Association of Apartment Owners of Alii Cove v. Sunstone Realty Partners X LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
22-MAY-2025
08:10 AM
Dkt. 106 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF ALII COVE,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, and DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10;
and DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-10, Defendants.

SUNSTONE REALTY PARTNERS X LLC,
a Hawaii Limited Liability Company,
Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BODELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, and
BECERRA CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION; PACIFIC ATELIER
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, fka PACIFIC ATELIER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and
DOE THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS 1-100, Third-Party Defendants.

PACIFIC ATELIER INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
fka PACIFIC ATELIER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Additional Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ALLISON IDE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC;
ENGINEERING DYNAMICS CORP., LANCE UCHIDA
MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, LTD., ALBERT CHONG ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Additional Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

BODELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY, INC.;
HONOLULU WOOD TREATING CO., LTD.; KC METAL PRODUCTS, INC.;
TAMLYN; HAWAII PLANING MILL, LTD., dba HPM BUILDING SUPPLY;
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

RAY NORTON, dba C CONNARY CONSTRUCTION;
STEWART BUILDERS, LLC; DAVID LAYNE dba TITAN FRAMING;
TRUE STYLE PACIFIC BUILDERS, LLC; E.M. RIVERA & SONS, INC.;
RON & RAY, INC., dba RR ROOFING; SUMMIT PAINTING, INC.;
SUNSET PLUMBING INC.; BIG ISLAND AIR CONDITIONING INCORPORATED,
dba CUSTOM AIRE, INC.; P.A. HARRIS ELECTRIC, LLC;
ACME PREHUNG DOORS, LTD., Fourth-Party Defendants-Appellees,
and DOE ENTITIES 1-30, Fourth-Party Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 1CC151001616)

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

Third-Party Defendant/Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Appellant

Bodell Construction Company appeals from the Circuit Court of

the First Circuit's (1) January 10, 2022 "Order Granting

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff[-Appellee] SunStone Realty

Partners X LLC's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Decision and

Award" (Order Confirming Arbitration Award), (2) January 28,

2022 Judgment, 1 and (3) February 9, 2023 "Order Granting

[SunStone]'s Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs and Other

Reasonably Incurred Expenses" (Fees and Costs Order). 2

The background of this case spans over 20 years.

Briefly, in 2003, SunStone began developing a 200-unit

condominium complex in Kona known as Alii Cove. In November

1 The Honorable James C. McWhinnie presided.
2 The Honorable Kevin T. Morikone presided.

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

2003, SunStone and Bodell entered into a construction contract

for Alii Cove.

Almost twelve years later, the Association of

Apartment Owners of Alii Cove (Association) sued SunStone for

damages stemming from construction defects. Sunstone asserted a

third-party complaint against Bodell and others. The matter was

removed to arbitration and the court proceedings were stayed.

Although SunStone made several attempts to have Bodell

participate in the arbitration, Bodell opposed.

In April 2020, SunStone and Association settled all

claims related to Alii Cove for $15 million. Insurance paid

$14,301,916.30 and Towne Development of Alii Cove (a member of

SunStone) paid $698,083.70.

Turning to the arbitration between Sunstone and

Bodell, SunStone sought contribution and indemnification for the

$15 million paid to Association. After nineteen days of

hearings, SunStone was awarded $8,351,848 in damages and

$1,252,777 in attorneys' fees related to the arbitration

(Arbitration Decision and Award).

The circuit court confirmed the Arbitration Decision

and Award. The circuit court also granted SunStone's request

for attorneys' fees and costs related to confirmation of the

award.

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

In separate appeals, Bodell challenges the

confirmation of the award (CAAP-22-040) and the award of

attorneys' fees and costs related to confirmation of the award

(CAAP-22-263). SunStone contests this court's jurisdiction over

both appeals.

We consolidated the appeals, and 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 the points of error as discussed below, and

affirm the Order Confirming Arbitration Award and affirm in part

and vacate in part the Fees and Costs Order.

