Aguon v. Palacios, Perez

Opinion

4 :1!'2 t 4 .. "1 ¢ J P _ . ' .1

5 :Mn *IInuq w)

s

n I Q

C r r' Iv- * *"I '~ ng dl."

' ..°T~. LJ;

r. " 4 ' \ l..l _ . . _ a J * i

1 'Quay I I

-2 AF=HU=l:9

-U *no x 1 r e

2 . T

3

4

5

6

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7

8 ANTONE F. AGUON, ISAAC J. MANTANONA, MARYLOU s. SABLAN, 9 HERBERT H. PETREE, JOHN p. Case No. CVl360-10 10 SIQUENZA, LEODEGARIO M. BUAN, PAUL A. CRUZ, PETER J. CRUZ, 11 CATHERINE M. CRUZ, JESSICA D.

CONCEPCION,

12 Plaintiffs,

13 DECISION AND ORDER

vs.

14

JOSE B. PALACIOS in his capacity as 15 Director of the Guam Department of 16 Corrections, and

17 LOURDES M. PEREZ in her capacity as Director of Guam Department of 18 Administration,

19 Defendants.

20

21 INTRODUCTION

22 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for order to show cause because Defendants have failed to 23 comply with an order to pay retroactive wages. This matter is before the Honorable Michael J .

24 Bordallo. The ten Plaintiffs, Antone F. Aguon, Isaac J. Mantanona, Marylou S. Sablan, Herbert 25 H. Petree, John P. Siquenza, Leodegario M. Buan, Paul A. Cruz, Peter J. Cruz, Catherine M.

26 Page 1 of 4 1 Cruz, and Jessica D. Concepcion ("Plaintiffs"), are represented by Daniel S. Somerfleck, Esq.

2 of Somerfleck & Associates, PLLC. The two Defendants, Jose B. Palacios in his capacity as

3 .Director of the Guam Department of Corrections and Lourdes M. Perez in her capacity as

4 Director of Guam Department of Administration ("Defendants"), are represented by Assistant 5 Attorney General David J. Highsmith. Having considered the arguments and the applicable law, 6 . the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for order to show cause.

7 BACKGROUND

8 This matter arises out of Plaintiffs' motion, entitled "Motion for Contempt," filed on 9 10 Aug. 24, 2018. It is a standard motion for order to show cause and will be referred to in this

11 decision simply as "Motion." Defendants filed an opposition ("Opposition") on Sep. 18, 2018.

12 An abnormal delay ensued due to a recording or scheduling error by the Court, for which the

13 Court takes responsibility and apologizes to the parties. The Court has taken the matter under

14 advisement.

15 FACTS

16 1. The ten Plaintiffs, who are employees at the Guam Department of Corrections ("DOC"), 17 brought a complaint on Aug. 13, 2010 claiming that the DOC and the Guam Department 18 of Administration ("DOA") wrongfully failed to provide them proper compensation for 19 overtime, hazardous duty, and night differential pay.

20 2. In a Decision and Judgment ("Decision") issued on Jun. 7, 2011, the Court sided with 21 Plaintiffs and ordered Defendants to pay Plaintiffs retroactive wages and reasonable 22 attorney's fees and costs.

23

24 3. Seven years later, on Aug. 14, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the Motion arguing that Defendants

25 have thus far not paid Plaintiffs anything. Plaintiffs write, "[C]learly the Plaintiffs had

26 the ability to comply, yet did not and has [sic] not done so." Mot. for Contempt 4.

Page 2 of 4

l I l

1

e •

1 4. Defendants admit in their Opposition that they have not complied with the Court order.

2 They argue that in spite of their attempts to obtain money from the Guam Legislature to

3 fulfill the Court's order, the legislature has not appropriated the funds, and thus it is

4

impossible for Defendants to comply.

5

5. The matter is now before the Court.

6

ISSUE

7

1. Whether to require Defendants to show cause for not complying with the Court's

8

Decision.

9

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

10

Contempt of court includes disobedience of any lawful court order. 7 Guam Code. Ann.

11

12 § 34101(a)(5). In 2003 the Supreme Court of Guam explained the elements required for a court

13 to find a party in contempt of a prior order. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2003 Guam 8 1] 15. The

14 Supreme Court held that, "[t]he elements of contempt are generally: 1) a valid order, 2)

15 knowledge of the order, 3) ability to comply with the order, and 4) willful failure to comply

16 with the order." Li. (citing In re Ivey, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 447, 451 (Ct. App, 2000)).

17

The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Rylander stated that in a civil contempt

18

proceeding, a defendant may assert a present inability to comply with a court order. United

19

States v. Rvlander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983). The Court stated, "Where compliance is

20

impossible, neither the moving party nor the court has any reason to proceed with the civil

21

contempt action. It is settled, however, that in raising this defense, the defendant has a burden of

22

reduction." Id.

24

25

26

Page 3 of 4

U

11

s 1

1 ANALYSIS

2 In weighing the facts of the instant matter against the Rodriguez test, the Court finds that

3 contempt is not justified because Defendants do not have the ability to comply with the Court's 4 . . ,» .

order. The first two elements of the Rodriguez test are satlsHed. The Declslon created a valld 5 order by the Court, and Defendants had knowledge of that order. But Defendants have stated 6 that in spite of their attempts to obtain funds from the Guam Legislature, they have not obtained 7 the money. Therefore, they have no ability to comply with the order, thus failing the third 8 element Of the Rodriguez test. Defendants' failure to pay was not willful, thus failing the fourth 9 10 element of the Rodriguez test. Plaintiffs intimate that Defendants once had the ability to comply

11 with the order even if they presently no longer have that ability. However, the U.S. Supreme

12 Court in Rylander has clarified that present ability to comply with the order is the determining

13 factor. Defendants have stated that they have attempted to gain the necessary appropriations

14 from the Guam Legislature but have failed. They have no other recourse to obtain the money,

15 and therefore, they cannot comply with the order. The elements required for contempt under the

16 Rodriguez test are not present. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' Motion. 17 CONCLUSION AND ORDER

18 For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause.

19

20

21 SO ORDERED, this

w

day of %47 2019.

22 \

23

J

' i L.

V\A Cf}iJn

24 =l;k QUQQ that a copy of the HONORABLE MICHAEL J. BORDALLO 'etc was placed in the

.%. Judge, Superior Court of Guam

Q34 .a.»2A'

O

25 Y Nr.

26

Page 4 of 4

Ceputy Clerk, Superior Court of Gud'm