Opinion
CIVIL 21-00261 DKW-KJM
10-25-2023
MFY FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff, v. OHIA OPPORTUNITIES, LLC; KANOA ROSS BRISTOL; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; and DOE ENTITIES 1-50, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF MFY FUNDING LLC'S MOTION FOR CONFIRMATION OF SALE, AWARD OF DAMAGES, AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS, AND WRIT OF POSSESSION
KENNETH J. MANSFIELD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff MFY Funding LLC (“MFY” or “Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Confirmation of Sale, Award of Damages, Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Writ of Possession on July 31, 2023 (“Motion”). ECF No. 109. The Motion arises from a loan MFY made to Defendants Ohia Opportunities, LLC (“Ohia”) and Kanoa Ross Bristol (“Bristol”), secured by a mortgage agreement and security interests, and personally guaranteed by Bristol. Id. at 4-5. Defendants defaulted on their payments and guaranty. ECF No. 90 at 3-7. MFY foreclosed on the mortgages.
Plaintiff asks this Court to confirm the sale of certain foreclosed properties and requests a writ of possession entitling Plaintiff to possess these properties. ECF No. 109 at 12. Plaintiff also asks for a judgment for principal, interest, and late charges in addition to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Id.
After carefully considering the Motion, briefings, record in this case, and applicable case law, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT in PART and DENY in PART the Motion.
BACKGROUND
As the Court and the parties are familiar with the history of this case, the Court includes only the material relevant to the disposition of the instant Motion.
A. Facts
As expounded by the district court in its November 4, 2022 Order (1) Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Complaint, and (2) Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure Against All Parties (“Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment”), MFY agreed to lend $698,800 to Ohia as part of a real property rehabilitation venture on January 29, 2018. ECF No. 90 at 3. The loan was evidenced by a January 29, 2018 promissory note (the “Note”) executed by Ohia and delivered to MFY. Id. Bristol, the sole member of Ohia, personally guaranteed the loan. Id. Among other things, the loan was secured by a mortgage agreement granting MFY a security interest in five parcels of land (“Mortgage”) and the securities outlined in a UCC Financing Statement. Id. at 4-5.
Ohia and Bristol (collectively, “Defendants”) failed to make payments on the loan, and subsequently executed a First Amendment of Promissory Note and Confirmation of Guaranty (“Amended Note”), in which Ohia conveyed three of the five properties encumbered by the Mortgage (“Deed in Lieu Properties”), among other terms. Id. at 6; see also ECF No. 109-4. Defendants failed again to make timely payments as required under the Amended Note. ECF No. 90 at 7.
B. Procedural History
MFY filed this action on June 4, 2021, under the Court's diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 3 ¶ 6. MFY alleged the following counts: (1) Breach and Default under the Note, Amended Note, and Guaranty; (2) Foreclosure on the two remaining mortgaged properties described in the mortgage and identified by Tax Map Key Nos. (3) 9-9-002: 021 and 022 (“Properties”); (3) Foreclosure on the security interests described in the UCC Financing Statement; (4) Breach and Default under the Assignment of Agreements, Permits, Licenses and Approvals; (5) Foreclosure on the security interests described in the Pledge Financing Statement; and (6) Breach and Default under the Pledge and Security Agreement and Foreclosure on the security interests described in the Pledge and Security Agreement. Id. at 10-17.
MFY filed a Motion for Summary for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 1, 2, and 3 on June 7, 2022 (“MPSJ”). ECF No. 56. MFY also requested attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with these three counts. Id at 4, 6. On November 4, 2022, the district court granted MFY's MPSJ, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact that Defendants breached their loan contract in connection with Count 1 and that MFY was entitled to an interlocutory decree of foreclosure in connection with Counts 2 and 3. ECF No. 90 at 11-15.