(1) Jurisdiction. We first address SunStone's

contention this court lacks jurisdiction over the two appeals.

(a) CAAP-22-040

In its statement contesting jurisdiction, SunStone

contends Bodell lacks standing to appeal because it "waived any

further challenges to the Arbitration Award." SunStone

specifically maintains Bodell waived its right to move to vacate

the Arbitration Decision and Award as it asked the Arbitrator to

clarify her unambiguous award, and later filed an opposition to

SunStone's motion to confirm rather than a motion to modify,

correct, or vacate the Arbitration Decision and Award.

As an initial matter, standing is prudential rather

than jurisdictional. See generally Tax Found. of Hawai‘i v.

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

State, 144 Hawai‘i 175, 188, 439 P.3d 127, 140 (2019). Next,

though Bodell asked the Arbitrator to clarify her award by

deleting a typographical error and providing an item-by-item

breakdown of the award, the clarification Bodell sought from the

Arbitrator did not substantively change the amount awarded. Cf.

generally Mathewson v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 82 Hawai‘i 57, 82,

919 P.2d 969, 994 (1996) (indicating where the losing party

sought a substantive change of the arbitration award as opposed

to "mere clarification," the losing party was "precluded from

challenging the trial court's confirmation order") (emphases

omitted). And, contrary to SunStone's claim, the record

indicates Bodell filed a motion to vacate the Arbitration

Decision and Award on September 16, 2021.

But, more to the point, we have jurisdiction over this

appeal because the circuit court entered a judgment pursuant to

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 658A-25 (2016). See HRS § 658A-

28(a)(6) (2016) (indicating "[a]n appeal may be taken from . . .

[a] final judgment entered pursuant to this chapter").

(b) CAAP-22-263

In its statement contesting jurisdiction, SunStone

contends the minute order Bodell appeals from is not an

appealable order.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"[A] minute order is not an appealable order." Abrams

v. Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, 88 Hawai‘i 319, 321 n.3, 966

P.2d 631, 633 n.3 (1998). Nonetheless, a prematurely filed

notice of appeal is considered timely after a judgment or order

becomes final. Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)

Rule 4(a)(2). After Sunstone filed its statement of

jurisdiction, the circuit court entered its Fees and Costs

Order. Thus, we construe Bodell's appeal as being from the Fees

and Costs Order; we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See

Abrams, 88 Hawai‘i at 321 n.3, 966 P.2d at 633 n.3.

(2) Appeal from Order Confirming Arbitration Award
(CAAP-22-040)

In challenging the confirmation of the arbitration

award, Bodell contends the circuit court erred because (a) the

award was "facially inconsistent," (b) the Arbitrator failed to

clarify the award, and (c) evident partiality existed.

(a) First, Bodell contends the circuit court erred in

confirming the arbitration award because the award was facially

inconsistent.

Bodell argues the award was facially inconsistent

because it awarded SunStone over $8 million even though the

Arbitrator found SunStone sustained $698,083.70 in damages.

According to Bodell, SunStone was "not entitled to recover from

Bodell the amount that Steadfast Insurance Company paid to

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

settle" Association's claims. (Emphasis omitted.) Bodell

further argues this "conclusion is mandated by the clear and

unambiguous waiver of subrogation clause in the [American

Institute of Architects] contract between SunStone and Bodell."

Bodell relies on HRS § 658A-23(a)(4) (2016) to support its

arguments.

HRS § 658A-23(a)(4) provides that an arbitration award

shall be vacated if the arbitrator exceeded their powers. "We

review the circuit court's ruling on an arbitration award de

novo, but we also are mindful that the circuit court's review of

arbitral awards must be extremely narrow and exceedingly

deferential." Kona Vill. Realty, Inc. v. Sunstone Realty

Partners, XIV, LLC, 121 Hawai‘i 110, 112, 214 P.3d 1100, 1102

(App. 2009) (citation omitted).

