Arceo v. CulGuam, Inc.

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: December 13, 2022
• Docket: CV0397-20
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FILED S m CUURT QF GUAM 2022 DE8 13 PH 1: 32

CLERK GF couRT

Q IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

JUANITA ARCEO, Superior Court Case No. CV0397-20

Plaintiff;

vs. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CULGUAM, INC. doing business as MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL COST-U-LESS and JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Citing juror misconduct, Plaintiff Juanita Arceo moves the Court to order a new trial

following azury trial and a jury verdict in favor of Defendant Culguam, Inc. db Cost-U-Less.

Upon review of the filings and the record, the Court GR.ANTS the Motion for a New Trial due to

the foreperson's failure to disclose his involvement as a defendant in a personal injury case.1

1. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Arced filed this negligence action against Culguam after suffering aninjLu'y on its

premises. Arceo sought economic and non-economic damages resulting firm her injuries. P1.'s

Trial Brief at 5 (Aug. 4, 2022), Mot. New Trial at 7 (Sept. 20, 2022).

During void dire on August 22, 2022, die Court asked the prospective jurors: "Does

anyone here have a pending case in the Superior Court of Guam?" Reply Mot. New Trial, Ex. D

at 34-35 (Oct. 18, 2022). Two potential jurors answered affirmatively. Id. One potential juror

1 The Court declines to address Arceo's other arguments in favor of a new trial as analysis of those arguments will not change the outcome of this order.

ORIGINAL CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Page 2

disclosed a criminal case, another advised of being a plaintiff in a car accident case. Id. The

Court offered the potential jurors three opportunities to respond to Court's question. Id. at

34-35. No one else responded. Id. Arceo did not ask any follow-up questions to the jurors that

answered in the affirmative regarding pending cases in the Superior Court of Guam, nor did she

move to remove either of the jurors for cause. Id. 117-8.

Voir dire continued, and Arceo conducted extensive void dire on the issue of damages, the

jurors' familiarity with the type of damages in a personal injury case, and the role of the jury in

deciding damages. Minute Entry at 10:29 - 11:03 (Aug. 22, 2022). The Court ended void dire by

asking if the jurors had any information not yet disclosed regarding any subject discussed during

void dire. Id. at 11:20-21. There were no responses ro the Court's final question.

Juror #5 was the last juror to be selected for the jury, and at his seating, Arceo had

already exhausted all of her peremptory challenges. Id. 1110. The jury later selected Juror #5 as

the foreperson. Decl. Victoria Tories 12, 3 (Sept. 20, 2022). The jury returned a not negligent

verdict. Judgment (Sept. 6, 2022).

After the trial, Arceo's counsel discovered that Juror #5 was a defendant in an ongoing

personal injury case involving a car accident. Deal. Tories 11112-3. Juror #5 actively defended

himself in that action. He attended hearings, including a hearing on August 2, 2022~-just twenty

days before this case's void dire--and filed pleadings. Pl.'s Am. Ex. 1, Min. Entry 11-9-2021,

Min. Entry 8-2-2022, Trial Statement (Sep. 20, 2022). He admitted liability but disputed the

damages sought, which included economic and non-economic damages. Id. at Minute Entry

02-23-2022. Notably, while in the courthouse for jury duty, the Marshals served him with a

notice for his personal injury case. Id. at Not. Remote Hearing by Zoom (Aug. 3, 3022), Aft.

Serv. (Aug. 10, 2022) (Marshal's note: "Serves as a petit juror").

URIGINAL CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Page 3

Arceo indicated that had the information regarding Juror #5 's case been properly

disclosed during void dire, she would have moved to dismiss him for cause. Decl. Torres 1]3,

Arceo states that the foreperson's failure to disclose a pending personal injury lawsuit provides a

basis for a new trial, Id. 5-10. Arced asks this Court to adopt a three-part test that she asserts is

from a Florida federal district court case. Id. at 1 (citing Bernalu Lqvp, 580 So. ad 315 (Fla.

Dist. Ct. App. 1991),2 Mot. New Trial at 5.

In response, Culguam claims that "Plaintiff fails to establish that a juror failing to answer

honestly a material question on void dire is a reason for which new trials have been granted in

actions at law in the courts of Guam," Opp. Mot. New Trial at 7-8 (Oct. 11, 2022). Further,

Culguam argues that the Florida case law is not persuasive, the Court should follow the U.S.

Supreme Court's standard for this issue, and Arceo fails to meet the U.S. Supreme Court

standard. Id. Culguam cites the U.S. Supreme Court's two-part test from McDonough Power

Equipment, Inc, am Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), as the relevant standard. Id. at 8. That test

provides that "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material

question on void dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid

basis for a challenge for cause." Id. (citing McDonough Power Equipment, Inc., 464 U.S. at

556). In response, Arceo argues that while the Florida standard should apply, even under the

U.S. Supreme Court standard, she is entitled to a new trial. Reply Mot. New Trial at 1-2.

11. LAW AND DISCUSSION

Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 59 provides that "[a] new trial may be granted . _ . in an

action in which there has been a trial by jury,for any 0/the reasons for which new trials have

heretofore been granted in actions at law ill the court of Guam[]" GRCP 59(a), 59(a)(l)

2 Arceo incorrectly cites this case as Eernard v Lapp instead of Bernal u Lqnp.

URIGINAL CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Page 4

(emphasis added). Although the Court has been unable to locate a case on Guam where a new

trial was granted due to a juror's failure to disclose or answer questions honestly during void dire,

the Guam Supreme Court has looked to federal appellate courts in discussing the bases for the

grant of a Rule 59(a) new trial. See Adams v. Due fas, 1998 Guam 15 1] 17. Federal courts grant

new trials based on juror misconduct. See generally McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 464 U.S.