Notwithstanding the district court's grant of summary judgment as to these three counts, the district court found that it could not determine the judgment amount without supplemental evidence from MFY. Id. at 14. Similar to the judgment amount, the district court also found that it needed further information to decide the reasonableness of MFY's requested attorneys' fees and costs. Id. at 1516. The district court thus reserved judgment as to the amount of damages resulting from claims 1, 2, and 3, and also denied MFY's request for attorneys' fees and costs without prejudice so that MFY could remedy the omissions identified in its Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment. Id. at 17. In addition, the district court directed MFY to submit a joint stipulated order implementing the foreclosure of the Properties “including, without limitation, the appointment of a commissioner and outlining the commissioner's powers, and property set forth in the UCC Financing Statement.” Id.
C. The Foreclosure
The parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice of Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 on March 23, 2023, in which the parties agreed to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs incurred with respect to these counts. See ECF No. 102. On the same day, the parties filed the Joint Stipulated Order Re: Foreclosure Claims in Plaintiff MFY Funding LLC's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Complaint and for Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure Against All Parties (“Foreclosure Stipulation”) as ordered by the district court. ECF No. 101. The Foreclosure Stipulation explained that the parties had agreed to dismiss Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 and thus, the Foreclosure Stipulation addressed implementing only the foreclosure of the Properties and the district court's “findings and conclusions with respect to Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint.” Id. at 3.
The Foreclosure Stipulation provided that MFY was “entitled to have the Mortgage foreclosed” and the Properties “sold in the manner provided by law, and the sales proceeds applied to the amounts owed to MFY” on the Amended Note and Mortgage. Id. at 7. It also appointed Wayne K.T. Mau (“Commissioner” or “Mr. Mau”) as Commissioner of the Court and stated that the Commissioner would serve at a reasonable fee determined by the Court and that his fees and costs would be deemed secured by the Mortgage. Id. at 8-9.
The district court entered judgment with respect to Counts 1 and 2 on March 32, 2023; however, it (1) reserved judgment as to the amount of damages resulting from Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint, (2) provided that MFY's claim against Defendants for a confirmation of sale would be entered as appropriate after the sale of the Properties or upon closing of the sale to be confirmed, and (3) provided that MFY's claim for a deficiency judgment would be entered after confirmation of the sale. ECF No. 103 at 3.
The Commissioner filed his Report on June 21, 2023 (“Commissioner's Report”). ECF No. 108. According to the Commissioner's Report, the Commissioner published a Notice of Foreclosure Sale in the Hawaii Tribune-Herold, which contained a description of the Properties and the location of the public auction. See ECF No. 108-1 at 6. The auction took place on June 21, 2023, at 12:00 p.m. at the front entrance to Hale Kaulike Courthouse Building in Hilo, Hawai‘i. Id. MFY presented the winning bid of $200,000. ECF No. 108 at 8. The Commissioner requested and solicited higher bids and having received none, declared the Properties sold to MFY. Id. The Commissioner recommended that the Court confirm the sale of the Properties for the confirmed sale price of $200,000. Id.
MFY filed its Motion on July 31, 2023. ECF No. 109. Defendants filed an Opposition on August 22, 2023, and MFY filed its Reply on September 6, 2023. See ECF Nos. 112, 114. The Commissioner filed a Declaration of Commissioner Wayne K. T. Mau Re: Request for Reimbursement of Expenses and for Commissioner's Fees on September 26, 2023 (“Commissioner's Fee Request”). ECF No. 115.
C. The Hearing and Reopening of Bidding
The Court held a hearing on October 4, 2023. Theodore Young, Esq., appeared on behalf of MFY and Antony Kim, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants Ohia and Bristol. The Commissioner also attended the hearing. At the hearing, the Commissioner informed the Court that there were additional bidders in the gallery and MFY requested that the Court reopen bidding. ECF No. 117. The Court granted the request and took a recess while the Commissioner reopened bidding.
The Commissioner reopened bidding in the courtroom, after which the Commissioner reported he received 22 additional bids and the new winning bid was $330,000. Id. The Commissioner reaffirmed his position that the new bid of $330,000 was fair and reasonable. Defendants orally informed the Court that they maintained their opposition to the Motion; thus, the Court ordered Defendants to renew their opposition in writing by October 11, 2023. Id. The Court permitted MFY an opportunity to reply to the Defendant's renewed opposition by October 18, 2023. Id. The Court also permitted both MFY and Defendants to respond to the Commissioner's Fee Request by that same date. Id.