Here, the Arbitrator determined the subrogation waiver

did not apply to the arbitration award and "[a]n arbitrator's

interpretation of a contract cannot be vacated by the reviewing

court." Tatibouet v. Ellsworth, 99 Hawai‘i 226, 241, 54 P.3d

397, 412 (2002).

Thus, HRS § 658A-23(a)(4) was not implicated.

Bodell also argues the award was facially inconsistent

because it awarded attorneys' fees without considering the

reasonableness of those fees. According to Bodell, the

Arbitrator "did not even consider the issue of reasonableness."

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Bodell relies on HRS § 658A-21(b) (2016) and Kona Village

Realty.

HRS § 658A-21(b) allows an arbitrator to award

reasonable attorney's fees:

(b) An arbitrator may award reasonable
attorney's fees and other reasonable expenses of
arbitration if such an award is authorized by law
in a civil action involving the same claim or by
the agreement of the parties to the arbitration
proceeding.

In Kona Village Realty, this court determined because

the parties' agreement included an attorneys' fees provision

specifying reasonable attorneys' fees could be awarded, it could

not vacate or modify the fees awarded and did not reach the

issue of reasonableness of the fees. 121 Hawai‘i at 114-16, 214

P.3d at 1104-06. However, the court opined that in cases where

the parties "wage an expensive arbitration battle" by not

limiting discovery and where the parties "expressly grant

arbitrators broad authority to award attorneys' fees 'in such

amounts as the majority of the arbitrators shall determine,'

second-guessing of reasonableness determinations by reviewing

courts would simply proliferate the battlegrounds and further

undermine the purpose of alternative dispute resolution." Id.

at 115 n.7, 214 P.3d at 1105 n.7.

Here, though the Arbitrator did not include findings

related to reasonable rates or the amount of fees which would be

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reasonable, she noted "[t]estimony was extensive and examination

of expert witnesses was vigorous" and that the "parties

presented a substantial body of evidence and exhibits" over the

roughly nineteen-day proceeding. And, Bodell does not show the

Arbitrator "intentionally and plainly disregarded the parties'

agreement or clearly-established law." 121 Hawai‘i at 116, 214

P.3d at 1106.

Thus, we decline to second guess the circuit court's

confirmation of the Arbitration Decision and Award.

(b) Bodell next contends the circuit court erred in

confirming the arbitration award because the Arbitrator's

failure "to entertain Bodell's request to clarify" the award

amounted to prejudicial misconduct preventing Bodell from

seeking reimbursement from other parties. Bodell relies on HRS

§ 658A-23(a)(2)(C).

HRS § 658A-23(a)(2)(C) requires the circuit court to

vacate an award if there was "[m]isconduct by an arbitrator

prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration

proceeding." Arbitrator misconduct may occur where the

arbitrator "had any financial interest in the outcome of the

decision; . . . identified with the interests, prejudices, and

needs of either party; and . . . refused to hear testimony or

refused to allow the presentation of evidence." But see Gadd v.

Kelley, 66 Haw. 431, 441-42, 667 P.2d 251, 258-59 (1983)

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(discussing trial court's findings regarding arbitration panel's

conduct and behavior during arbitration proceeding).

In the order granting in part and denying in part

Bodell's motion for clarification of the arbitration decision

and award, the Arbitrator declined to give an item-by-item

breakdown of the award because the purpose of the arbitration

was to determine Bodell's responsibility to SunStone:

With respect to Bodell's request that the Decision be
clarified to reflect an item by item breakdown of the total
$8,351,848 awarded, the undersigned Arbitrator declines to
do so.

This arbitration hearing was to determine the
reasonableness of SunStone's undertaking to settle
underlying claims made by the Association . . . and the
extent to which Bodell was responsible.

(Emphases omitted.)

Bodell does not show how declining to give an item-by-

item breakdown rises to the level of misconduct and only

summarily maintains it is prejudiced as to pursuing

indemnification and contribution claims against third parties.

