Albert v. Edward William, SL

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
KEVIN S. ALBERT and
KIMBERLY LEBLANC
ALBERT, TRUSTEES OF THE
ALBERT REVOCABLE TRUST
UAD 6/3/1997 AND RESTATED
1/7/2020,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ALLIED FINANCIAL
NETWORK, ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 23-00221 DKW-WRP
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
IN PART ION DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART ION
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Before the Court is Defendants ION Insurance Group, S.A. and ION
Insurance Company, Inc.’s (collectively, ION Defendants) Motion for Attorneys’
Fees, filed on September 22, 2025 (Motion). See Motion, ECF No. 321. Plaintiffs
Kevin Albert and Kimberly Albert, as Trustees of the Albert Revocable Trust UAD
6/3/1997 and Restated 1/7/2020 (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed their Opposition on
October 20, 2025 (Opposition). See Opposition, ECF No. 325. ION Defendants
filed their reply on November 3, 2025. See Reply, ECF No. 327. This matter is
suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule 54.2(g) of the Local
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

2
Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
(Local Rules). After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and the
relevant legal authority, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that ION
Defendants’ Motion be GRANTED IN PART.1
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
This suit arises from the loss of a luxury yacht, the Nakoa. See
Second Amended Complaint (SAC), ECF No. 84 ¶¶ 12, 44. In 2022, Plaintiffs
owned the Nakoa and obtained an Insurance Policy (the Insurance Policy) for it
from Defendant ION Insurance Group, S.A.2 See id. ¶¶ 12, 48. The broker for the
Insurance Policy was Defendant Steve Bonner (Defendant Bonner). See id. ¶ 56.
Bonner is the president of Defendant Allied Financial Network (Defendant Allied).
See id. Together, Defendant Bonner and Defendant Allied assisted Plaintiffs with
obtaining the Insurance Policy. See id.
1 Within fourteen days after a party is served with the Findings and
Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), a party may file written
objections in the United States District Court. A party must file any objections
within the fourteen-day period to preserve appellate review of the Findings and
Recommendation.
2 Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant ION Insurance Group, S.A. “assigned or
transferred responsibility for [the Insurance Policy]” to Defendant ION Insurance
Company Inc. SAC, ECF No. 84 ¶ 49. The District Court, however, disagreed and
found that ION Insurance Company, Inc. never became a party to the Insurance
Policy. See Order, ECF No. 311 at 19.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

3
Plaintiffs also worked with Defendant Luxury Finance Group
(Defendant LFG) to obtain financing for the purchase of the Nakoa. 	See id. ¶ 59.
Defendant LFG required that the Insurance Policy meet certain requirements with
respect to coverage of the Nakoa. See id. ¶ 68. One of the requirements was that
the Insurance Policy must contain a “breach of warranty insurance endorsement in
an amount no less than the loan amount.” Id. ¶ 69. On October 26, 2022,
Defendant LFG emailed Defendant Bonner about these requirements. See id. ¶ 68.
On the same day, Defendant Bonner gave Defendant LFG a Certificate of
Insurance for the Nakoa and sent it an email stating “[p]lease confirm received and
all in good order.” Id. ¶ 70. On October 27, 2022, Defendant LFG replied to this
email saying that the required breach of warranty endorsement was not included in
the Insurance Policy. See id. ¶ 71. This endorsement was ultimately never
included in the Insurance Policy. See id. ¶ 72.
On December 29, 2022, Noelani Yacht Charters and Jim Jones (Jones)
purchased the Nakoa for $1.45 million to be paid over fifteen (15) years. See id. ¶¶
13, 15. Then, on February 20, 2023, the Nakoa went adrift while being used by
Jones. See id. ¶¶ 28, 38. Throughout the following several weeks, the Nakoa ran
aground, became federalized by the State of Hawaii Department of Land and
Natural Resources, and eventually sank off the coast of Maui. See id. ¶¶ 40-44.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