D. Supplemental Briefing
Defendants timely filed their Supplemental Written Response Regarding Confirmation of Sale (“Defendants' Supplement”), but they did not in fact oppose the confirmation. Instead, they represented that Defendants' Supplement was a statement of no position as to the new winning credit bid of $330,000. ECF No. 118 at 2. Defendants also filed their Statement of No Opposition to the Commissioner's Fee Request. ECF No. 119.
On October 18, 2023, MFY filed its Statement of No Opposition to Commissioner's Request for Reimbursement of Expenses and for Commissioner's Fees [Dkt. 116]. See ECF No. 120. It also filed a Memorandum in Response to Defendants' Supplement (“Plaintiffs' Supplement”), responding to the arguments in Defendant's Supplement as well as urging the Court to confirm the sale of the Properties to MFY based on the winning credit bid of $330,000. ECF No. 121.
DISCUSSION
MFY's Motion asks the Court to: (1) confirm the sale of the Properties to MFY and find its credit bid of $330,000 to be fair and reasonable; (2) enter judgment against Ohia and Bristol, jointly and severally, for principal, interest, and late charges totaling $1,719,983.57; (3) award MFY $154,436.59 in reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in this action; and (4) award MFY $1,477.40 in costs incurred in this action. ECF No. 109 at 18. The Court discusses each request successively.
A. The Court Recommends Confirmation of the Sale
Originally, Defendants did not object to any of MFY's requests in the Motion except for the request for this Court to confirm the sale of the Properties to MFY. Defendants asserted in their Opposition that according to MFY, “Ohia and Bristol owe approximately $1.7 million in principal, interest, and late charges; interest, alone, accounts for approximately $1.3 million.” ECF No. 112 at 4. Defendants argued that the original principal amount of the Note was $698,000 and the fact that the highest bid was a quarter of the original principal amount “[wa]s so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience[.]” ECF No. 112 at 4 (quoting Hoge v. Kane, 670 P.2d 36, 40, 4 Haw.App. 533, 540 (1983)).
It appears, however, that Defendants no longer oppose confirmation of the sale based on the new winning credit bid of $330,000, and instead, express no position on MFY's request for the Court to confirm this bid. See ECF No. 118.
The Court finds that the winning bid is fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The Court's “authority to confirm a judicial sale is a matter of equitable discretion” under Hawai‘i law. Sugarman v. Kapu, 104 Haw. 119, 124, 85 P.3d 644, 649 (2004) (citation omitted); see also Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humans., Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 416 (1996) (“Federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.”). Absent arbitrary action, the Court “has broad discretion regarding confirmation of judicial sales.” Sugarman, 104 Haw. at 124, 85 P.3d at 649 (citation omitted). The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has instructed courts exercising this discretion to “act in the interest of fairness and prudence, and with a just regard to the rights of all concerned and the stability of judicial sales.” Id. (citation omitted).
Based on the Commissioner's Report and his representation at the October 4, 2023 hearing, and Defendants' statement of no position in their Supplement, the Court FINDS the October 4, 2023 winning credit bid of $330,000 to be fair and reasonable and RECOMMENDS that the district court confirm MFY's request to confirm the sale of the Properties.
B. The Court Recommends Judgment in the Amount of $1,719,983.57
The original principal amount of the Note was $698,800. ECF No. 109 at 21. Under the Note, Ohia promised to make monthly interest payments at the rate of 12% per annum, starting April 7, 2018, and a balloon payment for the balance of the loan on the maturity date of August 7, 2018. ECF No. 90 at 4. If Ohia defaulted on its payments, the Note provided that MFY reserved the right to declare the unpaid principal sum, along with all charges and interest accrued, to be immediately due and payable “without presentment, demand, protest, or notice of any kind,” with the interest rate then immediately increasing to 24% per annum. Id. The Note also provided that any late payment would result in a late charge of 10% of the overdue amount. Id.
MFY asks this Court to enter judgment in favor of MFY and against defendants Ohia and Bristol, jointly and severally, for a total of $1,719,983.57, which consists of the following:
| Principal: | $381,352.89 |
| Interest from April 12, 2018 to July 31, 2023: | $1,343,393.21 |
| Late Charges: | $12,237.47 |
| Credit for Interest Payments Received: | ($17,000.00) |
| Total Judgment Requested | $1,719,983.57 |
The Court discusses each of the foregoing categories.
1. Principal Balance
Pursuant to the Amended Note, the parties agreed that the principal balance of the Note would be reduced by the net sales proceeds from MFY's sale of the Deed in Lieu Properties. ECF No. 109-4. MFY received sales proceeds from two of the Deed in Lieu Properties: $111,824.12 for the sale of one of the properties, Kauai Road Property; and $263,522.9 from the sale of another property, 23rd Avenue Property (collectively, “Sold Properties”). ECF No. 109 at 21; see also ECF No. 109 at 44-45 ¶ 16-17, Declaration of Michael Fairall (“Fairall Decl.”); ECF No. 109-6 to 109-7, Settlement Statement for Sold Properties. After crediting these amounts, MFY deducted $57,900 for expenses paid before the closing of the Sold Properties, including management and maintenance costs. ECF No. 109 at 21; see also Fairall Decl. at 45-46 ¶ 21. Accordingly, the principal amount due was calculated as follows:
| Original Principal Amount: | $698,800.00 |
| Credit for Kauai Road Property Sale | -$111,824.12 |
| Credit for 23rd Avenue Property Sale | -$263,522.99 |
| Deductions for Expenses for Sold Properties | 57,900.00 |
| New Principal Amount | $381,352.89 |
The Court finds that the principal amount requested is properly supported.
2. Interest
MFY asserts that Defendants owe a total of $1,343,393.21 in interest from April 12, 2018 (the date Ohia failed to make its first payment of interest under the Note) to July 31, 2023. ECF No. 109 at 21. MFY invoked its right to pursue the default interest rate of 24% as provided for in the Note in the event of a default. Id. at 23-24. MFY attaches a spreadsheet with its Motion detailing these interest charges (“Calculation Spreadsheet”). See ECF No. 109-8. The Court has reviewed MFY's calculations and engaged in its own calculation and finds that the interest requested is sufficiently supported.
Interest was calculated as follows: amount owed multiplied by interest rate (24%), divided by 365 days, then multiplied by the number days in the payment period.
3. Late Fees
According to the Note, if Ohia failed to many any payments on the due date, MFY was entitled to a late charge equal to ten percent (10%) of the overdue amount. ECF No. 109-1 at 2. MFY thus represents that the late charges for a given period equals ten percent (10%) of the amount of the payment that is due for that period. ECF No. 109 at 26.
From April 12, 2018 (the effective date of acceleration) to February 28, 2019 (the day before the parties executed the Amended Note), Ohia was obligated to make monthly interest payments on the principal balance on the seventh calendar day of each month. Id. at 26-27; see also ECF No. 109-1 at 1. Beginning on March 1, 2019, the date the Amended Note was executed, Ohia was obligated to make payments of $2,000 a month on the first day of each month. ECF No. 109-4. Accordingly: (1) the amount due under the Note on the 7th of each month from April 12, 2018, to February 28, 2019, i.e., the monthly interest payment, ranged from $11,946.61 to $18,337.01, and (2) the amount due beginning on March 1, 2019, under the Amended Note was $2,000 a month.
Originally, MFY had requested late fees totaling $11,093.51 in its MPSJ. See ECF No. 90. The district court expressed confusion over how MFY had arrived at that number based on the Note, which entitles MFY to 10% of any overdue amount. Id. at 11 n.4 (“Even with this contractual guidance, however, the Court cannot hazard a guess as to how MFY's $11,093.51 figure was derived”). MFY now seeks $12,237.47 in late charges.
The Court has reviewed the late payments calculated in the Calculations Spreadsheet and it appears that from April 12, 2019, to February 28, 2019 (the “Initial Period”), MFY calculated the late fees at a rate of one percent (1%) rather than ten percent (10%). See ECF No. 109-8. For example, the first interest payment for the period of April 12, 2018, to May 7, 2018, is $11,946.61; however, the late fee is calculated at $119.47 instead of $1,119.47, which would be ten percent (10%) of the interest payment owed of $11,946.61. Id.