Without a showing of misconduct, we cannot say the

circuit court erred in confirming the arbitration award.

(c) Bodell also contends the circuit court "erred in

confirming the arbitration award despite the Arbitrator's

'evident partiality.'" (Formatting altered.) Relying on HRS

§ 658A-12(d) to show evident partiality, Bodell points to the

Arbitrator's use of the words "nonsense" and "poor witness,"

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

frustration with Bodell's counsel, and phone call with her

doctor.

Under HRS § 658A-12(d) (Supp. 2018), the court may

vacate an arbitration award if the arbitrator failed to disclose

certain facts:

(d) If the court, upon timely objection by a party,
determines that the arbitrator did not disclose a fact
required by subsection (a) or (b) to be disclosed, the
court may determine that such failure to disclose
constituted evident partiality and vacate an award made by
the arbitrator pursuant to section 658A-23(a)(2).

Sections (a) and (b) of HRS § 658A-12 identify the following as

facts to disclose: "direct and material financial or personal

interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding" and

"existing or past substantial relationship with any of the

parties to the agreement to arbitrate or the arbitration

proceeding, their counsel or representatives, a witness, or

another arbitrator." "'The burden of proving facts which would

establish a reasonable impression of partiality rests squarely

on the party challenging the award.'" Nordic PCL Constr., Inc.

v. LPIHGC, LLC, 136 Hawai‘i 29, 51, 358 P.3d 1, 23 (2015)

(internal brackets and citations omitted).

In a request for supplemental disclosure, Bodell

maintained "[o]n December 7, 2020, during a break, the

Arbitrator told an individual with whom she had been talking

off-camera that she needed to get back to this 'nonsense[.]'"

In response, the Arbitrator stated she was "confident it was

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

addressing the amount of time being taken to examine on cross-

examination of an issue, rather than the substance of the

questioning." The Arbitrator's use of the word "nonsense" was

not reflected in transcripts.

As to Bodell's argument that the Arbitrator made

remarks indicating she pitied SunStone's expert, the arbitration

transcript excerpts included in the record do not appear to

reflect such remarks. Bodell maintained that on January 11,

2021 before Bodell resumed its cross-examination of SunStone's

expert Colin Murphy (Murphy), "the Arbitrator related to the

person off-camera that the 'poor witness' has been going on all

day and going into tomorrow." In her supplemental disclosure,

the Arbitrator noted she "did express concern for the several

days of examination that [SunStone's] expert [Murphy] had been

subject to, not as a point of partiality, but to comment on the

length of time he was being questioned."

Without more, Bodell does not show that the

Arbitrator's remarks of "nonsense" and "poor witness" were facts

"that a reasonable person would consider likely to affect the

impartiality of the arbitrator."

Examining Bodell's claim that the Arbitrator expressed

irritation with Bodell's counsel and SunStone's expert, Murphy,

Bodell maintains the Arbitrator's "admitted frustration . . .

was unwarranted" because Bodell was not objecting to Murphy

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

being provided assistance in locating documents but rather to

documents being pulled "which were not known to be marked as

arbitration exhibits and obtaining factual information from non-

witnesses during his arbitration testimony." (Emphases omitted.)

During Murphy's testimony on January 12, 2021, Murphy

acknowledged he was receiving assistance in locating documents

and later when asked a specific question he noted an assistant

was pulling documents so Murphy could see them. Bodell noted

this "would be highly unusual in a binding arbitration in

person" and the following exchange occurred:

THE ARBITRATOR: If you wish a break every time you
ask a question we will take a break and I will instruct him
not to have assistance. I can do that.

All the assistant is helping is to locate the
response. So I'm not seeing where the problem is. If you
think it's a problem, I will accommodate you and we will
stop each time and we'll have Mr. Murphy look it up
himself. Is that what you want?

MS. ARATANI: Well, will Bodell similarly be able to
have assistance with their witnesses as they testify?

