L:.~ .: ·~UF-'l·- ""' ~-.··· --<'· ·~··::. ,. .. r·.
:' t·." .. i.·-,.·,; J/·\ -.. ""' , .. i~ • • 1 J,,, , , ..,I 'I")T - • - .j '
C!- . ....... •"
2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM:u:r-;i ~ ex: c:c:.:ur-;T 3 .. a B c ________ - 4 ODILIA BAUTISTA and ) Case No. CV 1848-01 5
6 JOSEPH A. GUTHRIE,
Plaintiffs, l~ DECISION AND ORDER ON 7 vs. ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 8 ) OF DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF ) PRO SE GUTHRIE'S MOTION FOR GERALD S.A. PEREZ, et al, ) ATTORNEY'S FEES AND THIRD 9 ) MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT 10 Defendants. ) ORDER AND ON MOTION FOR ) RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION I1 ) AND ORDER ON SECOND MOTION ) FOR ENFORCEMENT 12 )
l3
14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III on June 14, 2013 and 16 August 15, 2013, respectively, on Plaintiff Guthrie's Motion for Reconsideration of Decision 17 Denying Plaintiff Pro Se Guthrie's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Third Motion for 18 Enforcement Order (First Motion) and Motion for Reconsideration of Decision and Order on 19 Second Motion for Enforcement (Second Motion). Plaintiff Guthrie is pro se and Attorney 20 Elyze Iriarte represents Defendants. The Court took the matters under advisement without a
21 hearing, and now issues this Decision and Order denying Plaintiff Guthrie's Motions. DISCUSSION 22 The long and contentious history of this case is set forth fully in the parties' pleadings 23 and the Court's previous decisions. In short, on November 7, 2001, Plaintiffs filed suit against _J 24 Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to the administration of the <( 25 z: 26 Government of Guam Retirement Fund and the organicity of statutes applicable to the Retirement Fund. On February 18, 2003, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary (!) 27 Judgment. The Court has entertained numerous motions from the parties subsequent to that 0::: 28 decision and, at present, Plaintiff Guthrie seeks reconsideration of two decisions rendered by 0 ( : .: Decision and Order CV 1848-01 -Bautista and Guthrie v. Perez, et al
this Court last year. Plaintiff Guthrie relies on Rule 59(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7.l(i) of the Local Rules of the Superior Court, while Defendants cite Rules 59(e) and 2 60(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff Guthrie's 3 arguments are meritorious under neither the Local Rules nor the Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 Local Rule 7.1 (i) provides that a motion for reconsideration may be made only on 5 grounds of: 6 1) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable 7 diligence could not have been known to the party moving for 8 reconsideration at the time of such decision, or, 2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law 9 occurring after the time of such decision, or, 3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts 10 presented to the Court before such decision. II In addition, Rule 7.1(i) provides that "[n]o motion for reconsideration shall m any manner 12 repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion." 13 A three-pronged standard applies to motions filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Rules of 14 Civil Procedure such that a motion for reconsideration is appropriate when the Court: "1) is 15 presented with new evidence; 2) committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust; or 16 3) ifthere is an intervening change in controlling law." Rong Chang Co., Ltd., Inc. v. M2P, Inc., 17 2012 Guam 1, ~ 16 (quoting Ward v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1, ~ 10). Although this rule allows the 18 Court to reconsider and amend a previous order, it is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used
19 sparingly in the interest of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Guam Bar Ethics Comm. v. Maquera, 2001 Guam 20, ~ 9 (citing Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 20 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Importantly, a party moving for reconsideration cannot use the 21 motion "to present a new legal theory, raise arguments for the first time, or present evidence for 22 the first time when they could have reasonably been raised earlier." Id. (citing Ward, 1998 23 Guam 1, ~ 13). Also, motions filed pursuant to 59(e) and 60(b) motions are "essentially 24 _J equivalent."Rong Chang, 2012 Guam 1, ~ 18. 25 First, on May 31, 2013, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying Plaintiff
0 Page 2 of 4 Decision and Order CV 1848-0 1 - Bautista and Guthrie v. Perez, et al
