Ruling backs position NMI not proper venue of Hillbroom’s lawsuit

Vietnam-based lawyer Barry Israel has cited U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona’s recent ruling over a jurisdiction issue that, according to him, supports his claim that the CNMI is not the proper venue of Junior Larry Hillbroom’s lawsuit against him.

Israel is among the lawyers who represented Hillbroom in a probate case. Hillbroom is the reported DNA-proven son of the late business tycoon Larry Lee Hillblom.

Israel, through counsel Theodore W. Frank, pointed to the Dec. 27, 2011 order issued by Manglona in the civil case filed by Sin Ho Nam against attorney Ramon K. Quichocho and landowner Joaquin Q. Atalig.

In that order, Manglona denied for lack of jurisdiction Nam’s motion to enforce his lawsuit’s settlement agreement with Quichocho and Atalig.

Manglona said a court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement only if it expressly retained such jurisdiction or otherwise embodied the settlement contract in the dismissal order.

The judge pointed out that the stipulated “order dismissing case” is silent on jurisdiction and does not mention the settlement agreement.

Frank said as Manglona’s order expressed, there can be no continuing jurisdiction over a settlement if not expressed in the court’s order of dismissal.

Manglona’s order assists the analysis of the venue challenge asserted in Israel’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, said Frank in Israel’s supplemental brief filed on Thursday in district court to support his motion.

“As the order makes clear with its cited authorities, jurisdiction over a settlement post dismissal is not retained by a court without such an expression in the order of dismissal,” Frank said.

Frank said the Superior Court’s orders approving the global settlement and closing the Hillblom probate case are silent on the issue of jurisdiction over any aspect of the case subsequent to its closure.

The lawyer said Hillbroom’s complaint seeks redress for Israel’s and co-defendant’s obtaining attorneys’ fees in excess of the alleged cap by the Hillblom probate court.

By this action instituted in the CNMI, Frank said, Hillbroom is seeking to invoke the inherent or ancillary jurisdiction of the district court.

“Yet, federal courts do not have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement simply because the subject of that settlement was a prior lawsuit in a state court located in the same district,” Frank asserted.

When the initial action is dismissed, the lawyer stressed, jurisdiction terminates.

Frank said the estate closure orders mention nothing about capping attorneys’ fees, and when the case was closed, the Hillblom Probate Court’s jurisdiction terminated forever.

Frank said the CNMI courts have now three times confirmed that the case closed with the issuance of the estate closure orders in April and May 2000.

Hillbroom is suing Israel in federal court for allegedly conspiring to inflate the attorney’s contingency fee when Hillblom’s fortune was still undergoing probate proceedings.

Hillbroom, who is now based in Idaho, is also suing Guam lawyer David J. Lujan and 10 other unnamed co-defendants in district court for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, racketeering activity, civil conspiracy, and violations of California Business and Professions Code.

Lujan and Israel served as counsels for Hillbroom during Hillblom’s probate in the Superior Court.

In a motion to dismiss, Lujan and Israel have accused Hillbroom of colluding with another person to extort monies from them.