This general rule, however, is subject to a number of exceptions: a attorney's fees are chargeable against the opposing party when so authorized by statute, rule of court, agreement, stipulation, or precedent." Chun v. Board of Trustees of Employees' Retirement Sys., 92 Haw. 432, 439, 992 P.2d 127, 134 (2000). This court has recognized a number of equitable exceptions to the "American Rule.
The term "common fund" refers to the total amount recovered by virtue of the class action judgment. See Chun v. Board of Trustees of Employees' Retirement Sys. of State of Hawaii, 92 Hawai`i 432, 434, 992 P.2d 127, 129 (2000) ( Chun III). The ERS counters, inter alia: (1) that "in calculating the common fund, the [circuit] court did not abuse its discretion in excluding its postjudgment interest award to the [T]eachers' class"; (2) that "in calculating the common fund, the [circuit] court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the `offset' for mandatory contributions ordered by Judge Nakatani"; (3) that "in this common fund case, the [circuit] court did not abuse its discretion by applying the 25 percent benchmark adopted by the [N]inth [C]ircuit [C]ourt of [A]ppeals" and "did not abuse its discretion by declining [Charles Khim's ( i.e., the Retirees' counsel's)] request for [one-third] percentage of the common fund"; (4) that "the lower court never addressed, nor was it asked to address[,] an `implied contract' theory of recovery for interest, and [the Retirees] are precluded from raising this new issue on appeal"; and (5) that "the [circuit] court correctly declined to grant [pre]judgment interest to
The "lodestar" amount equals the number of hours Plaintiff's counsel spent on this case multiplied by his hourly rate. Chun v. Board of Trustees of Employees' Retirement Sys. of State of Hawai`i, 92 Haw. 432, 434 n. 1, 992 P.2d 127, 129 n. 1 (2000). On May 29, 1997, Defendants filed a motion for new trial and/or to amend judgment pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 59(a) and (e) (1997), arguing that (1) the punitive damage award was against the weight of the evidence and that (2) the unpaid wage and punitive damage awards were excessive.
In Du Vall, the extrajurisdictional orders were filed after the plaintiff filed his notice of appeal and thus presents circumstances distinguishable from the Teisinas' appeal. Du Vall, 278 F. App'x at 400.Lambert's reliance on Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of Employees' Ret. Sys. of State of Hawaii, 92 Hawai‘i 432, 992 P.2d 127 (2000) is also misplaced. In Chun, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the circuit court's denial of a motion to disqualify because the appellants failed to designate the order denying the motion in their notice of appeal. Chun, 92 Hawai‘i at 447, 992 P.2d at 142.
On February 16, 2001, the Appellants submitted a motion to the Board "for an order directing the [ERS] . . . to deduct and pay from the common fund created in the above captioned matter of back retirement benefit increases and the share of investment income earned thereon being moved for herein . . . attorney's fees for the [Appellants]' attorney." According to the Appellants, in Chun v. Bd. of Trs. of the ERS, 92 Hawai'i 432, 992 P.2d 127 (2000) ( "Chun III"), this court "held that in common fund cases such as the instant case, attorney's fees are awarded to the [petitioners] and their attorney since they prevailed in this matter and since a common fund, which in this case constitutes the back retirement benefits and investment income that will be paid thereon, is created by reason of said case." This court has described the common-benefit doctrine as
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). In Montalvo v. Chang, 64 Haw. 345, 358-359, 641 P.2d 1321, 1331 (1982) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement Sys. of the State of Hawai`i, 92 Hawai`i 432, 992 P.2d 127 (2000), we endorsed a virtually identical method of calculation in the context of a class action litigation where the recovery resulted in a common fund from which the attorneys' fees were to be drawn: Although Montalvo was overruled by Chun, 92 Hawai`i at 445, 992 P.2d at 140, to the extent that it mandated an application of the "lodestar" method when calculating attorneys' fees in common fund cases, we expressly stated that "we continue to adhere to Montalvo's explication of the mechanics of the lodestar method."
This court has explained that, "[i]n the legal realm, comity is more commonly defined 'as the principle that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction out of deference and mutual respect.'" Chun v. Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement Sys., 92 Hawai'i 432, 446, 992 P.2d 127, 141 (2000) (quoting Teague v. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 599 N.W.2d 911, 917 n. 3 (Wis.Ct.App. 1999)) (brackets omitted). In Chun, the plaintiffs argued that the circuit court violated the principle of comity when it refused to apply the percentage method of determining attorneys' fees in a class action lawsuit used by another circuit court in an unrelated proceeding.
Accordingly, Defendant asserts that because a private individual or entity suing in tort would not be entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under the American rule, "like circumstances" should equally prevent an award in the case where parties sue the State. See ECF No. 12; see also Chun v. Board of Trustees of Employees' Retirement Sys., 92 Haw. 432, 439, 992 P.2d 127, 134 (2000) (stating that under the American Rule each party is responsible for paying his or her own litigation expenses). Defendant's argument ignores that Section 12 of the State Tort Liability Act specifically provides for the discretionary imposition of attorney's fees.
In certain types of cases, however, these factors may justify applying a multiplier to increase or decrease the lodestar amount. See Chun v. Bd. of Trs. of Emps.' Ret. Sys. of Haw. (“ Chun I ”), 92 Hawai'i 432, 442, 992 P.2d 127, 137 (2000). A court's award of attorneys' fees is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, which only occurs if the court has “clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or has disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.”
Id. (quoting HRS § 88-23). In Chun v. Board of Trustees of Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, 92 Hawai`i 432, 440, 992 P.2d 127, 135 (2000), this court stated that "[w]here a party may incur an administrative burden as a result of an award of attorney's fees out of a common fund, that party may have standing to challenge and criticize the award of attorney's fees." (Citing Commonwealth of Kentucky Revenue Cabinet v. St. Ledger, 955 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Ky.Ct.App.1997); United Cable Television of Baltimore Ltd. P'ship v. Burch, 354 Md. 658, 732 A.2d 887, 902 (1999).).