Notwithstanding the terms of the Note, MFY requests $12,237.47 in late fees, which comprises of: (1) $2,837.47 in late fees from April 12, 2018, to August 31, 2019, ECF No. 109-8 at 1; (2) $1,400 in late fees from September 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, id. at 2; and (3) $8,000 in late fees from April 2020 to July 2023, id. at 3. Although the Court does not understand why MFY calculated its late fees at a rate of 1% for the Initial Period, MFY is requesting less than what it is entitled; thus, the Court finds that MFY is entitled to its requested late fees of $12,237.47.
4. Total Deficiency Judgment Against Ohia and Bristol
The Court FINDS that MFY has satisfactorily supported the principal and interest amounts it seeks; however, as explained above, MFY requests only $12,237.47 in late fees, which does not appear to reflect what MFY is entitled to pursuant to the terms of the Note. Nonetheless, as the amount MFY requests is lower than the amount it is entitled to under the Note, the Court finds that MFY's request for late fees is reasonably supported at the rate of 1% of the unpaid amount for the Initial Period.
The Court thus RECOMMENDS that the district court enter judgment in favor of MFY and against Ohia and Bristol, jointly and severally, for a total of $1,719,983.57, which comprises $381,352.89 in principal, $1,343,393.21 in interest, $12,237.47 in late charges, and a credit of $17,000 for payments Ohia made on July 25, 2019 ($10,000); August 5, 2019 ($2,000); October 4, 2019 ($2,500); and December 4, 2019 ($2,500). ECF No. 109-8.
C. The Court Recommends Awarding $153,975.33 in Attorneys' Fees
Section 607-14 of the Hawaii Revised Statues (“HRS”) provides for the award of attorneys' fees “in all actions in the nature of assumpsit and in all actions on a promissory note or other contract in writing that provides for an attorney's fee.” In this case, MFY is entitled to attorneys' fees under HRS § 607-14 because under the Note, Ohia was required to “pay all costs and expenses of collection (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees) and all expenses incurred in connection with the protection or realization of the collateral or enforcement of any guaranty incurred by [MFY] on account of such collection, whether or not suit is filed hereon.” ECF No. 90 at 4. MFY requested $120,000 in administrative fees and costs as of May 9, 2022, in its MPSJ. Id. at 10.
The district court found, however, that MFY had not submitted any information about “MFY's various attorney timekeepers or their respective billing rates, no description of each timekeeper's skill, experience or reputation, no description of what each timekeeper did, and no indication of the time spent performing each unidentified task.” Id. at 16 (citing Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14 (Hawaii's attorney's fees for assumpsit cases); see also ECF No. 90 at 16 (collecting cases on what parties must submit for a court to award attorneys' fees).
MFY's Motion for Confirmation of Sale includes most of the information identified by the district court as missing from the MPSJ. See ECF No. 109 at 33. Below is a chart of the professionals MFY requests fees, MFY's requested rates for these professionals, the years of experience for each attorney, the hours expended on Counts 1 and 2 of this action, and the total requested fees for each professional.
| Timekeeper | Experience | Hourly Rate | Hours | Total Requested |
| Theodore Young (Attorney) | <30 years | $495/$520/$570 | 171.9 | $89,940.50 |
| Michi Momose (Attorney) | <9 years | $310/$325/$360 | 122.7 | $39,396.00 |
| Molly Olds (Attorney) | 2 years | $205 | 12.5 | $2,563.00 |
| Bryce Nakamura (Attorney) | <3 years | $225 | 42.2 | $9,495.00 |
| Michael Soon Fah (Attorney) | <3 years | $240 | 20.9 | $5,016.00 |
| Johnny Kwok (Paralegal) | $200/$215/$230 | 2.4 | $526.50 | |
| Martin J. Malloy (Paralegal) | $190 | 1.3 | $247.00 | |
| Jeni McKenzie (Paralegal) | $190 | 1.6 | $304.00 | |
| Subtotal | 375.5 | $147,487.00 |
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), which multiplies (1) a reasonable hourly rate by (2) the number of hours reasonably expended. See DFS Grp. L.P. v. Paiea Props., 110 Haw. 217, 222, 131 P.3d 500, 505 (2006). Accordingly, the Court must examine the hourly rates and the number of hours requested by MFY to determine the proper lodestar calculation.
