Albert v. Edward William, SL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
KEVIN S. ALBERT AND KIMBERLY
LEBLANC ALBERT, Trustees of the
Albert Revocable Trust UAD 6/3/1997
and Restated 1/7/2020,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
EDWARD WILLIAM, SL, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP
ORDER (1) OVERRULING
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO
AND (2) ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE1
After entry of an Order granting summary judgment to Defendants ION
Insurance Group, S.A. and ION Insurance Company, Inc. (collectively, “ION
Defendants”) 	and 	Defendants 	Allied 	Financial 	Network 	and 	Steve 	Bonner
(collectively, “Allied Defendants”), Dkt. No. 311, the ION and Allied Defendants
each moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statute (“HRS”) § 607-
14. 	Dkt. Nos. 321 & 322. 	On December 29, 2025, the assigned U.S. Magistrate
Judge entered the instant Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) to grant in part
the fees motions to the extent of awarding $172,544.43 to the ION Defendants and
$179,343.20 to the Allied Defendants. 	Dkt. Nos. 328 & 329. 	Pending before the
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c) & (d), the Court elects to decide this matter without a hearing.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 336 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

- 2 -
Court is Plaintiffs Kevin S. Albert and Kimberly Leblanc Albert’s objection to the
two F&Rs. Dkt. Nos. 331 & 332.
Upon review of the objection, the record, including the F&Rs, and pertinent
case law, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ objection and awards the ION and
Allied Defendants the fees recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND2
On May 23, 2023, Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit. 	Dkt. No. 1. 	Plaintiffs
followed with a First Amended Complaint on July 24, 2023, Dkt. No. 13, then a
Second Amended Complaint on May 8, 2024, Dkt. No. 84. 	As relevant here,
Plaintiffs asserted a combination of the following claims against the different
Defendants: (1) breach of contract; (2) misrepresentation; (3) negligence; (4) breach
of fiduciary duty; (5) respondeat superior; (6) insurance bad faith; (7) unfair and
deceptive acts and practices; and (8) exemplary damages. Dkt. No. 84 at ¶¶ 84–135.
On August 4, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 311. On September 22, 2025, the ION Defendants moved for
attorney’s fees, Dkt. No. 321, and the Allied Defendants did the same, Dkt. No. 322.
In the two substantially identical motions, Defendants argued, inter alia, that as the
prevailing parties, they were each entitled to fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14, which
2 The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the procedural and factual background of this
case, which is more fully set forth in the Order granting summary judgment, Dkt. No. 311, and,
thus, only sets forth herein the background necessary for an understanding of the instant issues.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 336 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

- 3 -
governs the award of fees for actions in the nature of assumpsit. 	Id. 	Plaintiffs
opposed both motions. Dkt. Nos. 324 & 325.
On December 29, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge entered the F&Rs,
granting in part the fees motions. Dkt. Nos. 328 & 329. The Magistrate Judge found
that (1) several of the claims against Defendants were in the nature of assumpsit; (2)
to the extent Plaintiffs raised non-assumpsit claims, apportionment was impractical
because 	those 	claims 	were 	inextricably 	linked 	to 	the 	assumpsit 	claims; 	(3)
Defendants were the prevailing parties; and (4) the reasonable attorney’s fees
amounted to $172,544.43 for the ION Defendants and $179,343.20 for the Allied
Defendants. Dkt. Nos. 328 & 329.
On January 12, 2026, Plaintiffs filed two substantially identical objections to
the F&Rs. 	Dkt. Nos. 331 & 332. 	Plaintiffs argued that the Magistrate Judge had
erroneously denied apportionment and that the fees awards should be apportioned
based on the number of Plaintiffs’ claims that sound in assumpsit. Id. For example,
Plaintiffs argue that only one of Plaintiffs’ five claims against the ION Defendants
sounds in assumpsit,3 and therefore the fees award to the ION Defendants should be
reduced to on-fifth of $172,544.43, or $34,509. 	Dkt. No. 331 at 4. 	Meanwhile,
Plaintiffs argue that only two of Plaintiffs’ seven claims against the Allied
3 For purposes of this Order, the Court assumes, without deciding, that Plaintiffs’ characterizations
of which claims sound in assumpsit are accurate.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 336 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

