Sanact, Inc. v. U.S. Pipelining LLC

Filing 73

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 7/26/2018. Based upon the evidence and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated herein, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AN D DECREED: 1. Sanact and US Pipelining entered into a binding contract. 2. US Pipelining breached the contract when it failed to pay Sanact for the work Sanact performed from October 6, 2015 through November 9, 2015. 3. Sanact i s entitled to judgment against US Pipelining in the amount of $123,203.16. 4. Sanact is entitled to recover prejudgment interest at a rate of 10% a year beginning on December 9, 2015. 5. Sanact is the prevailing party and is ent itled to attorneys' fees in assumpsit pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607- 14. Sanact shall file a Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Related Non-taxable Expenses within 14 days of entry of judgment. 6. Sanact is entitled to recover post-judgment interest as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (emt, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
US PIPELINING LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
_________________________________
SANACT, INC.,

CIVIL NO. 16-00377 HG-RLP

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
Plaintiff Sanact, Inc., doing business as Roto Rooter,
(“Sanact”) filed a Complaint against Defendant US Pipelining LLC
(“US Pipelining”).
Defendant US Pipelining served as a subcontractor to the
general contractor, Johnson Controls, Inc., on a construction
project at the Kaanapali Alii condominium complex on the island
of Maui.
Plaintiff Sanact provided Defendant US Pipelining with
specialized subcontractor work and is seeking to recover payment
for services that were furnished to Defendant US Pipelining.
The Parties stipulated to submit the case for decision by
the Court based on their Trial Briefs and a set of 20 jointly
filed Exhibits.
To the extent any findings of fact are more properly
characterized as conclusions of law, or any conclusions of law
are more properly characterized as findings of fact, they shall
be so construed.
1

FINDINGS OF FACT
THE PARTIES
1.

Sanact, Inc. (“Sanact”), a California corporation, is

registered to do business in the State of Hawaii as a foreign
corporation, and does business under the tradename “Roto Rooter.”
2.

Defendant US Pipelining LLC (“US Pipelining”), a

Pennsylvania limited liability company, is registered to do
business in the State of Hawaii as a foreign limited liability
company.
3.

The Association of Apartment Owners of Kaanapali Alii,

a condominium complex on the island of Maui, hired Johnson
Controls, Inc. as the general contractor to do a renovation on
the complex.
4.

Johnson Controls, Inc. retained US Pipelining as a

subcontractor to internally reline more than 27,000 feet of
vertical stacks of plumbing pipes.

The work involved four

buildings, each at least ten floors high.
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
5.

The work was performed at 50 Nohea Kai Drive, Lahaina,

Maui, Hawaii 96761, otherwise identified as Tax Map Key No. (2)44-008-022-0000 (“the Property”) in the County of Maui, State of
Hawaii.
6.
condition.

The plumbing pipes at the Property were in poor
The pipes required extensive hydro-jetting and other

speciality cleaning methods prior to lining and repair by US
2

Pipelining.
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN US PIPELINING AND SANACT
7.

During the course of the Project, US Pipelining found

it necessary to retain the services of Sanact in support of US
Pipelining’s work at the Property.
8.

Jeremy Bowman was US Pipelining’s President and was the

primary person responsible for engaging Sanact.
9.

In August 2015, Jeremy Bowman asked Rodney Wray, the

President of Sanact, to perform pipe cleaning services on the
Property.

The pipe cleaning services required Sanact to provide

labor and equipment to operate drain cleaning machines, a trailjetter, a hydro-jetter, and to perform plumbing repair services.
10.

Specifically, Sanact was instructed by US Pipelining to

clean out all of the rust and calcium deposits on all of the
lines in the Project.

Sanact was required to use a camera to

verify that the lines were clean and to present US Pipelining
with a DVD containing photographic evidence that each line was
cleared so that US Pipelining could reline the pipes.
11.

The Parties agreed that Sanact would bill US Pipelining

on a time-basis for actual work performed, in return for which US
Pipelining agreed to pay Sanact in full per the invoices.
12.

Sanact’s cleaning process was an essential step

necessary before US Pipelining could reline the pipes.
13.

No written contract was entered into between US

Pipelining and Sanact.
3

PERFORMANCE BY SANACT

14.

