Bautista v. Perez

Opinion

3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 4 ODILIA BAUTISTA and JOSEPH A. ) CIVIL CASE NO. CV1848-0l 5 GUTHRIE, ) 6 Plaintiffs, ~ DECISION AND ORDER ON SECOND 7 ) MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT vs. ) 8 ) 9 GERALD S.A. PEREZ, et al., ) ) 10 Defendants. ) ) II

12 INTRODUCTION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III on June 24, 14 2013 on Plaintiffs Second Motion for Enforcement Order. Plaintiff Joseph A. 15 Guthrie is acting pro se. Defendants, Trustees of the Government of Guam 16 Retirement Fund (hereinafter, "Board"), are represented by Attorney Elyze M. 17 Iriarte. Attorney Phillip Torres appeared on behalf of Odilia Bautista. The Court 18 now issues its Decision and Order. 19 BACKGROUND 20 On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff Guthrie filed, inter alia, his Second Motion for 21 Enforcement Order. On May 31, 2013, this Court issued a Decision and Order 22 which dispensed with all pertinent issues except for the Second Motion for 23 Enforcement Order. There, this Court found that "the actions Plaintiff proposes in 24 this motion are so substantive and fact-specific that more information on the matter 25 must be provided." Decision and Order, May 31, 2013 at 4. Due to the deficiency of 26 information on the issue, this Court then issued an Order to Show Cause upon 27 Defendants as to whether this Court should Grant Plaintiffs motion. 28 Decision and Order Case No. CV1848-0l

On June 17, 2013, Board filed its Response to the Order to Show Cause and 2 attached thereto the declaration of Paula M. Blas. A hearing was held on June 24, 3 2013. The information provided to this Court in the pleadings and at the hearing 4 was taken into consideration. For the reasons set forth below, this Court shall deny 5 Plaintiffs motion. 6 DISCUSSION 7 In the May 31, 2013 Decision and Order, Board issued an order to show cause

8 as to whether (1) the Board must cease processing applications for retirement from employees of non-autonomous agencies if appropriations for interest-only payments 9 from PL 31-77 are exhausted and if the Legislature has failed to supplement its 10 appropriations for interest-only payments to the Fund; (2) the Board must 11 "challenge the Organicity" of PL 28-38 in Court; and (3) this Court should rule that 12 the Medical Insurance Bailout Agreement of FY 2011 is void. See Decision and 13 Order, May 31, 2013 at 11. 14 As to item (1) above, the Board, through declarations by Director Paula Blas, 15 represents to the Court that Public Law 31-77 funds were never exhausted. P.L. 16 31-77 appropriated $332,753 for the "interest only" payments first introduced in 17 P.L. 28-38. However, the Fund received more than its appropriation, receiving 18 $764,703.47. Proceeds from a bond issuance enabled full funding of all amounts 19 owed to the Retirement Fund since the inception of the P.L. 28-38 interest-only 20 payments. As a result, the Board states "The Fund has therefore been made 21 whole." 22 As to item (2) above, the Board argues it is not their role to challenge 23 legislation that may or may not violate the Organic Act, but rather to "challenge 24 legislation amending the DB Plan that would increase benefit levels, expand 25 minimum eligibility requirements, reduce or delay funding of contributions, or

26 otherwise impair the ability of the government to continue to provide retirement,

27 disability, and survivor benefits to members and beneficiaries." Decision and Order,

28 Feb. 18, 2003 at 13-14. This Court agrees.

t. " -2- Decision and Order Case No. CV1848-0l

As to item (3) above, the Board argues that this issue has already been 2 decided in this Court's March 13, 2012 Order disposing of Plaintiff Guthrie's Motion 3 for Enforcement Order. This Court agrees. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons set forth above, this Court concludes that the issues

6 presented in Plaintiff Guthrie's Second Motion for Enforcement Order are moot.

7 Plaintiffs motion is hereby DENIED.

II It is SO ORDERED this 8th day of August, 20

14 HONORABLE ALEE Presiding Judge, Supen'""'"' 1'-''" 15