THE WITNESS: If I had a full set of drawings in
front of me and if I had all the project documents in boxes
that are brought into an arbitration, I would have them and
I would be able to find them.

But I'm looking them up in computers and trying to
find all of them. Before in earlier parts of the testimony
it's been challenging and it's taken time. So I asked
Anne-Marie to help me so I would have the documents.
That's all I'm doing.

THE ARBITRATOR: We're not going to have her help
you. We're going to stop. And each time there is an
objection you will look it up yourself however long it
takes. We will be in recess and I'll give you ten minutes
to look for the response. Thank you.

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record at
2:25 p.m.

(Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:25 p.m. to 2:35
p.m.)

The following day, Bodell again objected to Murphy

talking to his assistant off-the-record during his testimony:

MS. ARATANI: Your Honor, again for the record, I'd
like to have the witness state for the record who he was
just talking to.

THE WITNESS: I'm asking Ann Marie Zanelli to please
call the office and get the listing that I have of the days
that we were on site.

THE ARBITRATOR: If we were doing a live case the
same opportunity would be permitted to people. Notes are
passed between lawyers. Notes are passed to their
paralegals. It's noted on the record that there was a
verbal request. Otherwise we'll be in recess so we can do
this live to accommodate objections. Proceed.

MS. ARATANI: Your Honor, I disagree as to experts.
There are notes passed between paralegals and associates
and counsel for parties but not by experts normally.

THE ARBITRATOR: We'll go off the record for
Mr. Murphy to do this. And then when you are ready,
Mr. Murphy, we'll reconvene, okay? So I'll turn everything
off until we get word from Eamon that you're ready to
respond to the question. Go off the record. Do your
business and come back on the record. Thank you.

Though these exchanges suggest the Arbitrator may have

been frustrated, they are not facts "that a reasonable person

would consider likely to affect the impartiality of the

arbitrator." See HRS § 658A-12(b).

Bodell also maintains the Arbitrator was "the very

antithesis of a neutral factfinder" when she took a phone call

from her doctor about a COVID-19 vaccination during direct

examination of Bodell's president, without pausing the

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

proceedings, apologizing, or later asking the witness to repeat

his testimony. However, the portion of the January 13, 2021

transcript reflecting the purported phone call was not included

as part of the record. Thus, we cannot say Bodell established a

reasonable impression of partiality.

With no "facts" establishing partiality or bias on the

part of the Arbitrator, the circuit court did not err in

confirming the award.

(3) Appeal from Fees and Costs Order (CAAP-22-263)

In challenging the award of attorneys' fees and costs

related to confirming the arbitration award, Bodell contends

(a) the circuit court considered inadmissible hearsay, and

SunStone failed to show (b) its rates reflected the prevailing

community rates, (c) the hours claimed were reasonable, and

(d) the requested costs were reasonable.

(a) Pointing to the "billing records" and declaration

of counsel appended to SunStone's fees and costs motion, Bodell

contends the circuit court abused its discretion "in considering

inadmissible hearsay evidence in granting Sun[S]tone's request

for attorneys' fees." (Formatting altered.)

"If a motion requires the consideration of facts not

appearing of record, it shall be supported by affidavit." Rules

of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawai‘i (RCCH) Rule 7(a).

"In lieu of an affidavit, an unsworn declaration may be made by

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

a person, in writing, subscribed as true under penalty of law,

and dated[.]" RCCH Rule 7(g); see generally Stanford Carr Dev.