Defendants were "not in violation of [the Court's] February 18, 2003 Order [and t]he increase in benefits is adequately budgeted for and funded in compliance with the [Retirement] Fund's 2 standards." The Court further concluded that Plaintiff Guthrie was not entitled to attorney's fees 3 because Guam follows the American Rule for awards of attorney's fees, the requirements to 4 recover under the common fund doctrine were not met, and he was proceeding pro se while on 5 inactive status in this jurisdiction. 6 On June 14, 2013, Plaintiff Guthrie filed his First Motion for Reconsideration pursuant 7 to Rule 59(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7.1 (i) of the Local Rules of the Superior 8 Court; he did not request a hearing. On July 15, 2013, Defendants filed an Opposition pursuant 9 to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff
10 Guthrie filed an untimely Reply. In support of the First Motion, Plaintiff Guthrie seeks reconsideration-of the May 31, 2013 Decision and Order in its entirety, it seems-because the II Court improperly struck a filing due to improper service. Plaintiff Guthrie emphasizes "the 12 apparent failure of the Court to consider Plaintiff Guthrie's sworn statement" regarding 13 Defendants' consent to service in writing by e-mail. Plaintiff Guthrie previously presented this 14 argument and Defendants continue to dispute it factually and based on the requirements of Rule 15 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the Court echoed Defendants' sentiments and 16 already rejected Plaintiff Guthrie's argument based on Rule 5. In any event, Court is 17 unpersuaded that reconsideration is warranted on the basis of a non-substantive issue that does 18 not bear on the merits of the case. In its May 31, 2013 Decision and Order, the Court plainly 19 addressed the merits of Plaintiffs enforcement request and concluded that the Retirement Board
20 was not in violation of the Court's Order. Plaintiff Guthrie further seeks reconsideration of the Court's denial of his request for 21 attorney's fees because "in the exercise of reasonable diligence, he could not have known" the 22 precise manner in which the Court would assess fluctuation in Defined Benefit Plan and 23 Defined Contribution Plan retirees. The Court is unconvinced that a party has grounds for _.I 24 reconsideration because it failed to anticipate reasoning espoused by another party or by the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
L:.~ .: ·~UF-'l·- ""' ~-.··· --<'· ·~··::. ,. .. r·.
:' t·." .. i.·-,.·,; J/·\ -.. ""' , .. i~ • • 1 J,,, , , ..,I 'I")T - • - .j '
C!- . ....... •"
2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM:u:r-;i ~ ex: c:c:.:ur-;T 3 .. a B c ________ - 4 ODILIA BAUTISTA and ) Case No. CV 1848-01 5
6 JOSEPH A. GUTHRIE,
Plaintiffs, l~ DECISION AND ORDER ON 7 vs. ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 8 ) OF DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF ) PRO SE GUTHRIE'S MOTION FOR GERALD S.A. PEREZ, et al, ) ATTORNEY'S FEES AND THIRD 9 ) MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT 10 Defendants. ) ORDER AND ON MOTION FOR ) RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION I1 ) AND ORDER ON SECOND MOTION ) FOR ENFORCEMENT 12 )
l3
14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III on June 14, 2013 and 16 August 15, 2013, respectively, on Plaintiff Guthrie's Motion for Reconsideration of Decision 17 Denying Plaintiff Pro Se Guthrie's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Third Motion for 18 Enforcement Order (First Motion) and Motion for Reconsideration of Decision and Order on 19 Second Motion for Enforcement (Second Motion). Plaintiff Guthrie is pro se and Attorney 20 Elyze Iriarte represents Defendants. The Court took the matters under advisement without a
21 hearing, and now issues this Decision and Order denying Plaintiff Guthrie's Motions. DISCUSSION 22 The long and contentious history of this case is set forth fully in the parties' pleadings 23 and the Court's previous decisions. In short, on November 7, 2001, Plaintiffs filed suit against _J 24 Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to the administration of the <( 25 z: 26 Government of Guam Retirement Fund and the organicity of statutes applicable to the Retirement Fund. On February 18, 2003, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary (!) 27 Judgment. The Court has entertained numerous motions from the parties subsequent to that 0::: 28 decision and, at present, Plaintiff Guthrie seeks reconsideration of two decisions rendered by 0 ( : .: Decision and Order CV 1848-01 -Bautista and Guthrie v. Perez, et al
