4* a
Jb'?=l oh FH 32 55
¢.\
l:'¢=»*.» 3*-2"
.
I .
"i`F? - n
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
CYFRED, CYFRED, LTD., CIVILCASE CIVIL CASENO.
NO.CV0396-23
CV0396-23
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID WAATHDAD;
WAATHDAD; KINASIRO KINASIRO K. K.
ALBERT; RENSPER ALPET; IASINDA R. DECISION AND ORDER ALPET; SINIO ANIS; FLORENZO H. ATAN; DENYING DENYING MOTION TO
THANKYOU ERAM; ERAM; ROSENTA ROSENTA IFRAIM;
IFRAIM; REASSIGN THIS CASE TO SMITHER SMITHER D. EZRA;
EZRA; SILIHNER
SILIHNER G. FRED; JUDGE ELYZE ELYZE M. IRIARTE
MARGARET L. FANOWAY; MARTINA FINE JOSEPH, Individually Individually as
as the Special
Administrator of of the Estate
Estate of RAINIS RANGI,
deceased; PAUL KARGON;
KARGON; MARTINA
RUEMAU; RUEMAU; DARIA KOSAM; KOSAM; JOHN LIGMAW; MARIA T. LIGMAW; MARSALA D. MARTIN;
MARTIN; SONTAG SONTAG H. H. MARTIN;
MARTIN; T'NEL
T'NEL
MORI; LYNN OTWIIOTWII aka "LYNN OTIWII;
OTIWII;
TAKASHI c. C. UNTUN;
UNTUN; MARTIN
MARTIN RAYMOND;
INOCENTA INOCENTA RAYMOND;
RAYMOND; ALEX H. RUBEN;
FELISA FELISA B. RUBEN;
RUBEN; KEROKEROPIM SHAREP;
TOMININA TAKEIOSHY;
TAKEIOSHY; JENNIFER D.
TAPACIO; GERRY GERRY L. TAPACIO; DIVINA
VAIAU; STANLEY YANFAG;
YANFAG; ROSEMARY
YANFAG, WAYSONW.S. W.S. WONG WONG and and DOES
ONE (1) through TEN TEN (10) inclusive.
Defendants.
This matter came before the Honorable matter came Honorable Dana Dana A. Gutierrez
Gutierrez on
on March
March 26,
26, 2024
2024 upon
upon aa
Motion to to Have Have This
This Case
Case Reassigned to Judge
Reassigned to Judge Elyze Elyse M. Iriarte
Iriarte ("Motion").
("Motion"). Present
Present at
at the
the
hearing was Attorney hearing was Attorney Wayson Watson W.S.
W.S. Wong
Wongrepresenting
representing all
all living
livingnamed
named defendants
defendants in
in this
this
M.IRIARTE IRIARTE CV0396-23; Cyfied, Ltd, CV0396-23; Cyfred, Ltd, v.v. David DavidWaathdad,
Waathdad, et al.
1
matter t er ("Defendants") , and ("D efenda nt s ")l, a nd Attorney At t or ney Curtis C . Vann dh C u r t is C. de veld veld r ep
representing
r es ent CCyfred,
yfr LLtd.
t
("Plaintiff').
la int iff").Upon Upon review
r eview of
of the
he aarguments
gument s and aapplicable
pplica ble Guam
Gua m law,
w, tthe CCourt hereby
our her eby
DENIES the Motion.
BACKGROUND
6, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Complaint, alleging malicious prosecution in another On July 6,
case-Waathdaa' et al. case-Waathdad et al. v.
v. Cyfifegi Ltd, Superior Cyfred, Ltd, Court of Guam Superior Court Guam Civil Civil Case
Case No.
No. CV0735-18
CV0735-18
("CV0735-18")-whichisispresided ("CV0735-18")-which presidedover overby
bythe
theHonorable
HonorableElyze
ElyzeM.
M. Iriarte.
Iriarte. On
On July
July 26,
26, 2023,
2023,
their Answer
Defendants filed their Answer and and aa Demand
Demand for
for Jury
Jury Trial
Trial of
of Six.
Defendants filed their Motion on December 5, 2023, December 5, 2023, moving
moving "this
"this Court
Court to
to reassign
reassign this
case or have the Chief of this Chief Judge of this Court Court reassign this case" to Judge Iriarte.
Iriarte. Motion at 1. On
December December 29, 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed filed its to the Motion. Additionally, Attorney Van dh its Opposition to de
veld filed a Declaration in support of the Opposition.
Opposition. No Reply was filed. The Court heard the
on March Motion on March 26, 2024.
DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that this this matter should be reassigned to Judge Iriarte Iriarte because,
because, "in the
interests of interests of judicial judicial economy economy with economy and the economy with respect respect to
to all
all parties,
parties, [J]udge
[J]udge Iriarte
Iriarte can
can
handle this case more expeditiously than any other Superior Court judge judge because she has already
handled ndled CV0735-18,"
V0 7 3 5 -l8 , " which which involve
involve the
t he same
s a me events
event s ass in tthis ma
matter.
er . Motion
ot ion att 11. In
In
opposition, Plaintiff argues argues that
that Defendant
Defendant has
has not
not cited to
to applicable
applicable Guam
Guam rules or laws giving
11 Throughout Throughout their their filings,
filings, Defendants
Defendants refer
refer to to themselves
themselves as "Various Defendants."
Defendants." In their Motion, Motion,
Defendants state, "The Defendants state, "The Various Various Defendants,
Defendants, who who include include all
all living
living named defendants,
defendants, have
have moved this
Court to reassign Court to reassign this this case
case......"" Motion
Motion atat l.1.Additionally, Additionally, Defendants'
Defendants' Answer
Answer to
to Complaint,
Complaint, filed on
July 26, 2023, states that 2023, states that "Various "VariousDefendants
Defendants... ... who
who include
include all
all living
living named
named defendants,
defendants, by and
and
attorney, Wayson
through their attorney, Wayson W.S.W.S. Wong, Wong, Esq.,Esq., of
of the
the Law Offices of Wayson Wong, A Professional Professional
Corporation, answer the Corporation, answer theComplaint Complaint... ..." Answer
Answer at 1. 1.
3
M.IRIARTE IRIARTE CV0396-23;Cyfied, CV0396-23; Cyfred, Ltd, Ltd.,v.v. David
DavidWaathdad,
Waathdad, et al.
this this Court authority authority to
to reassign
reassign its
its cases,
cases, and
and that
that even
even if the court had authority, it should not
reassign this case. See generally Opp'n.
1. The Court Declines to Reassign This Matter Pursuant to Hawaii Local Rules
support of their In support their position, position, Defendants
Defendants quote
quote Local of Practice Local Rules of Practice for the United
Court of
States District Court of Hawaii Hawaii ("Hawaii
("Hawaii Local Rules") LR40.2 (2023):
appearss that
[w]hen it appear that two two or more pending
pending or or completed
completed civil
civil
actions or proceedings actions proceedings filedfiled in district involve in this distn'ct involve the the same or
substantially identical substantially identical transactions, transactions,happenings,
happenings,ororevents
events...
... it is
the parties' responsibility to promptly file tile a Notice ofof Related Case in each pending
pending action
a ction or pr oceeding...
or proceeding ... TThe courtt ma he cour may, in
in its
its
discretion, discr et ion, reassign
r ea ssignany
a ny or
or all
a l cases
ca ses identified
ident ified in
in a Notice
ice ofof
Related Case to the same judge.
Motion at 2.
Plaintiff argues Plaintiff argues that that the
the Hawaii Local Rules are Hawaii Local are inapplicable inapplicable to matters before to matters before the
the
Superior Cour t of uper ior Court of Guam.
Gua m. Opp'n aat 1-2.
1-2. TThe Court
he Cour t aagrees. Defendants ha gr ees. Defenda have pr presented
esented no
authority or argument, aware of any, stating that argument, nor is the Court aware that the the Hawaii
Hawaii Local Rules would
apply to a matter heard in the Superior Court of Guam.
Additionally, Additionally, even even if the Hawaii
Hawaii Local
Local Rules
Rules wer
were applicable, Hawaii e applicable, Hawaii Local Local Rules
Rules
LR40.2 states states that that a court
court may,
may, in its
its discretion, reassign a case, but not that it is required to do
so. Plaintiff argues argues that
that Defendants'
Defendants' motion is "without authority that any case in any "without any legal authority
jurisdiction which sues for malicious prosecution should or must be reassigned to the same Judge
malicious prosecution claim arises." Opp'n at who rules on the matter from which the malicious at 5. Again,
the agrees. It the Court agrees. It is not clear clear that,
that, even under
under the
the Hawaii
Hawaii Local
Local Rules,
Rules, judges
judges reassign
reassign
malicious prosecution prosecution cases
cases to
to the
the judge
judge that handled the underlying matter. Therefore, Therefore, even if
if
the Court had authority authority under
under the
the Hawaii Local Rules, it would decline to exercise its discretion
to reassign this matter.
4
M.IRIARTE IRIARTE CV0396-23; Cyfied, Ltd, CV0396-23; Cyfred, Ltd, v.v. David DavidWaathdad,
Waathdad, et al.
z. 2. The Court The Court Declines
Declines to
to Reassign
Reassign This
This Case
Case Pursuant
Pursuant to
to Guam
Guam Rules
Rules or
or Law
Law
not cite
Defendants do not cite to any any applicable
applicable Guam
Guam rules
rules or
or law that
that give the
the Court
Court authority
authority
its cases.
to reassign its cases. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, rather
rather than
than reviewing
reviewing the Hawaii Local Rules, the Court must
review applicable Guam rules and law.
Title 7 Section 4103 of the the Guam Code Annotated ("GCA") states, Annotated ("GCA") states, in in relevant
relevant part:
The Presiding JudgeJudge of of the
the Superior
Superior Court
Court shall prescribe the order of of business and randomly assign the cases to the Judges, Referees, and Hearing Officers of of the Court in conformance with rules and regulations p r o mul g a t e d by g ul a t i o ns promulgated b y the he SSupreme
up r CCourt.
o ur t . . . . .
Appointment shall be on aa rotating rotating basis among all the Judges of of the Superior Court.
77 GCA GCA §§ 4103 4103 (emphasis
(emphasis added).
added).
Because Because 77 GCA GCA §§ 4103
4103 states
states that
that case
case assignment shall conform assignment shall conform with with the
the rules
mies and
and
regulations promulgated regulations promulgated by by the
the Supreme
Supreme Court,
Court, the
the Court
Court reviews
reviews Supreme
Supreme Court
Court of Guam
Guam
Administrative Rule ("AR") No. 23-002 23-002 as
as itit governs
governs trial
tn'alcourt
courtcase
caseassignment procedures In assignmentprocedures.2
reviewing reviewing AR AR No.
No. 23-002,
23-002, the Court notes that Section III(C), III(C), which
which governs complex
complex litigation,
provides that "[w]here "[w]here a party
party moves
moves to
to consolidate complex cases which have been assigned to
different judges, different judges, the the Presiding
Presiding Judge
Judge will
will address
address the and shall the motion and shall thereafter thereafter make the
the
assignment of cases upon ruling on the motion." assignment of motion." Sup.
Sup. Ct. of
of Guam Admin.
Admin. R.
R. 23-002 (2023).
AR 23-002
Although the Court reviews AR 23-002 because because itit addresses
addresses reassignment
reassignment of
of cases,
cases, it is
not applicable applicable here because Defendants stated that their their motion
motion is not to consolidate the above-
Court reassign
captioned case with CV0735-18, but instead to have the Court reassign this case to Judge Judge Iriarte.
Iriarte.
Min. