Arceo v. CULGUAM, Inc.

Opinion

r:1, 'D 5% i ~ LC. ET

SLit"£RiGFi SUPERIORCOUFQTCOURT

ah" OF @ill-*@

GUAM

25,55 JUN20 WES JUN FM ~: 22l

20 FHM

ULERH scum

Mr

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM GUAM

JUANITA ARCEO, CIVIL CASE NO.

no. CV0397-20

Plaintim Plaintiff,

DECISION DENYING DECISION AND ORDER DENYING vs. MOTION FOR REVIEW REVIEW BY

BYAND

HEARING HEARING BEFORE

BEFORE A SUPERIOR

CULGUAM, CULGUAM,INC.

INC.doing

doingbusiness

business as COST- COURT COURT JUDGE

U-LESS,

Defendants Defendants..

Defendant CULGuam, Inc. Defendant CULGuam, Inc. doing doing business

businessasasCost-U-Less

Cost-U-Less("CULGuam")

("CULGuam") moved for a

Superior Court Judge, rather than Judge, rather than aaMagistrate Magistrate Judge,

Judge,totoreview

review its

its January

January31,

31,2025

2025Motion

Motion for

for

Reconsideration Reconsideration of ofthe

the Order

Order Granting

Granting Sanctions.

Sanctions. The

The Order

OrderGranting

GrantingSanctions,

Sanctions, issued

issued by

Magistrate Magistrate Judge Judge Jonathan Quan,

Quam,sanctioned

sanctionedCULGuam

CULGuamand

andits

itsattorneys

attorneyswith

with discovery

discovery

violations. violations. Having Havingreviewed

reviewedCULGuam's

CULGuam'spresent

presentmotion

motionseeking

seekingfor

foraaSuperior

Superior Court

Court Judge

Judge to

evaluate the Motion Motion for

for Reconsideration,

Reconsideration,the

theCourt

Courtdetermines

determinesthat

that the

the matter

matter remains properly

with Magistrate with Magistrate Judge Judge Quan.

I. 1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Following Followingdiscovery discoveryrevealing

revealingthat

thatCULGuam

CULGuamhad

hadan

anoutside

outsideinsurance

insurance company, which

which

itit never disclosed during discovery or at any point through this case's case's two

twojury

jury trials, the Court

referred referred post-judgment post-judgment discovery proceedings to Magistrate Judge Judge Quan.

Quam.Order

OrderReferring

Refening Mot.

Mot.

to Magistrate (May 13, Magistrate (May 2024). The 13, 2024). The Magistrate Magistrate Judge heardPlaintiff Judge heard PlaintiffArceo's Arced's Motion

Motion to Compel

Discovery and for Leave to Take Depositions and andArceo's

Arceo's Motion for Leave to Amend

CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVIEW BY AND Page2 Page

HEARING BEFORE A SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Complaint Complaint on on September 16, 2024.

September 16, 2024. The

The Magistrate

Magistrate Judge issued an Judge issued an Order

Order Re:

Re: Plaintiffs

Plaintiff" sMotion

Motion

to Compel Discovery and for Leave to Amend Complaint on January 21, 2025.

2025. This Order

included included sanctions CULGuam and its sanctions upon CULGuam its attorneys, Camacho Law Group, pursuant to Camacho Calvo Law

Guam Rules Rules of of Civil Procedure 37. CULGuam Procedure 26 and 37. CULGuam and and CC Law

Law both

both moved

moved to reconsider

the Magistrate Judge's Order. This This Court

Courtsubsequently

subsequently issued

issued aa Notice

Notice to

to Parties

Parties on February

10, I 2025 stating that that the

thereconsideration

reconsideration motions

motions would remain with with the

the Magistrate

Magistrate Judge.

Judge.

After filing filing its

its Motion

Motion for

for Reconsideration,

Reconsideration, CULGuam filed filed a Motion

Motion for Review by and

Hearing Hearing Before Before aa Superior Superior Court

Court Judge.