- 4 -
Defendants sound in assumpsit, and so the fees award to the Allied Defendants
should be reduced to two-sevenths of $179,343.20, or $51,242. Dkt. No. 332 at 3.
Defendants counter by agreeing with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
apportionment was impractical given the inextricable linkage of the assumpsit and
non-assumpsit claims.4 Dkt. Nos. 334 & 335.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a district court may refer a matter to a
Magistrate Judge for findings and recommendations. The court must then “make a
de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs raise only one objection to the F&Rs: that the Magistrate Judge erred
in declining to apportion fees associated with assumpsit and non-assumpsit claims.
Dkt. Nos. 331 & 332. Plaintiffs assert that the fees awarded should be reduced to
reflect only the claims that sound in assumpsit. Id.
The Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objection for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs
cite no authority supporting their proposed apportionment methodology. 	The
4 Defendants also argued that because Plaintiffs, in opposing the motions for attorney’s fees, did
not dispute that their claims were in the nature of assumpsit, Plaintiffs waived any segregation
claims now. 	Dkt. No. 334 at 2–3. 	Because, as noted below, the Court affirms the F&R on the
merits, it is unnecessary to address this waiver argument.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 336 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

- 5 -
Court’s own research has found no precedent for such an award based on the number
of assumpsit versus non-assumpsit claims—Plaintiffs appear to have created this
method from thin air. 	Second, even if the Court accepted Plaintiffs’ proposed
method, they misapply it. Plaintiffs argue that because only one of the five claims
against the ION Defendants and only two of the seven claims against the Allied
Defendants sound in assumpsit, their respective fee awards should be reduced to
one-fifth and two-sevenths. 	Dkt. Nos. 331 & 332. 	However, Plaintiffs include
counts for respondeat superior and exemplary damages as “claims” for the purposes
of their proposed ratio. See Dkt. No. 84 ¶¶ 120–26, 134–35. The Magistrate Judge
correctly noted that these counts are not causes of action, and thus they should not
be included in the total number of claims. 	See Lopeti v. All. Bancorp, 2011 WL
13233545, at *15 (D. Haw. Nov. 4, 2011) (“Respondeat superior is not an
independent cause of action, but a theory of liability.”); Soderholm Sales & Leasing,
Inc. v. BYD Motors Inc., 2022 WL 464905, at *5 (D. Haw. Jan. 31, 2022) (“A claim
for [exemplary] damages . . . is not an independent cause of action.”), report and
recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 463337 (D. Haw. Feb. 15, 2022).
Third, and perhaps most importantly, Plaintiffs fail to identify any error in the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Plaintiffs argue that, even if Defendants’ “invoices lack
sufficient detail to apportion time entries between assumpsit and non-assumpsit
claims,” the Magistrate Judge should have merely excluded any “[v]ague or overly-
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 336 Filed 03/03/26 Page 5 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

- 6 -
generalized . . . time entries” rather than hold that it was impractical to apportion.
Dkt. No. 331 at 2. 	This misunderstands the reasoning underlying the F&Rs. 	The
Magistrate Judge never implied that apportionment was impractical because he
could not distinguish which claims were assumpsit-based or not, or because the fees
records were unclear. 	Rather, the Magistrate Judge determined that even the
ostensibly non-assumpsit claims were “inextricably linked to the breach of contract
claim,” thus making any apportionment impossible. Dkt. No. 328 at 10. Plaintiffs
fail to challenge or even address this conclusion.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ objection to the F&R, Dkt. Nos.
331 & 332, is OVERRULED, and the F&Rs, Dkt. Nos. 328 & 329, are ADOPTED
to the extent set forth herein. Fees in the amounts of $172,544.43 and $179,343.20
are awarded to the ION and Allied Defendants, respectively, as recommended by the
Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Kevin S. Albert v. Edward William, SL, et al; Civil No. 23-00221 DKW-WRP
ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO AND (2)
ADOPTING THE FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 336 Filed 03/03/26 Page 6 of 6
PageID.<pageID>