Ex-Tinian mayor: $28K fees and costs ‘unreasonable’

Former Tinian and Aguiguan mayor Ramon M. Dela Cruz is opposing Mayor Joey Patrick San Nicolas’ request for $26,019 in attorneys’ fees and $2,203.25 in costs, describing the fees as “unwarranted and patently unreasonable.”

Dela Cruz, through counsel Mark B. Hanson, asked the Superior Court to deny San Nicolas’ motion for fees and costs.

Hanson said if the court is inclined to award some fees, it should only award fees at a reasonable rate for the time spent by only one of San Nicolas’ three attorneys.

“As an attorney himself, Mr. San Nicolas should have realized that while a team of attorneys pounding the table in court may look strong to his voting constituents, such legal overkill is not reimbursable—particularly where Mr. San Nicolas and his attorneys were backseat drivers in an election contest vigorously defended from its inception by competent attorneys from the CNMI government representing the Commonwealth Election Commission,” Hanson said.

Attorney Viola Alepuyo, counsel for San Nicolas, said that based on their hourly rate of $210 and work performed, her attorney’s fees amount to $16,390.50, while her co-counsels Matthew T. Gregory’s fee is $8,998.50 and Braddock Huesman’s is $630.

Alepuyo said the total costs incurred is $2,203.25, which includes Gregory’s $424.40.

She said the amounts San Nicolas is asking for are reasonable due to the nature of the case and the expedited deadlines. She cited that CNMI law clearly provides for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in situations like this.

In Dela Cruz’s opposition, Hanson said San Nicolas’ motion for fees is untimely.

Hanson said both Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja’s order that dismissed Dela Cruz’s election challenge on Dec. 11, 2014, and Naraja’s order the following day confirming the election result did not award San Nicolas attorney’s fees.

Hanson said because Naraja did not award fees, the statute provides a remedy to San Nicolas for that omission—an appeal by Dec. 15, 2014, to the CNMI Supreme Court as an “aggrieved party.”

Since San Nicolas did not appeal Naraja’s order, any motion now is time barred, Hanson said.

He also argued that San Nicolas’ request for fee award is unwarranted as San Nicolas was merely a nominal defendant in the election contest process.

The lawyer said the claims in Dela Cruz’s complaint were all aimed at the conduct of the Commonwealth Election Commission in organizing and conducting the Tinian election.

Hanson said any award to San Nicolas of a “victory” over Dela Cruz in his case against the CEC would be “repugnant to the democratic process,” and a violation of sound public policy.

Hanson said Dela Cruz should be commended for bringing to light substantial flaws in the election law and CEC’s manner of conducting elections.

On the costs issue, Hanson said with the exception of some nominal costs of Gregory, San Nicolas’ claimed costs consist almost entirely of his and Connie Villagomez’s travel from Tinian to Saipan and back with hotel stays, rental car, and meals.

“With the exception of travel expenses necessary to attend court hearings [on] Saipan, all other costs, including the cost of hotels [on] Saipan and meals that Mr. San Nicolas and his companion would have eaten on Tinian should be denied,” he said.

Hanson also questioned San Nicolas’ claim for expenses such as invoice for Paradise Hotel from Nov. 6 to 8, 2014, when Dela Cruz had yet to file his lawsuit at that time.

“Such demands only serve to highlight the bad faith nature of the…motion for attorneys’ fees and costs,” he said.

In his lawsuit filed last Nov. 12, Dela Cruz alleged several irregularities during the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

At a court-ordered recount last Dec. 1, Dela Cruz garnered 696 votes, San Nicolas got 705, while David Cing obtained 47.

During the first counting of votes, San Nicolas of the Republican Party won by seven votes, 703-696, over independent Dela Cruz.

Last Dec. 11, Naraja dismissed Dela Cruz’s election challenge.