1. Hourly Rates
“Hawaii courts consider the reasonable hourly rate in a manner virtually identical to the traditional lodestar formulation, and some Hawaii state courts have considered federal law in determining a reasonable hourly rate.” Sheehan v. Centex Homes, 853 F.Supp.2d 1031, 1042 (D. Haw. 2011) (citing County of Haw. v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship, 120 Haw. 400, 407, 208 P.3d 713, 720 (2009); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984)). Federal case law regarding the determination of a reasonable hourly rate is thus instructive for this case. See id.
Attorneys seeking fees must submit evidence to support the requested hourly rate. Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1024 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). The fee applicant must produce satisfactory evidence of prevailing market rates in the relevant community. Sam K. ex rel. Diane C. v. Haw. Dep't of Educ., 788 F.3d 1033, 1041 (9th Cir. 2015); Van Skike v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Programs, 557 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “District courts may also use their ‘own knowledge of customary rates and their experience concerning reasonable and proper fees.'” Hawaii Dep't of Educ., 788 F.3d at 1041 (quoting Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011)).
MFY provides (1) a summary of each of the attorneys' experience and billing rates for whom it is requesting fees, and (2) cases in this district supporting its requested rates. See ECF No. 109 at 52-54. The Court has reviewed the cases MFY attached to its Motion and finds that these cases, in addition to the Court's knowledge of prevailing rates in this community, support the hourly rates requested for Mr. Young ($495/$520/$570), Ms. Momose ($310/$325/$365), Ms. Olds ($205), Mr. Nakamura ($225), and Mr. Soon Fah ($240). See Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting LLC, No. CV 13-00002 ACK-WRP, 2021 WL 1939684, at *3 (D. Haw. Apr. 2, 2021), adopted by, 2021 WL 1565401 (awarding an attorney practicing since 1987 a rate of $450); Reyes v. Tanaka, No. CV 17-00143 JAO-KJM, 2020 WL 2857493 (D. Haw. June 2, 2020) (awarding an attorney practicing since 1992 a rate of $500 for work performed in 2020); Arc in Hawaii v. DB Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 20-00112-ACK-WRP, 2021 WL 4566723, at *3 (D. Haw. Sept. 17, 2021) (awarding an attorney with over two years of experience with $220 for work performed in 2020, and $235 for work performed in 2021; and awarding a rate of $350 for an attorney practicing since 2006 for work performed in 2021).
MFY does not, however, substantiate its request for the paralegals for whom it requests fees. Indeed, in the cases provided by MFY, the courts awarded the paralegals a rate between $90 to $120 for work performed between 2020 and 2021. MFY does not provide any reasons why their paralegals should be awarded a rate between $190 and $230, rates much higher than this district court has awarded for paralegals. Without any information about the paralegals' experience or reasons why this Court should award these higher rates, the Court finds that $120 is a more reasonable rate for the paralegals.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the district court award the following hourly rates:
| Timekeeper | Experience | Hourly Rate |
| Theodore Young (Attorney) | <30 years | $495/$520/$570 |
| Michi Momose (Attorney) | <9 years | $310/$325/$360 |
| Molly Olds (Attorney) | 3 years | $205 |
| Bryce Nakamura (Attorney) | <3 years | $225 |
| Michael Soon Fah (Attorney) | <3 years | $240 |
| Johnny Kwok (Paralegal) | $120 | |
| Martin J. Malloy (Paralegal) | $120 | |
| Jeni McKenzie (Paralegal) | $120 |
2. Hours Reasonably Expended
MFY requests only the fees that were necessary for prosecuting its foreclosure and breach of contract claims (Counts 1 and 2) as the parties agreed to bear their own fees and costs as to MFY's other claims and Defendants' Counterclaims. See ECF No. 85; ECF No. 109 at 55 (Declaration of Theodore D.C. Young). MFY includes a timekeeping sheet with all the hours it requests. ECF No. 109-9. The Court has reviewed the submission and as Defendants offer no objections, FINDS that the requested hours expended are reasonable.
