Brown opposes requests for sanctions in Malite case

Attorney general Pamela Brown opposed the request of the Malite estate and the Marianas Public Lands Authority to impose sanctions on the CNMI government over the last-minute withdrawal of an injunction request that was scheduled for hearing at the Superior Court last Dec. 23.

Besides saying the sanctions are unwarranted, she also said that the amounts of fees being asked by lawyers of the MPLA, its board, and commissioner Edward DeLeon Guerrero and the Malite estate are “unreasonable.”

The defendants’ lawyers are asking the court to assess the government over $30,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Brown, through assistant attorney general Benjamin Sachs, said that the amount is excessive. Sachs said the requests for sanctions “are not sufficiently detailed to enable the court to make a determination of reasonableness as to the tasks performed or the rates alleged.”

Malite estate attorneys Pedro and Antonio Atalig have asked the court to impose sanction against the government, claiming that unnecessary fees and costs reached $28,260.

Mark S. Smith, lawyer for the MPLA board, has billed his client $3,262.50, based on hourly rates of $175 for out-of-court services and $200 for in-court services.

MPLA attorney Matthew Gregory claimed to have rendered 18.75 hours of work, while DeLeon Guerrero’s lawyer, Ramon K. Quichocho claimed 19.55 hours. Both lawyers did not indicate their hourly rates in their submissions to the court.

The scheduled Dec. 23, 2004 hearing on Brown’s injunction request did not push through due to her attorneys’ withdrawal of that request on the day of the hearing.

Finance Secretary Fermin Atalig’s decision to revoke his authorization on the drawdown of the $3.45 million being claimed by the Malite estate from the government rendered moot the injunction request, since the monies could not be disbursed with or without an injunction.

Several government officials, including Gov. Juan N. Babauta, appeared at the courtroom of Judge Juan T. Lizama for the Dec. 23 hearing pursuant to subpoenas issued them by the court. The subpoenaed officials would have been called to the witness stand had the injunction request hearing pushed through.

Sachs said, however, that he spoke with the lawyer of the Commonwealth Development Authority only that morning, wherein the CDA counsel indicated that it would not take any action on the drawdown request.

“There is no case law in the CNMI specifying the effect of a revocation by the Secretary of Finance concerning a requisition to which the Secretary of Finance had earlier concurred,” Sachs said.

He also said he contacted Malite estate attorney Pedro Atalig by telephone about his plan to withdraw the injunction request, but the latter allegedly replied in a “crude and offensive manner.”

“Plaintiff’s counsel and the Office of the Attorney General did not intend any improper purpose, but only sought to zealously represent the CNMI within the bounds of the law,” Sachs said.