Judge. CULGuam

CULGuamargues

argues that

that this

this Court

Court should

should defer to the

Federal Rules of of Civil

CivilProcedure

Procedure (FRCP)

(FRCP)72

72 and

and 73

73 to

to determine

determine that

that the

the Magistrate

Magistrate Judge

Judge

cannot retain jurisdiction jurisdiction to

to reconsider

reconsider his own

own order. The

The Defendants

Defendants request

request that the Court

withdraw the withdraw the second referral referral to the Magistrate Magistrate Judge and

and reassign

reassignthe

theMotion

Motion for

for

Reconsideration to aa Superior Reconsideration to SuperiorCourt CourtJudge

Judgefor

foradjudication.

adjudication.Def.'s

Def.'sMot.

Mot. Review

Review && Hr'g

Hr'g Before

Superior Cr. Judge Superior Ct. Judge atate (Mar. 12, 4 (Mar. 12, 2025);

2025),CC

CCLaw

LawJoinder

Joiner in Def.'s Mot.

in Def.'s Hr'g Before & Hr'g

Review &

Mot. Review Before

Superior Ct. Judge Judge at

at 22(Mar.

(Mar. 14,

14, 2025).

z025)_11 Arceo filed an opposition to these Motions Arceo filed an opposition to these Motions arguing

that the Superior Court has the the inherent

inherent power to manage this litigation, manage this litigation, that that the

the Federal Rules

cited are instructive instructive but not binding, binding, that

that this

this Court

Court has

has already decided that the reconsideration reconsideration

motions would would remain with the Magistrate Judge, Judge, and

and that

that CULGuam

CULGuam and

and CC

CC Law's

Law's Motions

are untimely. Pl.'s are untimely. Opp'n to Pl.'s Opp'n to De£'s

Def.'s Mot.

Mot.Review.

Review. &&Hr'g

Hr'gBefore

BeforeSuperior

SuperiorCt.

Ct.Judge

Judge at

at 1,

I, 33 (Apr.

(Apr.

7, 7, 2025).

2025).

11 CC CC Law Law filed filed a non-substantive

non-substantivejoinder.

jointer.

CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVIEW BY AND Page3 Page

HEARING BEFORE A SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT

COURT JUDGE

II. 11. BY AND HEARING BEFORE A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE REVIEW BY

their Motions on

The parties make their on the basis of of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

("FRCP") ("FRCP") 72 72 and and 73. FRCP

FRCP 72

72 details

details that for both

both non-dispositive

non-dispositive and

and dispositive

dispositive matters, if a

party party moves in in a timely

timely manner, judge must review manner, the district judge review objections. They Theyargue

argue that

that these

these

Rules Rules are are instructive instructive because

because they were "devised "devised to

to safeguard

safeguard due

due process

process and other

constitutional considerations" associated with with how

how magistrate

magistrate judges

judges handle

handle matters

matters other

other than

tuals. trials. Def.'s Def.'s Mot.

Mot. Review

Review &&Hr'g

Hr'gBefore

BeforeSuperior

Superiorct.

Ct.Judge

Judge at

at 3.

In In making making their

their arguments,

arguments, parties recognize, however, that when these provisions provisions were

added to the FRCP in 1983, 1983, the Guam Supreme Court declined declined to

to adopt

adopt them

them because

because there was

no local magistrate statute.

statute. Id. at 2.

2. Further,

Further, the Guam Rules of of Civil

Civil Procedure

Procedure are in fact

adopted by the adopted by the Guam Guam Supreme

SupremeCourt

Court pursuant

pursuant to

to its

its authority

authority under

under 48

48 U.S.C.

U.S.C. §§ 1424-l(a)(6).

1424-1(a)(6).

The revised Guam Rules of of Civil

Civil Procedure

Procedure and

and Local

Local Rules

Rules of

of the

the Superior

Superior Court were adopted

by the Guam Supreme Court Court on

on May

May 3,

3, 2007, twenty-four

twenty-four years

years aRea

after the addition ofFRCP FRCP 72

and 73.

