Former Flower Mound Councilman and current mayoral candidate Itamar Gelbman is being sued by actor Charlie Sheen over $128,712 in legal fees Sheen claims Gelbman owes him following an unsuccessful lawsuit by Gelbman in 2016.
According to a final statement of decision by Judge Robert S. Draper of the Los Angeles Superior Court of California, which was issued Dec. 13, 2020, Gelbman sued Sheen over a breach of contract after Sheen terminated his contract with Gelbman’s security guard company 3.G.I. a month after he was hired. Gelbman claims the contract was for one year.
According to the statement Sheen was looking to replace his security guard services and in August of 2014 he, along with Sheen’s attorney Martin Singer and others, met with Gelbman about using 3.G.I. Records state Gelbman was selected after efforts by former Major League Baseball outfielder Lenny Dykstra to connect the two.
The records state at that meeting Singer told Gelbman the security team works under at-will contracts and that they could be terminated at any time, and that Singer had to approve all of Sheen’s contracts since Sheen “was in a state of chronic inebriation.” Singer then gave Gelbman a contract to sign with the provisions of “at-will” work, and Gelbman signed it, the statement reads.
According to the statement Gelbman during his testimony denied that conversation took place. Gelbman testified that he gave Sheen an envelope Aug. 29 or 30, 2014 with the services contract that included the provision that the contract was for one year. He testified he did not mention to Sheen the contract he was handing him included a one-year provision or that his employment would be at-will.
The statement references an email between Gelbman and Sheen’s business manager on Aug. 29, 2014 in which Gelbman states, “Enclosed please find the temporary agreed contract with Charlie. As the lawyers didn’t have a chance to go through the services contract this will be temporarily (sic) until a service contract will be signed.”
The judge’s statement says Gelbman had the opportunity to forward that contract to Singer or any other lawyer representing Sheen but didn’t.
The statement says Gelbman had Sheen sign the contract on Sept. 4, 2014.
“Asked if he discussed with Sheen what he was signing, Gelbman responded, ‘No, I assumed he had already talked with his lawyer. He had the contract for five days,’” the statement reads, adding that the court did not find that credible and that Gelbman knew Sheen’s condition wouldn’t give him the capacity to understand what he was signing.
The statement reads credibility came into play in this case and pointed to the fact that all witnesses testified about Sheen being constantly intoxicated but Gelbman was the only one who did not.
Gelbman claimed “all persons have the capacity to make decisions and to be responsible for their acts or decisions,” the statement reads. He claimed “a person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication (a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable matter the nature and consequences of the transaction, or (b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the top transaction.”
The court ruled that Gelbman knew these facts and ultimately rejected Gelbman’s claims.
Court records state 3.G.I. dissolved soon after the verdict.
The next court hearing is set for June 9.