San Nicolas: $28K fee, costs are ‘justified’

Tinian and Aguiguan Mayor Joey Patrick San Nicolas asserts that his submitted fees—$26,019 in attorneys’ fees and $2,203.25 in costs—are reasonable and justified.

San Nicolas, through counsels Matthew T. Gregory and Viola Alepuyo, said large amounts of the billed time in connection with former mayor Ramon M. Dela Cruz’s failed election challenge involved two lengthy hearings and several motion hearings.

San Nicolas defended his request for fees and costs in his reply to Dela Cruz’s opposition to his motion for judgment on attorneys’ fees and costs.

Dela Cruz, through counsel Mark B. Hanson, is opposing San Nicolas’ request for $28,222.25 in fees and costs, describing the amount as “unwarranted and patently unreasonable.

In San Nicolas’ reply, Gregory and Alepuyo said the Superior Court can take notice of the time spent and these billings for “in-court” time cannot be questioned.

The lawyers said Dela Cruz claims the fees are unreasonable because he alleges that some of these billings are expressed as block billings.

Block billing refers to the lumping together of several tasks into a single block of time, which prevents an accurate assessment of time actually spent on a particular work.

Gregory and Alepuyo said San Nicolas would be happy to submit this to the court’s discretion and review based on the standards of Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.5 (attorney-client fees).

The lawyers said they filed two successful motions—the first resulted in a partial dismissal and the second a complete dismissal of Dela Cruz’s claims.

“These pleadings are substantial and the court can make its own determination as to whether such billings are reasonable,” they said.

The lawyers said a review of Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja’s orders reveals that San Nicolas is entitled to fees and costs as the proceedings were dismissed by the court for insufficient evidence and the court confirmed the election result.

Gregory and Alepuyo said all that is required under the law for an award of fees and costs is an order confirming the election result.

Thus, they pointed out, under the plain language of the statute, San Nicolas is entitled to fees and costs.

On the timeliness issue, the lawyers said the Commonwealth Rules of Civil Procedure requires a movant to file a motion no later than “14 days after entry of judgment.”

Gregory and Alepuyo said Dela Cruz contends that San Nicolas’ motion for attorney’s fees is untimely because the matter should have been appealed on Dec. 15, 2014.

The lawyers said a CNMI Supreme Court case resolves this matter, contrary to Dela Cruz’s interpretation. They noted that the high court found that “because the issue of costs is distinct from the summary judgment earlier entered, a separate notice of appeal from the subsequent order taxing costs is required.”

Clearly, the lawyers said, San Nicolas was not required to appeal Naraja’s Dec. 12 order confirming the election result, therefore, Dec. 15 is not the due date for such a motion.

In his lawsuit filed last Nov. 12, Dela Cruz alleged several irregularities during the Nov. 4, 2014 election. Naraja dismissed the election challenge on Nov. 11