Sanact performed as requested by providing manpower,

materials, and equipment for the Project, dedicating laborers
during both day and night shifts.

Sanact completed the work by

operating drain cleaning machines, a trail-jetter, a hydrojetter, and conducting various plumbing repair services at the
Property from September 2, 2015 through November 9, 2015 as
requested by US Pipelining.
15.

US Pipelining has admitted that there were no

significant deficiencies in Sanact’s work for US Pipelining,
“other than minor issues which were addressed and rectified in
the course of ordinary business.”

(Defendant US Pipelining’s

Answers to Interrogatories at p. 10, Exhibit 8).
16.

There has been no objection by Johnson Controls, Inc.

to any of the work performed by Sanact.
17.

Sanact performed all the work on the Property requested

by US Pipelining.
INVOICES SENT FROM SANACT TO US PIPELINING
18.

Sanact regularly presented invoices to US Pipelining

and sought payment for its work on the Property.
19.

(Exhibits 1-4).

The invoices charged for each laborer at a rate of

$150.00 per hour for the first eight hours per day and $172.50
per hour after eight hours of work.
20.

(Exhibit 2).

The invoices provided that, “[i]f not paid within 30
4

days following the date indicated above, a service charge of 1
1/2% per month will be charged on overdue accounts, which is 18%
annually.”
21.

(Exhibit 3).
Sanact sent US Pipelining invoices for each day of work

performed.

The date on the invoice was the same date that the

work was performed.
22.

Sanact sent US Pipelining invoices for all of the work

performed from September 2, 2015 through November 9, 2015.
(Exhibits 1-3).
US PIPELINING PAID SANACT FOR WORK SANACT COMPLETED FROM
SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 TO OCTOBER 5, 2015 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
INVOICES
23.

US Pipelining paid Sanact a total of $94,639.60 for

work Sanact performed during the time period from September 2,
2015 through October 5, 2015.
24.

(Exhibit 4).

On October 1, 2015, US Pipelining made a payment of

$9,140,65 for the invoices dated September 14, 17, 18 and 21,
2015.

(Exhibit 4).

25.

On October 5, 2015, US Pipelining made a payment of

$4,114.59 for the invoices dated September 2 and 10, 2015.
(Exhibit 4).
26.

On October 28, 2015, US Pipelining made a payment of

$81,384.36 for the invoices dated September 21, 22, 23, 25, 26,
28, 29, and 30, 2015, and October 1, 2, 3, and 5, 2015.
4).

5

(Exhibit

US PIPELINING DID NOT PAY SANACT FOR WORK SANACT COMPLETED FROM
OCTOBER 6, 2015 TO NOVEMBER 9, 2015
27.

US Pipelining has not paid for work performed by Sanact

from October 6, 2015 through November 9, 2015.
28.

US Pipelining has not made any further payments to

Sanact after its last payment made on October 28, 2015.
29.

US Pipelining has not paid for the outstanding invoices

dated from October 6, 2015 through November 9, 2015.

(Exhibit

4).
30.

There are 26 outstanding invoices for work Sanact

performed on October 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 2015; and November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 9, 2015.
31.

(Exhibit 3).

Sanact completed the entirety of its work for US

Pipelining on November 9, 2015, and sent its final invoice to US
Pipelining on the same date.

(Exhibit 3).

UNSIGNED PROFFERED AGREEMENT MODIFIED BY SANACT
32.

The only evidence of an attempt to enter into a written

agreement are two identical copies of a document entitled,
“SUBCONTRACTOR AGREEMENT”.

(Exhibits 6 and 7).

The document

bears the fax number of US Pipelining and a sent date of November
9, 2015, at 4:10 p.m., on the top of the first page.
33.

The date on the document indicates that US Pipelining

sent the document to Sanact after Sanact had already completed
all of its work on the Property.
6

34.

US Pipelining did not sign the “SUBCONTRACTOR

AGREEMENT” before providing it to Sanact.
35.

Sanact did not agree to the document’s terms.

Sanact

made significant changes to the document, initialed the changes,
signed the document on November 12, 2015, and returned it to US
Pipelining.

(Exhibits 6 and 7).

