HAGÅTÑA (The Guam Daily Post) — The former chairman of the Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority Board of Directors may still be able to recover nearly $50,000 in attorney fees related to the 2017 misdemeanor case involving “secret meetings.”
David Sablan, the former chairman of the GHURA Board, was acquitted of all charges in which he was accused of “numerous violations related to actions taken and meetings held by the board as a whole,” stated Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas in an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by GHURA.
GHURA requested that the court dismiss a claim for reimbursement Sablan lodged with GHURA on June 6, 2020.
“Sablan was charged with 24 misdemeanor offenses. On November 16, 2019, Sablan was exonerated of all wrongdoing. On June 9, 2020, GHURA received a claim from Sablan, seeking to be reimbursed for $48,453.00, the legal fees he incurred during his legal defense,” the court said.
GHURA believes that Sablan is not entitled to reimbursement under the Government of Guam Claims Act under the premise that the claim was not related to a contract or a negligent tort.
A subsequent complaint filed by Sablan alleged negligence on GHURA’s part in that the agency failed to inform the insurance company which provided coverage of legal fees for board members of the case brought against Sablan in his capacity as chairman.
The court document states that GHURA moved to dismiss the complaint for a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
“GHURA claimed that the court lacks jurisdiction because Sablan did not raise the negligence and contract claims in his government claim, and therefore failed to exhaust administrative remedies on those two claims before bringing the matter before the court,” according to the court document.
GHURA also claimed that Sablan failed to prove that the court has jurisdiction over the government claim.
“GHURA argued that Sablan was required to raise each and every claim available to him under the Claims Act but failed to do so and is therefore barred from bringing those claims before the court. GHURA further claimed that no amount of factual investigation would allow for waiver of sovereign immunity for expenses incurred in Sablan’s legal defense,” court documents stated.
Judge Barcinas, however, disagreed with GHURA’s assertion.
“The court does not find there to be no set of facts in support of plaintiff’s claim which would entitle him to relief,” stated the court order.
The court also didn’t find GHURA’s argument that the court does not have jurisdiction to be “particularly compelling.”
“As a layman, Sablan may not have been aware of the need to explicitly state negligence or breach of contract claims while submitting his government claim form, but the court finds that the allegations were sufficient to formulate a colorable claim,” the order stated.
Because GHURA can sue and be sued, Judge Barcinas determined that even if the negligence or breach of contract claims are inadmissible, the claim for attorney’s fees would still be in play.
Based on these reasons Judge Barcinas denied GHURA’s motion to dismiss on Oct. 31.
David J. Sablan