this Court last year. Plaintiff Guthrie relies on Rule 59(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7.l(i) of the Local Rules of the Superior Court, while Defendants cite Rules 59(e) and 2 60(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff Guthrie's 3 arguments are meritorious under neither the Local Rules nor the Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 Local Rule 7.1 (i) provides that a motion for reconsideration may be made only on 5 grounds of: 6 1) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable 7 diligence could not have been known to the party moving for 8 reconsideration at the time of such decision, or, 2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law 9 occurring after the time of such decision, or, 3) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts 10 presented to the Court before such decision. II In addition, Rule 7.1(i) provides that "[n]o motion for reconsideration shall m any manner 12 repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion." 13 A three-pronged standard applies to motions filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Rules of 14 Civil Procedure such that a motion for reconsideration is appropriate when the Court: "1) is 15 presented with new evidence; 2) committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust; or 16 3) ifthere is an intervening change in controlling law." Rong Chang Co., Ltd., Inc. v. M2P, Inc., 17 2012 Guam 1, ~ 16 (quoting Ward v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1, ~ 10). Although this rule allows the 18 Court to reconsider and amend a previous order, it is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used
19 sparingly in the interest of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Guam Bar Ethics Comm. v. Maquera, 2001 Guam 20, ~ 9 (citing Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 20 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Importantly, a party moving for reconsideration cannot use the 21 motion "to present a new legal theory, raise arguments for the first time, or present evidence for 22 the first time when they could have reasonably been raised earlier." Id. (citing Ward, 1998 23 Guam 1, ~ 13). Also, motions filed pursuant to 59(e) and 60(b) motions are "essentially 24 _J equivalent."Rong Chang, 2012 Guam 1, ~ 18. 25 First, on May 31, 2013, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying Plaintiff
0 Page 2 of 4 Decision and Order CV 1848-0 1 - Bautista and Guthrie v. Perez, et al
Defendants were "not in violation of [the Court's] February 18, 2003 Order [and t]he increase in benefits is adequately budgeted for and funded in compliance with the [Retirement] Fund's 2 standards." The Court further concluded that Plaintiff Guthrie was not entitled to attorney's fees 3 because Guam follows the American Rule for awards of attorney's fees, the requirements to 4 recover under the common fund doctrine were not met, and he was proceeding pro se while on 5 inactive status in this jurisdiction. 6 On June 14, 2013, Plaintiff Guthrie filed his First Motion for Reconsideration pursuant 7 to Rule 59(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7.1 (i) of the Local Rules of the Superior 8 Court; he did not request a hearing. On July 15, 2013, Defendants filed an Opposition pursuant 9 to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff
10 Guthrie filed an untimely Reply. In support of the First Motion, Plaintiff Guthrie seeks reconsideration-of the May 31, 2013 Decision and Order in its entirety, it seems-because the II Court improperly struck a filing due to improper service. Plaintiff Guthrie emphasizes "the 12 apparent failure of the Court to consider Plaintiff Guthrie's sworn statement" regarding 13 Defendants' consent to service in writing by e-mail. Plaintiff Guthrie previously presented this 14 argument and Defendants continue to dispute it factually and based on the requirements of Rule 15 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the Court echoed Defendants' sentiments and 16 already rejected Plaintiff Guthrie's argument based on Rule 5. In any event, Court is 17 unpersuaded that reconsideration is warranted on the basis of a non-substantive issue that does 18 not bear on the merits of the case. In its May 31, 2013 Decision and Order, the Court plainly 19 addressed the merits of Plaintiffs enforcement request and concluded that the Retirement Board
20 was not in violation of the Court's Order. Plaintiff Guthrie further seeks reconsideration of the Court's denial of his request for 21 attorney's fees because "in the exercise of reasonable diligence, he could not have known" the 22 precise manner in which the Court would assess fluctuation in Defined Benefit Plan and 23 Defined Contribution Plan retirees. The Court is unconvinced that a party has grounds for _.I 24 reconsideration because it failed to anticipate reasoning espoused by another party or by the
Page 3 of4 Decision and Order CV 1848-01 - Bautista and Guthrie v. Perez, et a!