Corp. v. Unity House, Inc., 111 Hawai‘i 286, 306, 141 P.3d 459,

479 (2006) (explaining an attorney's declaration authenticated

the fees and costs incurred). We also note that Hawai‘i courts

regularly examine billing records and declarations of counsel

appended to requests for fees and costs to determine the amount

of fees and costs to award. See generally Kamaka v. Goodsill

Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai‘i 92, 122, 176 P.3d 91, 121

(2008) (explaining there is no "bright line standard for

adequacy of documentation in the trial court's determination of

attorneys' fees[,]" instead the award of attorneys' fees is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

Here, SunStone's Exhibit 1 to its motion for fees and

costs was an itemized, detailed billing spreadsheet indicating

the amount of time attorneys and/or paralegals spent on various

tasks. Also appended to the fees and costs motion was the

declaration of SunStone's attorney Cid H. Inouye (Inouye), who

testified that the spreadsheet included as Exhibit 1 was "true

and correct copies [sic] of itemized time and costs entries

billed" while representing SunStone for matters related to

confirmation of the arbitration award. Inouye's declaration

16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

provided a sufficient foundation to authenticate Exhibit 1. See

Stanford Carr, 111 Hawai‘i at 306, 141 P.3d at 479.

Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion

in considering Exhibit 1 and Inouye's declaration.

(b) Bodell next contends the circuit court abused its

discretion in awarding attorneys' fees as SunStone failed to

show its rates reflected prevailing community rates.

HRS § 658A-25 3 "allows a court to award attorney's fees

incurred in judicial proceedings to confirm an arbitration award

when a motion to confirm award under HRS § 658A-22 is

contested." RT Import, Inc. v. Torres, 139 Hawai‘i 445, 451, 393

P.3d 997, 1003 (2017). "Parties seeking attorneys' fees bear

the burden of demonstrating that the fees requested are

3 HRS § 658A-25 provides:

(a) Upon granting an order confirming, vacating
without directing a rehearing, modifying, or correcting an
award, the court shall enter a judgment in conformity
therewith. The judgment may be recorded, docketed, and
enforced as any other judgment in a civil action.

(b) A court may allow reasonable costs of the
motion and subsequent judicial proceedings.

(c) On application of a prevailing party to a
contested judicial proceeding under section 658A-22, 658A-
23, or 658A-24, the court may add reasonable attorney's
fees and other reasonable expenses of litigation incurred
in a judicial proceeding after the award is made to a
judgment confirming, vacating without directing a
rehearing, modifying, or correcting an award.

(Formatting altered.)

17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reasonable." Gurrobat v. HTH Corp., 135 Hawai‘i 128, 135, 346

P.3d 197, 204 (2015).

In its reply in support of its fees and costs motion,

SunStone noted the hourly rates the United States District Court

for the District of Hawai‘i determined were reasonable for

attorneys with over twenty years of experience ($280), eleven

years of experience ($200), and seven to eight years of

experience ($185), in a 2017 order awarding fees and costs as

sanctions. See Starr Adjustment Servs., Inc. v. Rucker, Misc.

No. 17-00133 DKW-KSC, 2017 WL 4106075, at *3 (D. Haw. Sept. 15,

2017) (Order).

The hourly rates requested here were less than the

hourly rates in Starr Adjustment. Inouye, requesting $250.00

per hour, testified he and the other partner in the case each

had more than 35 years of legal experience. Although Inouye did

not provide the years of experience for the associates involved

in the case, they requested a rate of $165.00 per hour, which

was discounted from their usual billing rates of $310.00 and

$270.00 per hour.

Because the court "ha[s] personal knowledge of the

complexity of the litigation and the nature and quality of the

legal services rendered before it[,]" we conclude that under

these circumstances the circuit court did not abuse its

discretion in awarding reasonable attorneys' fees that reflect

18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

prevailing community rates. See Stanford Carr Dev., 111 Hawai‘i

at 306, 141 P.3d at 480.

(c) Bodell also contends the circuit court abused its

discretion in granting SunStone's request for attorney's fees

because the hours claimed were unreasonable, duplicative, or

beyond the scope of HRS § 658A-25. Bodell argues the following

were unreasonable or duplicative entries: multiple entries

billed on August 10, 2021 for multiple individuals to review

Bodell's "one-page opposition to the motion to confirm"; entries

by multiple attorneys to review the Arbitration Decision and

Award; billing entries for scheduling; e-mails to clients

regarding billing for arbitration; and "time billed regarding

Bodell's 'appeal chances[.]'"

