Lujan accuses Hillbroom, former trustee of collusion to extort money

Guam attorney David J. Lujan has accused his former client, Junior Larry Hillbroom, the DNA-proven son of the late business tycoon Larry Lee Hillblom, of colluding with Hillbroom’s former trustee to extort monies from him and attorney Barry J. Israel.

Lujan, through counsel Theodore W. Frank, alleged that Hillbroom and Keith Waibel, the former trustee of JLH Trust (Junior Larry Hillbroom), are “locked together in this extortionary enterprise” against him (Lujan) and Israel.

In Lujan’s motion to dismiss Waibel’s complaint, Frank disclosed that Waibel and Hillbroom are currently business partners in a call center venture named Oceania Partners Property Ventures, Inc., based in Cebu, the Philippines.

Frank said that Waibel and Hillbroom in 2006 also invested together in a purported bridge loan venture to facilitate the financing of condominium conversions in Hawaii. He described this investment as “actually a scam.”

The lawyer said that Hawaiian lawyer Mel Agana is representing Waibel and Hillbroom to pursue their remedies against the perpetrators of the scam in the resulting Hawaii District Court civil action and bankruptcy.

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

Hillbroom filed the original lawsuit against Lujan in the Central District of California in 2009. The case was dismissed though, after the court found it did not have personal jurisdiction over him. This prompted Hillbroom to file the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the NMI.

Hillbroom is suing Israel in the U.S. District Court for the NMI for allegedly conspiring to inflate the attorney’s contingency fee when Hillblom’s fortune was still undergoing probate proceedings.

Hillbroom named Waibel as co-defendant, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and racketeering activity.

Waibel denied the allegations and filed a cross-claim against Israel and Lujan.

In Lujan’s motion to dismiss, Frank said that Waibel’s complaint is wholly contingent on Hillbroom’s suit because Waibel has not alleged any independent claims against Lujan.

Frank said that Waibel’s complaint simply asserts claims for indemnity and contribution, alleging that, if he is found liable under Hillbroom’s complaint, Lujan should indemnify him.

“This is in stark contrast to Waibel’s cross-complaint against Lujan in the prior California case where Waibel asserted a claim for fraud directly against Lujan in conjunction with claims for indemnity and contribution,” Frank said.

Waibel, Frank said, has now abandoned any direct claims against Lujan, so as Hillbroom’s complaint falls, so does Waibel’s third-party complaint.