4
On April 26, 2023, Defendant ION Insurance Group, S.A. declined coverage for
the loss of the Nakoa. See id. ¶ 79.
Plaintiffs asserted six claims against ION Defendants in the SAC
relating to the Insurance Policy: (1) Count I for Breach of Contract; (2) Count IV
for Negligence; (3) Count IX for Respondeat Superior; (4) Count X for Insurance
Bad Faith; (5) Count XI for Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices; and (6)
Count XII for Exemplary Damages. See SAC, ECF No. 84.
On April 11, 2025, ION Defendants moved for summary judgment as
to all claims against them.3 See Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 258;
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 260. On August 4, 2025, Chief District
Judge Derrick K. Watson granted ION Defendants’ motions and dismissed all
claims against them.4 See Order, ECF No. 311.
On September 22, 2025, ION Defendants filed the present Motion for
attorneys’ fees arguing that pursuant to HRS Section 607-14, ION Defendants are
3 ION Insurance Group, S.A. filed a “Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for
Summary Judgment as to All Claims.” See Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF
No. 258.
4 As to Defendant ION Insurance Group, S.A., Chief District Judge Watson
dismissed all claims without prejudice and without leave to amend pursuant to the
doctrine of forum non conveniens. See Order, ECF No. 311 at 25. As to
Defendant ION Insurance Company, Inc., he granted its Motion for Summary
Judgment on all counts, finding that it was never a party to the Insurance Policy.
See id. at 19.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

5
entitled to fees in the amount of $174,272.18 as the prevailing parties in this
matter. See Motion for Attorney Fees, ECF No. 321. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court recommends granting in part ION Defendants’ Motion.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees
ION Defendants argue that, as the prevailing parties in this case, they
are entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to HRS Section 607-14 which governs the
award of fees for actions in the nature of assumpsit.
HRS Section 607-14 provides: “[I]n all the courts, in all actions in the
nature of assumpsit . . . there shall be taxed as attorneys’ fees, to be paid by the
losing party and to be included in the sum for which execution may issue, a fee that
the court determines to be reasonable.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14. Attorneys’ fees
awarded pursuant to Section 607-14 “shall not exceed twenty-five per cent of the
judgment.” Id.
“In order to award reasonable attorneys’ fees under [HRS Section
607-14], the court must determine whether: (1) the action is in the nature of
assumpsit . . .; (2) the moving party is the prevailing party; (3) the fees requested
are reasonable; and (4) the fees do not exceed twenty-five percent of the
judgment.” Sheehan v. Centex Homes, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1038 (D. Haw.
2011). The Court addresses these factors below.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

6
A. Nature of Assumpsit
“It is well settled under Hawai’i law that ‘an action in the nature of
assumpsit includes ‘all possible contract claims.’” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Est. of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 844 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Leslie v. Est. of Tavares, 93
Haw. 1, 5, 994 P.2d 1047, 1051 (2000)). “Assumpsit is a common law form of
action which allows for the recovery of damages for the non-performance of a
contract, either express or implied, written or verbal, as well as quasi contractual
obligations.” Id. (quoting Leslie, 93 Haw. at 5, 994 P.2d at 1051). “The focus of
this analysis is thus on the ‘substance’ of the action, ‘rather than [on] the formal
language employed or the form of the pleadings.’” Id. (citing Schulz v. Honsador,
Inc., 67 Haw. 433, 436, 690 P.2d 279, 282 (1984), overruled on other grounds by
Blair v. Ing, 96 Haw. 327, 31 P.3d 184 (2001)). “Hence, the mere use of tort
language in a complaint does not control the characterization of the action as either
in assumpsit or in tort.” Id. “Instead, ‘[t]he character of the action should be
determined from the facts and issues raised in the complaint, the nature of the
entire grievance, and the relief sought.’” Id. (citing Leslie, 93 Haw. at 6, 994 P.2d
at 1052).
Further, for an action to be in the nature of assumpsit, the plaintiff’s
“primary objective must be to obtain monetary relief for breach of contract.”
Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsil Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 113 Haw. 251, 280, 151
------- -- ---- ------
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 6 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

7
P.3d 732, 761 (2007). The Ninth Circuit “requires an evaluation of the nature of
each claim when determining whether an action is in the nature of assumpsit.”
BlueEarth Biofuels, LLC v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., No. CIV. 09-00181 LEK-KSC,
2015 WL 881577, at *7 (D. Haw. Feb. 27, 2015). In a suit with mixed claims, the
existence of contract claims may result in a finding that the action is in the nature
of assumpsit unless those “contract claims are merely decorative . . . and not
germane to the genuine dispute being litigated.” Kona Enterprises, Inc., 229 F.3d
at 884. “[W]hen there is doubt as to the nature of the suit, the presumption is that
it sounds in assumpsit and not in tort.” Healy-Tibbitts Const. Co. v. Hawaiian
Indep. Refinery, Inc., 673 F.2d 284, 286 (9th Cir. 1982). The party opposing the
request for fees under HRS Section 607-14 has the burden of showing that “all
claims” alleged are not in the nature of assumpsit. Kona Enterprises, Inc., 229
F.3d at 885 (citation omitted).
The Court notes that Plaintiffs failed to respond to this issue in their
Opposition and therefore waive any argument with respect to whether their claims
against ION Defendants are in the nature of assumpsit. See Trigueros v. Adams,
685 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 2011); Gribben v. United Parcel Serv., 528 F.3d 1166,
1171 (9th Cir. 2008).
The following claim is clearly in the nature of assumpsit: Breach of
Contract (SAC Count I). See Schmidt, 2008 WL 4753276 at * 3 (citing 808 Dev.,
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 7 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