3. Total Award Recommended
MFY's chart of requested fees shows that it is requesting $147,487 in attorneys' fees; however, MFY contends that it is entitled to an award of $154,436.59. ECF No. 109 at 33, 35. Although MFY does not explicitly provide so, the Court presumes that this amount is based on its requested total fee of $147,487 multiplied by the City and County of Honolulu's general excise (“G.E.”) tax rate of 4.7120%, which totals $154,436.59.
Based on the Court's reduction of hourly rates for the paralegals, the Court finds that $153,975.33 is a more reasonable award of attorneys' fees, and recommends that the district court award this amount based on the following calculation:
| Timekeeper | Hourly Rate Recommended | Hours | Total Recommended |
| Theodore Young (Attorney) | $495/$520/$570 | 171.9 | $89,940.50 |
| Michi Momose (Attorney) | $310/$325/$360 | 122.7 | $39,396.00 |
| Molly Olds (Attorney) | $205 | 12.5 | $2,563.00 |
| Bryce Nakamura (Attorney) | $225 | 42.2 | $9,495.00 |
| Michael Soon Fah (Attorney) | $240 | 20.9 | $5,016.00 |
| Johnny Kwok (Paralegal) | $120 | 2.4 | $288.00 |
| Martin J. Malloy (Paralegal) | $120 | 1.3 | $156.00 |
| Jeni McKenzie (Paralegal) | $120 | 1.6 | $192.00 |
| Subtotal | 375.5 | $147,046.50 | |
| 4.712% G.E. Tax | $6,928.83 | ||
| TOTAL with TAX | $153,975.33 |
D. The Court Recommends Awarding $1,477.40 in Costs
MFY requests that the Court award it $1,477.40 in costs, which includes: (1) $402 for filing fees; (2) $82 for recording fees; (3) $84.21 for document delivery fees; (4) $643.88 for copying/printing fees, and (5) $34.31 in G.E. tax for the costs subject to G.E. tax, items (3) and (4) which totals $728.09. ECF No. 109 at 36-37. MFY supports this request with an itemization of each cost and copies of receipts and invoices for these costs. See ECF No. 109-9 at 28-29; ECF No. 109-10. The Court has carefully reviewed each category and FINDS that MFY is entitled to an award of these costs and RECOMMENDS that the district court award MFY its costs of $1,477.40.
E. The Court Recommends Awarding the Commissioner his Requested Fees and Costs
The Commissioner's Fee Request asks for a total of $15,574.27, which consists of the following:
| Commissioner's Fees: | $ 11,260.00 |
| G.E. Tax on Fees | $ 530.57 |
| Expenses | $ 2,527.26 |
| Subtotal | $14,317.83 |
| Estimated Post Confirmation Fees/Closing ($1,200) plus GET | $ 1,256.54 |
| Grand Total | $15,574.37 |
ECF No. 116 at 6. Mr. Mau attaches to his Commissioner's Fee Request a detailed accounting of his expenses and accounting of the hours spent on this case. ECF No. 116-1 to 116-2. Both MFY and Defendants do not object to his request. See ECF Nos. 119-20. The Court has reviewed the Commissioner's Fee Request and FINDS his request for fees and costs are supported and reasonable; thus, the Court RECOMMENDS that the district court award the Commissioner his total requested fees and costs of $15,574.37.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed in this Order, the Court FINDS that the following amounts are reasonable:
| Judgment Against Ohia and Bristol Jointly and Severally | $1,719,983.57 |
| Attorneys' Fees | $153,975.33 |
| Costs | $1,477.40 |
| TOTAL | $1,875,436.30 |
The Court RECOMMENDS that the district court enter judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for $1,719,983.57, and award MFY attorneys' fees in the amount of $153,975.33 and its costs of $1,477.40.
The Court also FINDS that the Commissioner's Fee Request of $15,574.37 is reasonable and RECOMMENDS that the district court award Commissioner Wayne K.T. Mau a total of $15,574.37 for his fees and costs.
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.