548. Therefore, the Court determines that a juror's failure to disclose can provide the proper

basis for a new trial under Rule 59(a)(1).

Courts apply varying standards for when ro grant a new trial based on a juror's failure to

disclose pertinent information during void dire. Arceo asks this court to adopt the three-part test

from a Florida federal district court case. However, Arced incorrectly states that tlle case is a

federal district court case, the case she cites is from a State of Florida appeals court. See Bernal

v. Lips, 580 So. 2d 315 (Fla. Dist. ct. App. 1991). Arceo's only other argument in favor of

applying the Florida test is that Florida has also adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The

Court does not find this argument persuasive considering Guam adopted its rule from the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, not the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See GRCP 59 cut.

(indicating FRCP 59 as its source). Further, in considering the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this issue and provided a test for determining when a new trial

is warranted. McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 464 U.S. 548. Therefore, the Court will apply the

U.S. Supreme Court's two-part test for determining when a juror's failure to disclose during void

dire creates the basis for a new trial.

The two-part test created by the U.S. Supreme Court provides "a party must first

demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on void dire, and then

further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. as

URIGINAL CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Page 5

Id. at 556. Here, the Court asked the jurors three times if any juror had a pending case in the

Superior Court of Guam and then provided the jurors with an additional opportunity to share

anything that wasn't disclosed. Juror #5 failed to disclose his pending case.

Culguam suggests that there is a difference between failing to answer honestly and

"simply forget[ing] about [an] experience." Opp. Mot. New Trial at 8-9; Coughlin VS Tailhood

Ass 'n, 112 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 1997). However, given Juror #5's diligent self-representation in

his personal injury case, the Court cannot construe his silence as forgetfulness. When the Court

asked about potential jurors' court cases--to which other jurors responded--Juror #5 said nothing

despite being in court that same month to attend hearings for his case. He was even served with

notice of an upcoming hearing on damages while present in the courthouse as a juror. Twelve

days after that service of process upon him, Juror #5, who would serve as the foreman, began his

service in this case. Based on the record, the Court concludes that Juror #5's failure to answer

the question regarding pending Superior Court cases was not due to any absentmindedness but

rather a willful withholding of information.

Further, as it relates to the materiality of the question, "material" is defined as "[o]fsuch

a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person's decision-making." Mater ial,

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (nth ed. 2019). When jury selection was conducted in this

case, Juror #5 had a pending personal injury case with disputed damages, which damages

included medical expenses associated with the injuries and damages for pain and suffering.

Arceo asserted damages of the same nature, including economic damages related to her injuries

and damages for pain and suffering. The knowledge of Juror #5's pending personal injury case

and the juror's role and positions in that case would have impacted Arceo's decision-making

during void dire. Further, Culguam highlights Arceo's lack of follow-up questions regarding the

ORIGINAL CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Page 6

other juror's disclosures of their pending cases in an attempt to show a lack of materiality. Opp.

Mot. New Trial at 9. However, the type of case disclosed by one juror and the other jurors' role

in their cases would not have provided a reason for Arced to ask any subsequent questions.

Therefore, Arceo meets the first part of the test for a new trial.

The second part of the U.S. Supreme Court test provides that the "correct response would

have provided a valid challenge for cause." M c D o n o u g h Power Equi p., I n c . , 464 U.S. at 556.

This standard only addresses a valid challenge for cause--not a peremptory challenge. As a

result, Culguam's discussion regarding Arced's lack of peremptory challenges before the seating

of Juror #5 is misplaced. Therefore, the Court will examine whether Arced could have exercised

a valid challenge for cause, not whether she would have used a peremptory challenge on the

j uror.

A party can exercise a valid challenge for cause due to bias. Fields v. Brown, 503 F.3d

755, 772 (9th Cir. 2007). An actual bias "stems from a preset disposition not to decide an issue

i mparti al l y ." Id. at 766. A s repeatedly stated supra, Juror #5 had a pending personal injury case

in which he was the defendant. The juror's case had a damages hearing scheduled for a month

after the trial in this case. The damages in Juror #5's case were very similar to those involved in

this case, although the damages in this case were for more significant amounts. Had Arceo

requested a challenge for cause based on this information, the Court would have found the

presence of bias and granted the motion. Finally, although Culguam notes that Arceo did not

challenge either of the other jurors that answered the question regarding pending cases in the

affirmative, the Court again notes that based on the information those jurors provided to the

Court, there was no reason for Arceo to challenge them. Opp. Mot. New Trial at 9. Therefore,

the count finds that both parts of the test are satisfied, and Arceo is entitled to a new trial.

ORIGINAL CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Page 7

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foreperson's failure to disclose his role as a defendant in an ongoing

personal injury case, the Count GRANTS Arceo's Motion for a New Trial. The Court sets a

remote] Scheduling Conference on 11 January 2023 at 9:00 a.m. and ORDERS the parties to

meet and confer on new trial dates and submit a proposed trial schedule by the date of the

Scheduling Conference.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of December 2022.

yeE M. I R I AR TE Judge, Superior Court of Guam

SERVICE VIA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic copy the original was e-mailed10: P M : L L g a / 7?w~ Cl f f v Cn /v 0 l m , Jo Date:I7/13/1ZTime:);Hf/If»~ WL Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam

Appearing Attorneys : Matthew J. Holley, Esq., and Victoria D.L.G. Torres, Esq., Pacific Legal Team, P.C., for Plaintiff Juanita Arceo Geri E. Diaz, Esq., Camacho Calvo Law Group, LLC, for Defendant CULGuarn, Inc., doing business as Cost-U-Less

3 To appear: enter https://guamcourts-org.zoom.us, Meeting ID: 864 4387 2213, and Password: JEMIE.

ORIGINAL