8
LLC v. Murakami, 111 Hawai’i 349, 366, 141 P.3d 996, 1013 (2006)). Although
Plaintiffs’ other claims against ION Defendants are not in the nature of assumpsit,
the Court finds that the substance of the entire grievance between these parties is
the alleged breach of the Insurance Policy. See Kona Enterprises, Inc., 229 F.3d at
884. Plaintiffs’ primary objective in bringing their claims against ION Defendants
was to obtain monetary relief for ION Defendants’ alleged breach of the Insurance
Policy. See SAC, ECF No. 84 at 15-22 (where Plaintiffs request, among other
things, the amounts due under the Insurance Policy and attorneys’ fees and costs);
see also Kahala Royal Corp., 113 Haw. at 280, 151 P.3d at 761; Helfand v. Gerson,
105 F.3d 530, 537 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] plaintiff’s prayer for attorney fees is a
significant indication that the action is in assumpsit.”).
Further, Plaintiffs’ claims that sound in tort necessarily required
resolution of the breach of contract claim. For example, Plaintiffs’ negligence and
respondeat superior claims concerned whether ION Defendants owed Plaintiffs a
duty under the Insurance Policy and as such, turned on the resolution of the breach
of contract claim. See SAC, ECF No. 84 ¶¶ 96-99, 124-26. Plaintiffs’ insurance
bad faith claim similarly concerned whether ION Defendants “breach[ed]” their
“duty of good faith and fair dealing,” which required determining whether ION
Defendants breached the terms of the Insurance Policy. See id. ¶¶ 127-30.
Plaintiffs’ Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices claim concerned whether
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 8 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

9
“[ION Defendants’] acts and/or omissions . . . constitute unfair and deceptive acts
and practices,” which similarly required determining whether ION Defendants
breached the terms of the Insurance Policy. See id. ¶¶ 131-33. Finally, Plaintiffs’
exemplary damages claim is a request for damages due to ION Defendants’ denial
of coverage. See id. ¶¶ 134-35. Consequently, it too required resolution of the
breach of contract claim.
Therefore, the Court finds that the contract claim in this case was not
merely “decorative” in nature, but was “germane” to the genuine dispute litigated
between Plaintiffs and ION Defendants. See Kona Enterprises, Inc., 229 F.3d at
884. Accordingly, and absent any argument from Plaintiffs on this issue, the Court
FINDS that this action is in the nature of assumpsit for purposes of HRS Section
607-14.
B. Apportionment
“A court awarding attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 607-14 must
apportion the fees claimed between assumpsit and non-assumpsit claims, if
practicable.” Au v. Republic State Mortg. Co., No. CIV.11-00251 JMS, 2014 WL
770291, at *3 (D. Haw. Feb. 14, 2014) (citing Blair, 6 Haw. at 332, 31 P.3d at
189). “However, if apportionment would be impracticable because the various
claims are inextricably linked to the breach of contract, then the Court may decline
to apportion attorneys’ fees between the claims.” Bruser v. Bank of Haw., No. CV
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 9 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

10
14-00387 LEK-RLP, 2017 WL 1534189, at *5 (D. Haw. Apr. 27, 2017); Blair, 96
Haw. at 333, 31 P.3d at 190 (“Because the negligence claim in this case was
derived from the alleged implied contract and was inextricably linked to the
implied contract claim by virtue of the malpractice suit, we hold that it is
impracticable, if not impossible, to apportion the fees between the assumpsit and
the non-assumpsit claims.”).
Judgment was entered in favor of ION Defendants on all claims,
including the breach of contract claim. As noted above, the non-assumpsit claims
required resolution of the contract dispute. Therefore, the Court FINDS that
apportioning the remainder of the claims is impracticable because they are
inextricably linked to the breach of contract claim. See Bruser, 2017 WL 1534189,
at *5; Blair, 96 Haw. at 333, 31 P.3d at 190.
C. Prevailing Party
“Section 607-14 states that reasonable attorneys’ fee[s] shall be taxed
in favor of the prevailing party against the losing party.” Au v. Funding Grp., Inc.,
933 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1270 (D. Haw. 2013). “In determining which party is the
prevailing party in complex litigation, Hawaiian courts focus on which party
prevailed on the ‘disputed main issue.’” In re Hoopai, 581 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th
Cir. 2009) (citing Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Bus. Plaza, Inc., 58 Haw. 606, 620,
575 P.2d 869, 879 (1978)). “The ‘disputed main issue,’ in turn, is identified by
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 10 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

