Hillbroom suit vs Vietnam-based lawyer dismissed

The federal court on Thursday dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction the lawsuit filed by Junior Larry Hillbroom against his former lawyer, Barry J. Israel, who is now based in Vietnam.

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona granted Israel’s motion to dismiss the case and said the court will not decide on his other asserted defenses.

Manglona pointed out that Hillbroom’s lawsuit was filed in 2010, nine years after Israel moved away from the CNMI and ceased meaningful contacts.

“To make Israel answer in the CNMI today for any and all actions that arose long ago when he maintained substantial activities here, regardless of whether those actions were related to the forum, would not comport with the notions of ‘fair play and substantial justice’ that underpin personal jurisdiction,” said Manglona in her 11-page order.

The court, she said, lacks general jurisdiction over Israel.

Hillbroom is the son of the late business tycoon Larry Lee Hillblom. Israel was one of the lawyers who represented Hillbroom in the probate case. He wants the lawsuit either dismissed or transferred to Guam.

Hillbroom is suing Israel for allegedly conspiring to inflate the attorney’s contingency fee when Hillblom’s fortune was still undergoing probate proceedings. He also named Hillbroom’s former trustee Keith A. Waibel as co-defendant.

Hillbroom, through counsel, asserted that he did not become aware that Israel and the other defendants were stealing money from him until an FBI agent revealed the fraud to him at a meeting in San Francisco on Nov. 10, 2006.

Hillbroom first filed the lawsuit against Israel and Guam lawyer David J. Lujan in California, but the suit was also dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Israel moved the district court to dismiss the case against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, for lack of standing, for improper venue, and other grounds.

In granting the motion, Manglona said there is no evidence that Hillbroom ever resided in the CNMI.

Manglona said because Hillbroom has failed to sustain his burden on the second part of the effects test, he has failed to show purposeful direction, the first step of the specific-jurisdiction analysis.

Citing precedent, the judge said that having “failed at the first step, the jurisdictional inquiry ends and the case must be dismissed.”