The multiple changes included

voiding §26 on Collective Bargaining Agreements; voiding §36 on
Waiver of Liens and Releases; changing §37 on the Applicable
State Law; and changing the Scope of Work provision in Attachment
A.
36.

US Pipelining did not sign the document entitled,

“SUBCONTRACTOR AGREEMENT” when it was returned to it.
37.

There was no “pay-when-paid” language in the proffered

“SUBCONTRACTOR AGREEMENT.”

The document had no provision stating

that Sanact would not be paid by US Pipelining until Johnson
Controls, Inc. paid US Pipelining.
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT FOR SANACT TO BE PAID BY US PIPELINING ON
A “PAY-WHEN-PAID” BASIS
38.

US Pipelining claims that it is owed money by Johnson

Controls, Inc.

US Pipelining sued Johnson Controls, Inc. in U.S.

Pipelining LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 16-cv-00132 HG-RLP in
the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

US

Pipelining and Johnson Controls, Inc. are currently scheduled for
arbitration proceedings on December 3, 2018.
No. 195 filed in 16-cv-00132 HG-RLP).

7

(Status Report, ECF

39.

US Pipelining has not paid the outstanding balance of

the invoices sent by Sanact from October 6, 2015 through November
9, 2015.
40.

US Pipelining argues that payment is not due because

Sanact agreed to payment on a “pay-when-paid” basis.
Specifically, US Pipelining alleges that Sanact agreed that US
Pipelining would not have to pay Sanact for its completed work
until US Pipelining was paid for it by Johnson Controls, Inc.
41.

There is no written evidence in the record that Sanact

agreed to receive payment on a “pay-when-paid” basis.

Nor is

there any other proof that Sanact agreed it would not receive
payment from US Pipelining until US Pipelining received payment
from Johnson Controls, Inc.
42.

The Court finds that the October 27, 2015 and December

21, 2015 phone calls initiated by Kelly Galvez, a Sanact
employee, to Lisa Bowman, a US Pipelining employee, do not
support a finding that Sanact agreed to payment on a “pay-whenpaid basis.”
43.

(Exhibits 18, 20).

The Court also finds that the November 20, 2015 Jeremy

Bowman voicemail to Ms. Galvez does not demonstrate the existence
of a “pay-when-paid” agreement by Sanact.
44.

(Exhibit 19).

The calls by Ms. Galvez were requests for payment from

US Pipelining based on the invoices sent from October 6, 2015
through November 9, 2015.
45.

US Pipelining stated in both phone calls and the

voicemail that it was unable to pay because it was awaiting
8

payment from Johnson Controls, Inc.
46.

The calls were a request for payment by Sanact.

The

calls were not a re-negotiation of the terms of the Parties’
agreement.
47.

There was no new consideration offered in the calls to

support a finding of an agreement by Sanact to be paid on a “paywhen-paid” basis.
48.

Sanact never agreed to wait to receive payment until

Johnson Controls, Inc. paid US Pipelining.
49.

The agreement did not contain a provision requiring

that Sanact would receive payment only after Johnson Controls,
Inc. paid US Pipelining.
SANACT’S DEMAND FOR PAYMENT
50.

Following completion of work on November 9, 2015,

Sanact sought payment from US Pipelining for the 26 unpaid
invoices sent from October 6, 2015 through November 9, 2015.
51.

On December 18, 2015, Sanact sent copies of all 26

unpaid invoices and a summary of the amounts owed to US
Pipelining.
52.

Sanact sought a total of $123,203.16. (Exhibit 5).

Sanact included a demand for 1 1/2% interest for

$1,848.03 in late fees as of December 18, 2015.

(Exhibit 5).

SANACT CONTACTED JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. CONCERNING US
PIPELINING’S FAILURE TO PAY
53.

On December 18, 2015, Sanact sent copies of all the
9

unpaid invoices to the contractor Johnson Controls, Inc.
(Exhibit 9).
54.

Sanact sought payment from Johnson Controls, Inc. as an

alternative means of receiving payment for the work completed
from October 6, 2015 through November 9, 2015.
55.

On December 23, 2015, Johnson Controls, Inc. sent an e-

mail and a letter to US Pipelining.

The communications stated

that Johnson Controls, Inc. had been notified that US Pipelining
refused to pay Sanact for work performed at the Kaanapali Alii
project based on US Pipelining’s contention that it has not been
paid by Johnson Controls Inc.
56.

(Exhibits 10 and 11).

Johnson Controls, Inc. stated in its communications

that US Pipelining had been paid $1,812,305.21 by Johnson
Controls, Inc.

(Id.)

Johnson Controls, Inc. instructed US

Pipelining “to promptly resolve this matter.”
57.

(Id.)

Johnson Controls, Inc. sent letters to US Pipelining

and its surety, SubGallagher Investment Trust, on October 1,
2015, entitled “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure,”
stating that US Pipelining was in default of its contractual
obligations with Johnson Controls, Inc.

(Exhibits 12 and 13).

THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE ON THE INVOICES OWED BY US PIPELINING
TOTALED $123,203.16
58.

On January 19, 2016, Sanact made a formal written

demand to US Pipelining for payment of the invoices dated from
October 6, 2015 through November 9, 2015.

10

(Exhibits 14 and 15).

59.

US Pipelining has not made any payment to Sanact after

October 28, 2015, despite Sanact’s continued demand for payment.
60.

On February 19, 2016, Sanact sent a letter to US

Pipelining, stating that it would pursue a lawsuit if payment was
not made. (Exhibits 16 and 17).
61.

On June 20, 2016, Sanact filed its Complaint against US

Pipelining in the Circuit Court for the Second Circuit, State of
Hawaii.
62.

On July 8, 2016, US Pipelining removed the case to the

United States District Court for the District of Hawaii on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND CHOICE OF LAW

1.

The federal Court has subject-matter jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

(Court’s Order dated June 29,

2018, ECF No. 72).
2.

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for

the District of Hawaii.

(Court’s Order dated June 29, 2018, ECF

No. 72).
3.

A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction

applies the forum state’s choice-of-law principles in determining
which substantive law applies.

Welles v. Turner Entm’t Co., 503

F.3d 728, 738 (9th Cir. 2007).

Hawaii state law requires the

Court to look to the State with the most significant relationship
11

to the parties and subject matter in a choice-of-law analysis.
Mikelson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 111 P.3d 601, 607 (Haw.
2005).
4.

Hawaii has the most significant relationship to the

case as it is the location where the services were provided by
Sanact to US Pipelining.

The Court shall decide the case based

on the law of the State of Hawaii.
NO WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
5.

There must be mutual assent on all essential terms in

order to create a binding contract.

Earl M. Jorgensen Co. v.

Mark Constr., Inc., 540 P.2d 978, 982 (Haw. 1975).
6.

Mutual assent is determined by an objective standard.

A party’s words or acts are judged under a standard of
reasonableness in determining whether it has manifested an
objective intention to agree.

Earl M. Jorgensen Co., 540 P.2d at

982.
7.

Defendant US Pipelining takes the position that the

contract in this case consists of the document entitled
“SUBCONTRACTOR AGREEMENT” that was sent to Sanact on November 9,
2015.

(Exhibits 6 and 7).

The Court finds that the

SUBCONTRACTOR AGREEMENT does not constitute a binding contract.
8.

There was no meeting of the minds or mutual assent to

the essential terms stated in the SUBCONTRACTOR AGREEMENT.
9.

Sanact did not agree to many of the essential terms in

the SUBCONTRACTOR AGREEMENT.

Sanact made significant changes to
12

the document on November 12, 2015.

US Pipelining never signed

the proposed agreement either in its original form or as
modified.
THERE IS AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT BETWEEN SANACT AND US PIPELINING
10.

The Court finds that Sanact and US Pipelining entered

into a contract.
11.

A contract is enforceable if there is an offer, an

acceptance, and consideration.

Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 14

P.3d 1049, 1065 (Haw. 2000).
12.

An offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter

into a bargain to justify another party in understanding that his
assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.
Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 24 (1979).

In August 2015, US

Pipelining made an offer to Sanact to perform cleaning of the
pipes at the Property.
13.

Acceptance of an offer is a manifestation of assent to

the terms thereof made by the offeree in a manner invited or
required by the offer.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 50.

Sanact accepted the offer by performing the work requested by US
Pipelining at the Property and did so from September 2, 2015
through November 9, 2015.
14.

Consideration is a bargained-for exchange.

Douglass v.

Pflueger Haw., Inc., 135 P.3d 129, 143 (Haw. 2006).
Consideration exists where something has been parted with by the
promisee and received by the promisor in exchange for a benefit
13

based upon the manifested intention of the parties.

2 Corbin on

Contracts § 5.8 (1994) (citing Bard v. Kent, 122 P.2d 8 (Cal.
1942)).
promise.

Consideration may consist of a performance or a return
Restatement (2d) Contracts § 71 (1979).

Sanact performed the work requested by US Pipelining and US
Pipelining received the benefit of the work and owes payment to
Sanact in full for the work performed.
15.

A contract must be certain and definite as to its

essential terms.
1977).

Boteilho v. Boteilho, 564 P.2d 144, 146 (Haw.

The terms of a contract are reasonably certain if they

provide a basis for determining the existence of a breach and for
giving an appropriate remedy.
179 (Haw. App. 1983).

Almeida v. Almeida, 669 P.2d 174,

The invoices provided to US Pipelining by

Sanact set forth that US Pipelining agreed to pay Sanact at a
rate of $150.00 per hour for each laborer for the first eight
hours of work and $172.50 per hour after eight hours of work.
(Exhibit 2).
16.

There was mutual assent as to the essential terms of

the contract evidenced by US Pipelining having paid Sanact,
without objection, at the rates specified in the invoices for
work completed from September 2, 2015 through October 5, 2015.
17.

US Pipelining breached the contract when it did not pay

Sanact for the work Sanact performed from October 6, 2015 through
November 9, 2015.
18.

US Pipelining claims that the Parties’ agreement

required that Sanact would be subject to a pay-when-paid
14

provision whereby Sanact would receive payment from US Pipelining
once US Pipelining received payment from the contractor Johnson
Controls, Inc.
19.

The contract did not include an agreement that Sanact

would receive payment on a “pay-when-paid” basis.
20.

The October 27 and December 21, 2015 telephone

conversations between US Pipelining and Sanact employees and the
November 20, 2015 voicemail from Jeremy Bowman did not create an
additional term to the contract.

The communications provide no

evidence of an agreement to modify the prior contract between
Sanact and US Pipelining.
21.

New, additional consideration is required for the valid

formation of a modification or subsequent agreement.

Honolulu

Fed. Sav. And Loan Ass’n v. Murphy, 753 P.2d 807, 813-14 (Haw.
App. 1988).

A promise to perform an existing legal obligation is

not valid consideration.

EHP Corp. v. Hendlin, 2001 Haw. App.

LEXIS 6, *13 (Haw. App. Jan. 16, 2001) (citing 17 C.J.S.
Contracts § 100 at 827-28 (1953)).
22.

An attempt to introduce a “pay-when-paid” condition

would require additional consideration to modify the existing
contract.
23.

There was no additional consideration provided to

Sanact to be paid on a “pay-when-paid” basis.

There was no new

consideration because US Pipelining was already required to pay
Sanact for the work performed from October 6, 2015 through
November 9, 2015.
15

24.

US Pipelining began paying in compliance with the

Parties’ agreement.

US Pipelining paid for the work that was

completed by Sanact from September 2, 2015 through October 5,
2015.

US Pipelining made partial payments to US Pipelining on

October 1, 2015, October 5, 2015, and October 28, 2015 for work
completed by Sanact from September 2, 2015 through October 5,
2015.
25.

US Pipelining breached the Parties’ agreement when it

did not pay Sanact for the work completed from October 6, 2015
through November 9, 2015.
26.

US Pipelining owes Sanact the amount of $123,203.16 for

work performed by Sanact from October 6, 2015 through November 9,
2015.
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
27.

The Court has discretion to award prejudgment interest

in equity to correct injustice when a judgment is delayed for a
long period of time for any reason.

Schmidt v. Bd. of Dirs. of

Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Marco Polo Apartments, 836 P.2d 479,
484 (Haw. 1992).
28.

In a diversity action, state law determines the rate of

prejudgment interest.

