Davis v. GP Services, LLC

558 P.3d 251, 155 Haw. 189

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 31, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-20-0000726
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 31-OCT-2024 08:13 AM Dkt. 91 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

JOHN DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and HAWAII EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellee, v. GP SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant; and YOUNG BROTHERS LIMITED; JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5, ROE NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS 1-5, and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-5, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CC111000497)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant GP Services, LLC

appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's 1

October 20, 2020 "Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

Defendant GP Services, LLC's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and

1 The Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Costs Filed on May 3, 2017" (Fees and Costs Order) and

October 20, 2020 Final Judgment. The circuit court's October 1,

2021 First Amended Final Judgment (Amended Judgment) affirmed

its original grant of costs in its Fees and Costs Order.

On appeal, GP challenges the circuit court's Fees and

Costs Order.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below and affirm.

(1) GP contends the circuit court "abused its

discretion by not designating GP as the prevailing party as

against" Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellee Hawaii

Employers' Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. (HEMIC). (Formatting

altered.)

Hawai‘i Arbitration Rules (HAR) Rule 25 defines

"prevailing party" in a trial de novo as "the party who

(1) appealed and improved upon the arbitration award by 30% or

more, or (2) did not appeal and the appealing party failed to

improve upon the arbitration award by 30% or more." HAR

Rule 25(A).

According to the Fees and Costs Order, the issue "came

on for oral hearing on June 1, 2017 . . . ." The June 1, 2017

circuit court minutes show that there was a 30-minute hearing,

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and the circuit court "concluded that only Mr. Davis is subject

to [Court Annexed Arbitration Program] sanctions because

Mr. Davis was the only party that filed the request for trial de

novo and notice of appeal." (Formatting altered.)

GP does not point to where in the record HEMIC

appealed from the arbitration award. GP instead argues that the

circuit court should have exercised its inherent authority to

designate HEMIC an appealing party. "However, the Supreme Court

has cautioned that because of the very potency of a court's

inherent power, it should be exercised with restraint and

discretion." Enos v. Pac. Transfer & Warehouse, Inc., 79 Hawai‘i

452, 458, 903 P.2d 1273, 1279 (1995) (cleaned up). And there

was no reason for the circuit court to invoke its inherent

authority when HAR Rule 25 specifically speaks to the issue.

(2) GP also contends the circuit "abused its

discretion by not awarding attorneys' fees against Davis and

HEMIC" and not awarding all of its costs. (Formatting altered.)

HAR Rule 26(A) provides that "[a]fter the verdict is

received and filed, or the court's decision rendered in a trial

de novo, the trial court may, in its discretion, impose

sanctions . . . against the non-prevailing party whose appeal

resulted in the trial de novo." (Emphasis added.) "[A]n abuse

of discretion occurs where the trial court has clearly exceeded

the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law

3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant."

Enoka v. AIG Haw. Ins. Co., 109 Hawai‘i 537, 544, 128 P.3d 850,

857 (2006) (quoting Price v. AIG Haw. Ins. Co., 107 Hawai‘i 106,

110, 111 P.3d 1, 5 (2005)).

Possible sanctions include "[r]easonable costs and

fees (other than attorneys' fees) actually incurred by the party

but not otherwise taxable under the law, including, but not

limited to, expert witness fees, travel costs, and deposition

costs" and "[a]ttorneys' fees not to exceed $15,000[.]" HAR

Rule 26(B)(1), (3). "In determining sanctions, if any, the

court shall consider all the facts and circumstances of the case

and the intent and purpose of the" Court Annexed Arbitration

Program. HAR Rule 26(D).

GP does not argue that the circuit court failed to

"consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and the

intent and purpose" of the Court Annexed Arbitration Program.

GP also does not explain how the circuit court exceeded the

bounds of reason or disregarded the law.

The June 1, 2017 minutes show that the circuit court

"addressed costs" and "gave its reasons . . . ." (Formatting

altered.) As to sanctions under HAR Rule 26, the minutes note

that the circuit court "exercised its discretion and did not

award [Court Annexed Arbitration Program] sanctions against

Mr. Davis." (Formatting altered.)

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 10(b)(1)(A)

provides that "[w]hen an appellant desires to raise any point on

appeal that requires consideration of the oral proceedings

before the circuit court appealed from," the appellant must

order the transcripts within 10 days of filing the notice of

appeal. GP failed to comply with this rule, and without a

transcript of the June 1, 2017 hearing, we will not conclude the

circuit court abused its discretion based on what transpired

during the hearing. See State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai‘i 333, 336, 3

P.3d 499, 502 (2000) ("Without the relevant transcript, there is

insufficient evidence to review the alleged error, and [the

appellant] carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error

in the record.").

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's

October 20, 2020 Fees and Costs Order and October 1, 2021

Amended Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, October 31, 2024.

On the brief: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Gary W.K. Au Young, for Defendant-Appellee/ /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Cross-Appellant. Associate Judge

Charles H. Brower, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Michael P. Healy, Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee.