Cruz v. Cruz
Opinion
. FiLED Rt dU
t )!?
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
GERARD A. CRUZ, Superior Court Case No. DM0554-14
P1aintiff DECISION AND ORDER VS. RE OBJECTIONS TO COMPETENCY CARMELITA C. CRUZ,
Defendant.
This Court sits as the court designated to review and determine the Objection filed by
Defendant Carmelita Cruz to the competency of Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena, III, to
preside over this matter. 7 GCA § 6107. Having found no grounds to disqualify Presiding Judge
Lamorena, the Court DENIES the Objection.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Carmelita lists several grounds supporting the recusal of Presiding Judge Lamorena. She
first claims that Presiding Judge Lamorena committed serious errors, which she has already
appealed. Obj. ¶ 3 (June 10, 2021); CVA2O-0l$; CVA2O-001. Those appeals are now under
advisement by the Guam Supreme Court. Second, she objects on the grounds that Presiding
Judge Lamorena is friends with Plaintiff Gerard A. Cmz’s wife’s father, Attorney David Lujan.
Obj. ¶ 6. Third, she claims that Presiding Judge Lamorena’s decisions in favor of Gerard
demonstrate a bias in his favor, finally, she argues that Presiding Judge Lamorena is biased
against Carmelita’s counsel’s firm because his bailiff testified against her counsel’s niece in an
unrelated proceeding, Arriota v. Fautino, DM0654-19. DM0554-14 DECN AND ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO COThNCY Page 2
Presiding Judge Lamorena denies all stated grounds for recusal. Answer (July 13, 2021).
First, he denies that the filing of the appeals has created any bias or prejudice on his behalf. He
also points to decisions that he rendered in Carmelita’s favor. Second, regarding his relationship
with Attorney Lujan, Presiding Judge Lamorena states that he recuses himself from cases
involving Attorney Lujan’s firm, Lujan and Wolff, because it represents persons filing lawsuits
against the Presiding Judge’s uncle in the U.S. District Court of Guam. Answer ¶ 6. Third, the
Presiding Judge denied any bias in Gerard’s favor, explaining that each decision was rendered
afier an evidentiaiy hearing. Answer ¶7. Fourth, Presiding Judge Lamorena denied having any
knowledge that his bailiff, JolenaMay San Agustin, testified in an unrelated domestic case, as
well as her having any input in his decision-making for this case.
The undersigned Judge was assigned to review Carmelita’s objection. Not. Assignment
of Recusal Judge (Aug. 10, 2021).
II. LAW AND DISCUSSION
A. The Standard for Disqualification: 7 GCA § 6105
A judge is disqualified from presiding over a matter in which his impartiality may
reasonably be questioned or where he possesses a personal bias or prejudice. 6 GCA § 6 105(a),
(b)(1). The appearance of bias is judged from the standard of a “reasonable person” who knows
all the facts, and understands the “contexts of the jurisdictions, parties, and controversies
involved,” including such “realities of the Guam judicial system” as the relatively small number
of lawyers in the Guam bar and “the nature of Guam families.” Van Dox v. Superior Ct. of
Guam, 200$ Guam 7 ¶ 32 (citing Ada v. Gutierrez, 2000 Guam 22 ¶J 12-13). Disqualifying bias
must come from extrajudicial sources. Van Dox, 2008 Guam 7 ¶ 32.
f., fl- i A UV ui t\ L. DM0554-14 DECN AND ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO COTENCY Page 3
B. Presiding Judge Lamorena’s Rulings Do Not Furnish a Basis for Disqualification.
If a party believes a judge is disqualified based on earlier rulings, the party must
demonstrate that the judge’s behavior “was so extreme as to display clear inability to render a
fair judgment.” See People of Guam v. Tennessen, 2010 Guam 12 ¶ 34 (citing Bayliss v.
Barnhart, 427 f.3d 1211, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2005)). “On the other hand, ‘expressions of
impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of what
imperfect men and women. . . sometimes display’ do not establish bias.” Id. (citing Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1990)).
Carmelita generally alleges that Judge Lamorena has demonstrated a bias through his
decisions and in the pattern of rulings in Gerard’s favor. On the first point, Carmelita does not
point to any particular language in his rulings, which are now on review by the Guam Supreme
Court for error. Absent any particular language that might convey some bias, the Court accepts
Presiding Judge Lamorena’s explanation that each decision was thoroughly reviewed without
reference to any external or extrajudicial factors.
On the pattern of rulings, upon review of the record cited by Presiding Judge Lamorena,
the Court agrees that Carmelita is incorrect in claiming that Presiding Judge Lamorena has never
ruled in her favor.
C. Presiding Judge Lamorena’s Personal Relationship with Attorney Lujan Does Not Merit Disqualification.
On the issue of Presiding Judge Lamorena’s relationship with Gerard’s wife’s father, the
Court again looks at the issue from the standard of a reasonable person. As Presiding Judge
Lamorena explained, while he once had a closer relationship with Attorney Lujan, that
relationship has been strained by Attorney Lujan’s pursuit of cases against Presiding Judge
Lamorena’s close family member. Presiding Judge Lamorena believes that the strain in their
ni U UL DM0554-14 DECtN AND ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO COTENCY Page 4
relationship resulted in a conflict involving Attorney Lujan’s law firm, Lujan & Wolff. As a
result, Presiding Judge Lamorena recuses himself from cases involving Lujan & Wolff because
he believes a reasonable person might believe he holds a bias against that firm.
Viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person, this Court finds only a distant and
tangential connection between the relationship between Presiding Judge Lamorena and Attorney
Lujan and the appearance of Attorney Lujan’s son-in-law as a party here. Moreover, as Presiding
Judge Lamorena points out, the bias that Carmelia asserts is based on a friendship, whereas
Presiding Judge Lamorena recuses himself in cases involving Attorney Lujans’s law firm due to
a strain in their friendship. Given the remote connection between a strained relationship with a
family member of a party and this matter before the Presiding Judge, the Court does not find that
Carmelita has established that a reasonable person would view disqualification as necessary
under section 6 105(a) or (b)(1).
U. Presiding Judge Lamorena’s Bailiff is Not Involved in Decision-Making
Finally, Carmelita presents a far-fetched belief that Presiding Judge Lamorena is biased
based on his bailiff’s involvement in a case involving a client and a family member of
Carmelita’s counsel. This Court is satisfied in Presiding Judge Lamorena’s response that he had
no awareness of San Agustin’s role in that other case and that Ms. San Agustin has no input in
his rulings.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Having found that disqualification of Presiding Judge Lamorena is not warranted, the
Objection is DENIED. This Court returns this matter to Presiding Judge Lamorena for further
disposition.
b DM0554-14 DECN AND ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO COTENCY Page 5
SO ORDERED this 9th day of September 2021.
ZE.IfflARTE Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cruz v. Cruz (Cruz v. Cruz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.