or were based on related legal theories,' Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933[.]"Schefke, 96 Hawaii at 445, 32 P.3d at 89 (brackets omitted). In this case, Coupe sought appeal on three points and prevailed on two out of the three. However, the abatement point that Coupe did not prevail on was a point that Coupe discussed extensively in its briefs. Moreover, the abatement issue is totally unrelated and do not involve I the same common core of facts or legal theories to the HRS § 101-27 statutory damages issue or the pretext public purpose issue. Therefore, all of the attorneys' fees expended on the abatement i issue should be excluded. In addition, those billings that are not clear enough to identify what issue they relate to should be excluded because Coupe has the burden of proving any entitlement to reimbursement for attorneys' fees and cost. 1 I 5