Gurrobat v. HTH Corporation., 346 P.3d 197

Background

Plaintiff Raymond Gurrobat brought a class action alleging defendants HTH Corp. and Pacific Beach Corp. violated HRS § 481B-14 by charging service fees without disclosing that amounts were not fully distributed to non-managerial service employees; claims included wage-law violations (HRS Ch. 388) and UMOC/antitrust-type claims (HRS Ch. 480).
The trial court granted summary judgment for Gurrobat on the Chapter 388 wage claims (awarding $1,678,783) but granted summary judgment for defendants on the Chapter 480 UMOC claim.
Both sides appealed: defendants appealed the Chapter 388 ruling; Gurrobat cross-appealed the Chapter 480 ruling. This Court affirmed certification and most holdings, vacated the joint-and-several liability portion of damages, and reversed the grant of summary judgment on the UMOC claim, remanding for damages and apportionment.
After this Court’s opinion, Gurrobat sought appellate attorneys’ fees, costs, tax, and post-judgment interest based on HRS §§ 388-11(c) and 480-13(a), HRAP Rules 39 and 37, and requested lodestar-based fees with a multiplier.
The Court (1) held Gurrobat entitled to appellate fees under both statutes, (2) approved a lodestar award of $84,032.50 plus 4.712% general excise tax ($3,959.61), (3) awarded costs of $435.55 (denying some trial-court-related fees without prejudice), (4) held defendants jointly and severally liable for appellate fees and costs, and (5) denied post-judgment interest at this stage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of appellate fees under HRS § 480-13(a) for successful cross-appeal	Gurrobat: §480-13(a) allows recovery of reasonable attorney fees where appeal produces a judgment for plaintiff or materially alters legal relationship; appellate victory on UMOC satisfies this	Defendants: §480-13(a) requires a trial-court judgment "for the plaintiff" to award fees; plaintiff had no trial-court win on §480, so no fees for cross-appeal	Court: Fees under §480-13(a) available where appellate judgment materially alters parties’ legal relationship; Gurrobat’s cross-appeal satisfied elements and appellate relief was more than returning plaintiff to status quo, so fees awarded for cross-appeal.
Effect of Nelson precedent on appellate fee recovery	Gurrobat: Nelson permits appellate fees where appeal effects a material alteration; here appeal did so	Defendants: Nelson bars fees because no trial judgment for plaintiff on §480 claims	Held: Nelson does not bar fees; distinguishing Nelson where vacatur/remand left plaintiff where she started; here appellate decision established liability element and remand is for damages—material alteration warrants fees.
Block billing and vague time-entry objections to hours claimed	Gurrobat: Submitted detailed time records; most entries short and relate to appellate work; any block billing not prejudicial	Defendants: Many entries are block-billed or vague; seek reductions or denials	Held: Block billing not per se fatal; entries examined and found to reflect single tasks and reasonable; two vague entries did not render total unreasonable. Time attributable to trial-court Rule 60/Amended Judgment work excluded without prejudice.
Lodestar calculation and enhancement/reduction	Gurrobat: Requested lodestar at established hourly rates and sought upward multiplier for contingent risk and public purpose	Defendants: Opposed enhancement; urged downward adjustment (e.g., because of Villon decision and partial victory)	Held: Court approved requested hourly rates and reduced hours for trial-court tasks; lodestar = $84,032.50. Neither upward nor downward multiplier applied—presumption that lodestar is reasonable not rebutted.
Allocation of fee liability among defendants	Gurrobat: Seek full recovery from defendants	Defendants: Implicitly contested joint-and-several fee liability since damages apportionment required	Held: Because defendants litigated jointly (single counsel, joint briefs) and work was indivisible, defendants held jointly and severally liable for appellate fees and costs, even though damages will be apportioned on remand.
Post-judgment interest on affirmed portions of judgment	Gurrobat: Entitled to interest under HRS § 478-3 and HRAP Rule 37 for affirmed money judgment portions	Defendants: Award of interest premature; should be addressed by trial court	Held: Denied—remand did not direct entry of a precise money judgment; post-judgment interest not appropriate at this stage.

Key Cases Cited

Nelson v. University of Hawai‘i, 99 Hawai‘i 262 (2002) (appellate fee awards require a judgment or material alteration of legal relationship; fees may be awarded where appeal effects change)
Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 130 Hawai‘i 130 (2013) (employees may seek remedies under HRS § 388-11 for violations of service-charge statutes)
Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai‘i 408 (2001) (lodestar presumption and circumstances permitting enhancement of fee awards)
Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, 129 Hawai‘i 454 (2013) (lodestar method as starting point; presumption of reasonableness)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar approach and reduction principles)
Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 399 U.S. 222 (1970) (appellate fees recoverable under federal antitrust fee-shifting provisions; purpose of fee provisions to preserve private enforcement)
Bruce’s Juices v. American Can Co., 330 U.S. 743 (1947) (private fee-shifting actions serve enforcement role; attorney-fee awards support private enforcement)