evidence, Plaintiff Guthrie reiterates arguments while failing to demonstrate how the Court erred in relying on the Bias Declaration as evidence of fluctuation in both Plans. 2 On August 13, 2013, the Court issued a Decision and Order on Plaintiff Guthrie's 3 Second Motion for Enforcement. The Court concluded that the "the issues presented in Plaintiff 4 Guthrie's Second Motion for Enforcement Order are moot" based on Decisions and Orders of 5 February 18,2003 and March 13,2002 as well as representations made by Defendants. 6 On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff Guthrie filed his Second Motion for Reconsideration 7 pursuant to Rule 7.1 (i) of the Local Rules of the Superior Court; he did not request a hearing. 8 On September 12, 2013, Defendants filed an Opposition pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of
9 the Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff Guthrie filed an Amended Memorandum to his Second Motion. Plaintiff Guthrie seems to argue that reconsideration is 10 appropriate because "he had no idea" Defendants would offer certain arguments and he 11 therefore failed to offer a suitable counterargument. The Court discerns no factual or legal basis 12 for reconsideration in Plaintiff Guthrie's pleading. Instead, Plaintiff Guthrie baldly asserts that 13 reconsideration is appropriate. The Court will not entertain such meritless and repetitive strains 14 on its resources. 15 CONCLUSION 16 Plaintiff Guthrie seeks an extraordinary remedy, but has brought to the Court's attention 17 no material matter not already considered. Plaintiff Guthrie has likewise failed to articulate why 18 the Court's previous Decisions and Orders constituted clear error, were manifestly unjust, or
19 should be set aside on account of a change in the law. Accordingly, Plaintiff Guthrie's First
20 Motion and Second Motion are DENIED.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of May 12, 24
27 Presiding Judge, Superior 1acknowledoe ll •al a PY of the original hereto vn.s pi ced In the 28 COl~~,.;"' _..r~
•. .. ~ . ~ .. ,.- . rAT . '··· - ~ ... 5/1212014 Judiciary of Guam Mail- Decision & Order CV 1848-01
Decision & Order CV 1848-01 Esther L.S. Pinaula Man, May 12, 2014 at 5:10PM To: joeguthrie@hotmail.com Cc: "Amanda D. Quitoriano"
Buenas Mr. Guthrie,
The Decision And Order On Motion For Reconsideration Of Decision Denying Plaintiff Pro Se Guthrie's Motion For Attorney's Fees And Third Motion For Enforcement Order And On Motion For Reconsideration Of Decision And Order On Second Motion For Enforcement is attached for your review.
Y/56tlie~ §!!_ r;JI. m;uu&!a Deputy Clerk III Judiciary OfGuam (671) 475-3501
~ DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.pdf 338K
https :1/mail.g oog le.com/mai 1/u/0/?ui = 2&i k=29b5c34882&\ieVIF pt&search=sent&msg = 145ef44dad1 e7ba4&si ml = 145ef44dad1 e7ba4 1/1