73. GRCP GRCP Preamble.

Preamble. Given

Giventhat

that the

the Guam

Guam Supreme the opportunity Supreme Court had the oppommity to adopt

rules similar similar to to FRCP

FRCP 72 and 73

73 but

but decided

decidednot

not to,

to, the

theCourt

Court declines

declinestotofollow

follow the guidance

guidance of

of

FRCP FRCP 72 and 73 73 here.

here. Regardless of

of if

if the

the parties

parties have timely

timely objected

objected to

to Magistrate

Magistrate Judge

Judge

Quan's Order, the Court finds that the arguments arguments presented

presentedfor

for this

this Court

Court to

to follow

follow FRCP

FRCP 72 and

73 provide provide little little to

to no

no persuasive

persuasive value.

III. MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S JU])GE'S AUTHORITY

This CouN has previously Court has previously determined that that the

theMotion

Motion for Reconsideration Reconsideration was to remain

with Magistrate with Magistrate Judge Quamininits Judge Quan itsNotice

Noticeto

toParties.

Parties. CULGuam and CC Law have argued in in

their briefs that their briefs the Magistrate that the Magistrate Judge Judge does

doesnot

nothave adequateauthority haveadequate under7 7GCA authorityunder GCA§§440l(c)

4401 to

to

issue sanctions sanctions as ashis

hisauthority

authorityisislimited

limited to

to "pretrial"

"pretrial" matters,

matters, and that if the Court is attempting

CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION FOR REVIEW REVIEW BY AND Page4 Page

HEARING BEFORE A SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT

COURT JUDGE

to permit permit the the Magistrate

Magistrate Judge's

Judge's actions

actions through

through him

himacting

actingas

as aa Special

Special Master,

Master, the

the process

process was

procedurally deficient. Def. procedurally Def. CULGuam CULGuamMot.

Mot. Recons.

Recons. Order

OrderGrant.

Grant. Sanctions

Sanctions at 13 (Jan.

at 13 (Jan. 31,

2025); Mem. P. & A. in Supp. CC Law 2025), Law Mot.

Mot. Recons.

Recons. Jan.

Jan. 21, & Order 21, 2025 Dec. & Order at 5 (Jan. 31,

2025). The The Court Court takes

takes this opportunity

opportunity to

to determine

determine Magistrate Judge Quan's authority Judge Quan's authority prior prior to

the disposition of these reconsideration reconsideration motions.

7 7 GCA GCA §440l(c)

§ 440 I (c)details

detailsmatters

matters magistrate judges have magistrate judges have authority authority over.

over. CC

CC Law

Law points

points

to GCA § to 77 GCA § 440l(c)(7), 4401(c)(7), (12),

(12), and

and(14)

(14)ininparticular.

particular. Mem.

Men. P. & A.

P. & in Supp.

A. in CC Law

Supp. CC Law Mot.

Mot.

Recons. Jan.

Jan. 21, 21, 2025

2025 Dec.

Dec. &

& Order at 4. These

These sections

sections state

state that magistrate judges have the

ability abilityto toserve serveas

as Special

Special Masters

Masters upon

upon appointment

appointment by

by the

the Presiding

Presiding Judge,

Judge; that magistrate

judges can preside over initial initial scheduling

scheduling conferences

conferences in civil matters matters to

to include

include but not limited

to initial pretrial conferences, case scheduling, discovery disputes, motions, and settlement

efforts, efforts; and and that that they

they may hear

hear and determine pretrial matters matters other than case dispositive case dispositive

motions, respectively. CULGuam CULGuamargues

arguesthat

that the

the only

onlycircumstance

circumstance in

in which

which aa magistrate

magistrate judge

may exercise authority to impose sanctions under under GRCP 377 is when appointed as a Special

Master under GRCP 53, which this Court did not Master not do. Def. CULGuam do. Def. Mot. Recons. Order CULGuam Mot.

13-14. ItIt argues further that this case does not fall within the category of Grant. Sanctions at 13-14.

