Quiane v. West Physicians Associates, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
AGRIFINA CORPUZ QUIANE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEST PHYSICIANS
ASSOCIATES, LLC; ET AL.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 25-00490 DKW-KJM
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY WPA DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
WPA DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
On March 16, 2026, Defendants West Physicians Associates, LLC, Antonio
B. Cordero, Alfred Ines, Benjamin Gozun, and Ray Romero (collectively,
“Defendants”) filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Motion”). ECF No. 64. On
March 18, 2026, Plaintiff Agrifina Corpuz Quiane (“Plaintiff”) filed a Notice to
Cease and Desist and Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Defendants’ Attorney
Fees Request Notice of Motion, which the Court construes as Plaintiff’s
Opposition to the Motion. ECF No. 65. On March 27, 2026, Defendants filed a
Reply.1 ECF No. 66.
1 On March 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply. ECF No. 68. Because the Court
did not grant Plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply, the Court will not consider it in
ruling on the Motion. LR7.2 (“No further or supplemental briefing shall be
submitted without leave of court.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00490-DKW-KJM Document 69 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

2
The Court elects to decide this matter without a hearing pursuant to Rule
54.2(g) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii (“Local Rules”). After carefully considering the Motion,
appliable law, and record in this case, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS
that the district court DENY the Motion.
DISCUSSION
This case is one part of a protracted dispute that the parties have litigated in
federal and state court. On November 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint. ECF
No. 1. On January 26, 2026, the district court issued an Order (1) Granting in Part
and Denying in Part Without Prejudice Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
(2) Denying Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary Restraining Order; (3) Denying
Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Arbitration; and (4) Dismissing Case Without Leave
to Amend (“01/26/2026 Order”). ECF No. 62. Pursuant to the 01/26/2026 Order,
the Clerk of Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. ECF No. 63.
On March 16, 2026, Defendants filed the instant Motion. ECF No. 64.
Defendants seek an award of attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1.
Local Rule 54.2 governs motions for attorneys’ fees. The district court
briefly discussed Local Rule 54.2 in the 01/26/2026 Order when it addressed
Defendants’ previous, initial request for attorneys’ fees. ECF No. 62 at 17. The
district court explained that “Local Rule 54.2 prescribes in detail a specific
Case 1:25-cv-00490-DKW-KJM Document 69 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

3
procedure for when and how a party may move for attorney’s fees and/or non-
taxable costs.” Id. Because Defendants had not complied with Local Rule 54.2,
the district court denied Defendants’ initial attorneys’ fees request without
prejudice. Id.
The Court finds that Defendants again fail to comply with Local Rule 54.2.
Pursuant to Local Rule 54.2, a motion for attorneys’ fees must supported by a
memorandum setting forth, among other things, “a description of the work
performed by each timekeeper, broken down by hours expended on each task; the
timekeeper’s customary fee for like work; the customary fee for like work
prevailing in the community; any additional factors required by case law[.]”
LR54.2(f). The motion must also be supported by an affidavit of counsel that
includes, in relevant part, a “brief description of the relevant qualifications,
experience, and case-related contributions of each timekeeper for whom fees are
claimed, as well as any other factors relevant to establishing the reasonableness of
the requested rates[.]” LR54.2(f)(5).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, counsel’s declaration attached
thereto, and the Reply. Defendants seek $42,627 in attorneys’ fees based on work
performed by four timekeepers with hourly rates ranging from $140 to $480. ECF
No. 64-3. Defendants’ filings related to the Motion, however, do not contain any
information regarding the qualifications or experience of the timekeepers, or
Case 1:25-cv-00490-DKW-KJM Document 69 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

4
information regarding prevailing community rates. Indeed, Defendants do not
submit any evidence or caselaw that would establish the reasonableness of the
requested hourly rates. See Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th
Cir. 2019) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)) (“It is the
responsibility of the attorney seeking fees to submit evidence to support the
requested hourly rate.”). Rather, Defendants rely on a single, conclusory statement
by their attorney to establish reasonableness: “I have personally reviewed and
approved of the time and charges set forth in Exhibit A and I believe that they were
reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.” ECF No. 64-2 at 2 ¶ 3. This
is insufficient under the Local Rules and Ninth Circuit case law. Beyond their own
statements, “attorneys are required to submit additional evidence that the rate
charged is reasonable.” Howard G. v. Dep’t of Educ., CIV. NO. 11-00523 DKW-
RT, CIV. NO. 13-00029 DKW-RT, 2020 WL 2563275, at *13 (D. Haw. May 5,
2020) (citing Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987)),
adopted by 2020 WL 2561273 (D. Haw. May 20, 2020). Defendants failed to meet
this Ninth Circuit mandate.
Local Rule 54.2(h) states: “Failure to follow these rules regarding Fee
Motions and/or related nontaxable expenses may, in the court’s discretion, result in
the denial of such motions with prejudice.” LR54.2(h). Defendants fail to comply
with Local Rule 54.2, as set forth above. Particularly because the district court
Case 1:25-cv-00490-DKW-KJM Document 69 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

5
specifically directed Defendants’ attention to Local Rule 54.2 in the 01/26/2026
order, Defendants should have been aware of, and complied with, the local rule’s
requirements.
Given the foregoing material deficiencies, the Court finds and recommends
that the district court exercise its discretion to deny the Motion with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the
district court DENY Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 64) WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 3, 2026.
Quiane v. W. Physicians Assocs., LLC, Civil No. 25-00490 DKW-KJM; Findings and
Recommendation to Deny WPA Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
Case 1:25-cv-00490-DKW-KJM Document 69 Filed 04/03/26 Page 5 of 5
PageID.<pageID>