11
looking to the ‘principal issues raised by the pleadings and proof in a particular
case.’” Id. (citing Fought & Co. v. Steel Eng’g & Erection, Inc., 87 Haw. 37, 53,
951 P.2d 487, 502-503 (1998)). “Thus, the ‘prevailing party’ is the party that
succeeds on the issue or issues that are (1) the ‘principal’ issues raised in the
litigation and (2) disputed by the parties.’” Id.
The Court FINDS that ION Defendants are the prevailing parties
because judgment was entered in favor of ION Defendants on all of Plaintiffs’
claims against them. See Au, 933 F. Supp. 2d at 1270 (citing MFD Partners v.
Murphy, 9 Haw. App. 509, 514, 850 P.2d 713, 716 (1992) (stating that Hawaii
courts have noted that “a party in whose favor judgment is rendered by the district
court is the prevailing party in that court.”)).
II. 	Attorneys’ Fees
A. ION Defendants’ Request for Attorneys’ Fees
ION Defendants requests attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$166,430.00 for work performed by counsel in litigating this matter beginning on
June 14, 2023. See Memorandum in Support of Motion, ECF No. 321 at 13; Ex. 4
to Motion, ECF No. 321-4 at 2.
Attorney 	Hours 	Hourly Rate 	Total Requested
Michael J.
Nakano, Esq
89.1 	$325.00 	$28,957.50
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 11 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

12
Melissa T.
Marushige, Esq.
21.5 	$275.00 	$5,912.50
Gregory Y.P.
Tom, Esq.
478.4 	$275.00 	$131,560.00
Total 	$166,430.00
In their Opposition, Plaintiffs re-argue the merits of their action and
state that Defendant ION Insurance Group, S.A. should have raised the forum non
conveniens issue earlier. See id. These arguments are not rooted in any of the
factors applicable to awarding fees and, given that ION Defendants were the
prevailing party in this action, the Court declines to consider additional arguments
on the merits in determining this fee request.
B. Reasonable Fees
HRS Section 607-14 requires that the Court determine the
reasonableness of the fees requested. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14. An award of
reasonable attorneys’ fees is generally based on the traditional “lodestar”
calculation set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). See
Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). A reasonable fee is
determined by multiplying (1) “the number of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation” by (2) “a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34.
i. 	Reasonable Hourly Rate
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 12 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

13
A reasonable hourly rate is determined by assessing the prevailing
market rate in the relevant community for similar work performed by attorneys of
comparable skill, experience, and reputation. See Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938
F.3d 1020, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2019). The relevant community is the forum in
which the district court sits. See Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973,
979 (citing Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Court may
also rely on its own knowledge and experience in determining a reasonable hourly
rate. See Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding district
court did not abuse its discretion by relying on its own knowledge and experience
to determine reasonable hourly rate for attorney fees).
Mr. Michael J. Nakano, Esq. was admitted to practice law in Hawaii
in 1997 and has been practicing in the private sector for 27 years. See Affidavit of
Gregory Y.P. Tom, ECF No. 321 at 20. He has “extensive experience in litigation,
with an emphasis in business defense litigation, admiralty/maritime law, trust and
estate litigation, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act,
administrative law, commercial litigation, and personal injury defense.” Id. In this
case, he developed case strategy and managed the other attorneys. See id. Based
on the evidence provided in support of Mr. Nakano’s rate and the Court’s
knowledge and experience of the prevailing rates in the community, the Court
FINDS that Mr. Nakano’s rate of $325 per hour is reasonable.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 13 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