"collections matters" that are handled by "collections by magistrate magistrate judges. Plaintiff Arceo judges. Id. at 14. Plaintiff Arceo argues that

magistrate judges have magistrate judges have authority authority to

to review

review discovery

discovery disputes

disputes and

and motions

motions under

under 7 GCA §§

7 GCA

4401(c)(12). 440l(c)(12).

The Court Court starts

starts by confirming

confirmingthat

that Magistrate

MagistrateJudge

Judge was

was not

not appointed

appointed as

as a Special

Special

Master. However, However,the the Court

Courtmaintains

maintains its

its belief

beliefthat

that the

the scope of

of work referred to the Magistrate

Judge falls within Judge falls within the authority authority for

for magistrate

magistrate judges

judges to decide.

decide. Magistrate

Magistrate judges

judges in

in Guam

Guam have

greater latitude than what what is

is prescribed

prescribed by

by the

thefederal

federal rules.

rules. Guam statutes

statutesallow

allow for

for this

CV0397-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DECISION DENYING MOTION FOR REVIEW BY AND Page 5 Page

HEARING BEFORE A SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT

COURT JUDGE

flexibility when, flexibility like in when, like in 77 GCA

GCA §440l(c)(l2),

440l(c)(l2),the

thescope

scopeof responsibilities is ofresponsibilities is prefaced by prefaced by

language like like "but not limited to." Magistrate Magistratejudges

judges are

are routinely

routinely tasked

tasked with

with presiding over

matters involving discovery. matters involving discovery. Per Per77 GCA

GCA §§ 4401(c)(12)

440l(c)(l2) magistrate judges preside magistrate judges preside over initial over initial

scheduling conferences conferencesin

incivil

civil matters including

including discovery disputes and discovery disputes and under under 7

7 GCA

GCA §§

4401(c)(11) 440l(c)(l l) magistratejudges judges preside

presideover

overdiscovery

discovery motions

motions in

in criminal

criminal matters.

matters. The Court

finds that its referral of ofpost-judgment

post-judgment discovery

discoveryproceedings

proceedings isis in

in alignment

alignment with

withGuam

Guam statutes

statutes

and regular practices at at the

the Guam

Guam Superior

Superior Court

Court which refer discovery discovery matters

matters to magistrate

judges. The The Court Courtdoes

does not

not believe

believeititwas

wasnecessary

necessary for

forthe

the Magistrate

MagistrateJudge

Judge to

to be

be appointed

appointed as

as

a special master master since

since magistrate

magistratejudges

judges have

havethe

theauthority

authority to hear these

these matters

matters without

without

undergoing undergoing that process. Accordingly, Accordingly, the

the Court

Court finds

finds that

that the

the Magistrate

Magistrate Judge

Judge had the

authority to hear these these post-judgment

post-judgment discovery proceedings and stands by its Notice to Parties.

IV. v CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court DENIES CULGuam and CC Law's Law's Motions

Motions for

for Review by and Hearing

Before Before aa Superior SuperiorCourt

CourtJudge

Judge on

onthe

the basis

basis that

that Guam

Guam does

does not

not adopt

adopt FRCP

FRCP 72 and 73, and that

Magistrate Judge had the Magistrate had adequate adequateauthority

authority to

to hear the

the post-judgment

post-judgment discovery

discovery motions and to

order discovery sanctions.

,,,.,-

so ORDERED this S0 J 2,0 Wl--L 2-D J UAL 9 2025.

- r -\ - J,-63

x."\

.,:;-.__.

~i::=y§-

*- .»J>" /r\-_ Is*

: » q"_ _ J ":/ ;\-;'.-~ ".. f-» 1 , . ' ,Q u \ ' .4 `._/K

-T.' . .r"* ..

;,.- /"` ' I l..

xi

W'''{ir;;_j}:'

fs; ..

HO H . -A'JE O N e ~ERLA<J / .J-E _6:f.Guam

- our,t .dt§Guam

Judge, Sup . . Court

&% '<--_ /"" ,;_//,/_ -