Barranco v. 3d Sys. Corp., 307 F.Supp.3d

1075, 1102-03 (D. Haw. 2018).
29.

Hawaii Revised Statutes § 478-2 provides that “[w]hen

there is no express written contract fixing a different rate of
interest, interest shall be allowed at the rate of ten per cent a
16

year....”
30.

The Parties did not have an express written contract

fixing a different rate of prejudgment interest.

The invoices

Sanact sent to US Pipelining do not constitute separate
contracts.

Invoices cannot on their own create a contract or add

terms to a contract.

Custom Coasters Int’l, Inc. v. R.E. Coulter

Crane & Rigging, Inc., 2002 WL 31555442, *3 (Cal. App. Nov. 18,
2002); C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P., 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 550, 564
(Cal. App. 2012).

“The prevailing rule is that an invoice,

standing alone, is not a contract.”

Indian Paint & Lacquer Co.

v. United Steel Prod. Corp., 267 P.2d 408, 416 (Cal. App. 1954).
31.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that

in order for the party to be bound by an additional term in an
invoice, the party must evidence an affirmative assent to the
term and do more than merely perform its obligations under the
parties’ contractual agreement.

Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd.

v. Sabate USA Inc., 328 F.3d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 2003).

The

appellate court found in Chateau des Charmes that the failure of
the party to object to the additional term in the invoice was
insufficient to bind the party to the additional term where the
party was already bound to perform in accordance with the
existing contract.
32.

Id.

Sanact has not met its burden to prove the existence of

an “express written contract fixing a different rate of interest”
as required by Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-2.
interest is limited to 10% a year.
17

The rate of prejudgment

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 478-2.

33.

Hawaii Revised Statutes § 636-16 provides that in

awarding interest in a civil case, the Court “is authorized to
designate the commencement date to conform with the circumstances
of each case, provided that the earliest commencement date in
cases ... arising by breach of contract, it may be the date when
the breach first occurred.”
34.
9, 2015.

Prejudgment interest is awarded beginning on December
December 9, 2015 is thirty days after Sanact had

completed its work on November 9, 2015.
35.

Sanact is entitled to recover prejudgment interest at a

rate of 10% a year beginning on December 9, 2015.
ASSUMPSIT

36.

Assumpsit is a common 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 quasicontractual obligations.

Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 994 P.2d

1047, 1051 (Haw. 2000).
37.

This case involves the non-performance of a contract.

The prevailing party may seek attorneys’ fees pursuant to Hawaii
Revised Statutes § 607-14.
38.

Sanact is the prevailing party and is entitled to

attorneys’ fees in assumpsit pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 60714.
39.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14 provides that an award of

attorneys’ fees in assumpsit “shall not exceed twenty-five per
18

cent of the judgment.”
40.

Sanact shall file a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and

Related Non-taxable Expenses pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 60714, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, and District of Hawaii
Local Rule 54.3, within 14 days of entry of judgment.
POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
41.

An award of post-judgment interest is procedural in

nature and is dictated by federal law.

Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v.

United Computer Sys., Inc., 98 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th Cir. 1996).
42.

The rate of post-judgment interest is governed by 28

U.S.C. § 1961, which provides: “Such interest shall be calculated
from the date of the entry of judgment, at a rate equal to the
weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as
published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the
judgment.”
43.

Sanact is entitled to recover post-judgment interest as

provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based upon the evidence and the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law stated herein, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED
AND DECREED:
1.

Sanact and US Pipelining entered into a binding

19

contract.
2.

US Pipelining breached the contract when it failed to

pay Sanact for the work Sanact performed from October 6, 2015
through November 9, 2015.
3.

Sanact is entitled to judgment against US Pipelining in

the amount of $123,203.16.
4.

Sanact is entitled to recover prejudgment interest at a

rate of 10% a
5.

year beginning on December 9, 2015.

Sanact is the prevailing party and is entitled to

attorneys’ fees in assumpsit pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 60714.

Sanact shall file a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Related

Non-taxable Expenses within 14 days of entry of judgment.
6.

Sanact is entitled to recover post-judgment interest

as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawaii, July 26, 2018.

Sanact, Inc. v. US Pipelining LLC; Civ. No. 16-00377 HG-RLP;
FINDING OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
20