14
Ms. Melissa T. Marushige, Esq. was admitted to practice law in
Hawaii in 2013 and has been practicing in the private sector for the past 12 years.
See id. She “has extensive experience in civil litigation and in energy,
telecommunications, regulatory, administrative, and utilities law.” Id. In this case,
she developed case strategy and managed the case on a daily basis. See id. 	Based
on the evidence provided in support of Ms. Marushige’s rate and the Court’s
knowledge and experience of the prevailing rates in the community, the Court
FINDS that Ms. Marushige’s rate of $275 per hour is reasonable.
Mr. Gregory Y.P. Tom, Esq. was admitted to practice law in Hawaii
in 1993 and has been practicing in the private sector for the past 32 years. See id.
at 21. He “has extensive experience in litigation, including in the areas of
commercial and complex litigation; personal injury; premises liability;
admiralty/maritime law; insurance coverage/bad faith; products liability;
professional liability; and probate and trust litigation.” Id. In this case, he
developed case strategy, participated in discovery, and was involved in the motions
practice. See id. Based on the evidence provided in support of Mr. Tom’s rate and
the Court’s knowledge and experience of the prevailing rates in the community, the
Court FINDS that Mr. Tom’s rate of $275 per hour is reasonable.
ii. 	Hours Reasonably Expended
ION Defendants bear the burden of proving the fees requested are
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 14 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

15
associated with the relief requested and reasonably necessary to achieve the results
obtained. See Tirona v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 821 F. Supp. 632, 636 (D.
Haw. 1993). Time expended on work deemed “excessive, redundant, or otherwise
unnecessary” will not be compensated. See Gates v. Duekmejian, 987 F.2d 1392,
1397 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34). The Court will further
strike or reduce block billed entries, incomplete entries that do not provide enough
information to evaluate the legal services provided, or other entries that do not
comply with the Local Rule 54.2:
(3) Description of Services Rendered. The party seeking
an award of fees must describe adequately the services
rendered, so that the reasonableness of the requested fees
can be evaluated. In describing such services, counsel
should 	be 	sensitive 	to 	information 	protected 	by 	the
attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product
doctrine, but must nevertheless furnish an adequate non-
privileged description of the services in question. If the
time descriptions are incomplete, or if such descriptions
fail to describe adequately the services rendered, the court
may reduce the award accordingly. For example, time
entries 	for 	telephone 	conferences 	must 	include 	an
identification of all participants and the reason for the call;
entries for legal research must include an identification of
the specific issue researched and, if possible, should
identify the pleading or document for which the research
was 	necessary; 	entries 	describing 	the 	preparation 	of
pleadings 	and 	other 	documents 	must 	include 	an
identification of the pleading or other document prepared
and the activities associated with such preparation. Block
billing is not permitted, and block billed entries may be
partially or completely excluded by the court.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 15 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

16
Local Rule 54.2(f)(3).
Plaintiffs raise only one objection concerning Defendants’ billing
entries. Plaintiffs argue that because ION Defendants had previously filed and lost
a motion to dismiss, they “are not entitled [to] their attorneys’ fees and costs
associated with said [Motion].” See Opposition, ECF No 325 at 2-3. However,
Plaintiffs cite no authority for this position, and the Court is not persuaded.
The Court reviewed ION Defendants’ time entries and finds that
certain time entries lack sufficient detail for the Court to evaluate the legal services
provided. The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that the entries in the below table
be stricken for failure to comply with Local Rule 54.2(f)(3).
Date 	Hours Reduced 	Timekeeper
8/17/23 	4.00 	MTM
8/18/23 	2.00 	MTM
The Court FINDS that the remainder of the time entries contain
sufficient detail, comply with the Local Rules, and are reasonable. Based on the
Court’s analysis above, and as set forth in the table below, the Court FINDS that
the lodestar amount and apportions discussed above result in reasonable attorneys’
fees of $172,544.43.
Timekeeper 	Hours 	Rate 	Total Requested
Michael J. Nakano,
Esq.
89.1 	$325.00 	$28,957.50
Melissa T. Marushige,
Esq.
21.5 	$275.00 	$5,912.50
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 16 of 17
PageID.<pageID>

17
Gregory Y.P. Tom,
Esq.
478.4 	$275.00 	$131,560.00
Sub-Total 	589.00 	$166,430.00
Reduced 	6.00 	$275.00 	$1,650.00
Fees minus Reduced 	$164,780.00
General Excise Tax
(4.712%)
$7,764.43
Recommended
Award of Fees
$172,544.435
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that ION
Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 321, be GRANTED IN PART. The Court
recommends that ION Defendants be granted their reasonable attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $172,544.43.
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 26, 2025.
Albert, et al., v. Allied Financial Network, et al., Civ. No. 23-00221 DKW-WRP;
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART ION
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES.
5 This amount does not exceed 25% of the monetary amount at issue in the action,
as required by Section 607-14. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14; SAC, ECF No. 84.
Case 1:23-cv-00221-DKW-WRP Document 328 Filed 12/29/25 Page 17 of 17
PageID.<pageID>