As mentioned above, HRS § 658A-25 allows for

reasonable attorneys' fees. See HRS § 658A-25(c). On appeal,

Bodell bears the burden of showing the circuit court abused its

discretion. See generally DFS Grp. L.P. v. Paiea Props., 110

Hawai‘i 217, 222, 131 P.3d 500, 505 (2006) (party requesting fees

bears the burden of proving fees necessarily incurred); Kamaka,

117 Hawaiʻi at 122, 176 P.3d at 121 (trial court's award of

attorneys' fees reviewed for abuse of discretion).

As to the multiple entries related to review of

Bodell's opposition to the motion to confirm and review of the

Arbitration Decision and Award, our case law does not

19
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

categorically prohibit "billing for reasonable time spent by

multiple attorneys from the same firm" and Bodell does not

provide evidence indicating the amount of time spent reviewing

these documents was excessive. See Oahu Publ'ns, Inc. v.

Abercrombie, 130 Hawai‘i 352, 310 P.3d 1053, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,

2013 WL 5676194, at *3 (App. Oct. 18, 2013) (SDO); In re

Thomas H. Gentry Revocable Tr., Nos. 29727, 29728, 2013 WL

376083, at *16 (Haw. App. Jan. 31, 2013) (mem. op.).

The billing entry or entries related to scheduling

that Bodell takes issue with are reviewing e-mails from the

client's general counsel related to the motion to confirm, and

attorneys' fees generally include fees related to client

communication. See generally HRAP Form 8a. As to the "time

billed regarding Bodell's 'appeal chances[,]'" these entries

relate to client communication, stem from the motion to confirm,

and were incurred before the Order Confirming Arbitration Award

was entered.

Turning to the entries related to e-mails to clients

regarding billing for arbitration, Bodell points to page 9 of

Exhibit 1. One entry (reference number 21471) on page 9 for

$9.50 appears to relate to billing stemming from the arbitration

itself and, thus, was beyond the scope of HRS § 658A-25.

To the extent the circuit court granted attorneys'

fees incurred in conjunction with the arbitration itself, which

20
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

are thus outside the scope of HRS § 658A-25, it abused its

discretion.

(d) Finally, Bodell contends the circuit court abused

its discretion in granting SunStone's costs as SunStone failed

to demonstrate the requested photocopying or duplication costs

were reasonable and related to the motion to confirm or the

motion to vacate the arbitration award.

If a party opposes the reasonableness of certain costs

requested, those costs are not presumed reasonable. But see

Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai‘i 327, 335, 31 P.3d 184, 192 (2001)

(indicating costs not objected to are allowed). Additionally,

when requesting photocopying costs, a party should indicate the

costs of duplication, if photocopying occurred in-house, and

provide information regarding each copy. See Kikuchi v. Brown,

110 Hawai‘i 204, 211, 130 P.3d 1069, 1076 (App. 2006).

Here, SunStone's reply in support of its fees and

costs motion and documentation appended to its fees and costs

motion suggest in-house photocopies were made, indicate the cost

per page (2¢ for non-color copies, 10¢ for color), and only

included photocopying costs from the date the Arbitrator issued

the award. As such, SunStone demonstrated the requested

photocopying costs were reasonable.

21
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion

in awarding costs.

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

January 10, 2022 Order Confirming Arbitration Award and

January 28, 2022 Judgment. We affirm in part and vacate in part

the circuit court's February 9, 2023 Fees and Costs Order, and

remand for proceedings consistent with this summary disposition

order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 22, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Edward R. Hugo,
for Third-Party Defendant/ /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Fourth-Party Plaintiff- Associate Judge
Appellant.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Cid H. Inouye, Associate Judge
Kelvin H. Kaneshiro,
Michael G. Kozak,
Rachel A. Zelman,
Katherine B. Hughes,
(O'Connor Playdon Guben &
Inouye),
for Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff-Appellee.

22