Chun v. Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawai'i

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawai'i reviewed orders concerning attorneys' fees, postjudgment interest, and a stay of enforcement in a class action involving recalculated public employee retirement benefits. The court held that the State was immune from postjudgment interest under HRS § 478-3 in an HRS § 661-1 action, upheld the 25 percent common-fund attorneys' fee award and related exclusions, and affirmed the stay order while reversing the postjudgment-interest award.

Holdings

1. The State is immune from awards of HRS § 478-3 postjudgment interest in actions brought under HRS § 661-1 because no statute expressly waives sovereign immunity from such interest.
2. The circuit court properly excluded postjudgment interest from the common fund because the ERS was immune from the interest award.
3. The offset was properly excluded from the common fund because the 1996 final order expressly deducted it from the amounts payable to class members.
4. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by adopting a 25 percent benchmark and declining to award one-third of the common fund.
5. The circuit court properly declined to award investment income because the Supreme Court's remand was limited to further proceedings concerning the method of calculating attorneys' fees.
6. The teachers were not entitled to prejudgment interest because the stipulation applied only to the ERS and the principals and vice principals and did not extend to the teachers through consolidation.
7. The circuit court properly granted the stay without requiring payment of postjudgment interest because sovereign immunity barred the interest award.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sovereign immunity barred an award of postjudgment interest under HRS § 478-3 in an action against the State under HRS § 661-1.
2. Whether postjudgment interest should have been included in the common fund for calculating attorneys' fees.
3. Whether the offset withheld pursuant to the 1996 final order should have been included in the common fund.
4. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by using a 25 percent common-fund benchmark rather than awarding one-third of the fund as attorneys' fees.
5. Whether the circuit court exceeded the scope of the Supreme Court's remand by failing to award investment income.
6. Whether the teachers were entitled to prejudgment interest under a stipulation between the ERS and the principals and vice principals.
7. Whether the circuit court should have conditioned the stay pending appeal on payment of postjudgment interest.

Disposition

reversed