Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ogeone v. Yang

United States District Court, District of Hawaii

May 4, 2015

GALINA OGEONE, Plaintiff,
v.
W. RUTH YANG, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiff Galina Ogeone objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation to Grant Defendant’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Pursuant to the Judgment Filed February 25, 2015, Docket No. 194 (“F&R”). The court adopts the F&R.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

On February 24, 2015, trial was held on Ogeone’s claim that Defendant W. Ruth Yang breached an agreement to refund payments made by Ogeone in connection with certain dental work. Ogeone contended that she paid Defendant $3, 450 for bridge and crown dental work, but was refunded only $2, 000. See ECF No. 56, PageID # 470.

The jury determined that Ogeone had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she paid Defendant more than $2, 000, the amount she was refunded, for bridge and crown dental work. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant on February 25, 2015. See ECF No. 194.

On March 9, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 607-14 of Hawaii Revised Statutes. See ECF No. 198.

Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi filed his F&R on April 7, 2015, recommending that Defendant’s motion be granted. See ECF No. 213.

On April 24, 2015, Ogeone filed objections to the F&R. See ECF No. 217.

III. STANDARD.

The court reviews de novo those portions of a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Local Rule 74.2. The district court may accept those portions of the findings and recommendation that are not objected to if it is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Stow v. Murashige, 288 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1127 (D. Haw. 2003).

IV. ANALYSIS.

This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendant is entitled to an award of $362.50 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 607-14 of Hawaii Revised Statutes.

Section 607-14 provides that “[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.” Attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to section 607-14 shall not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.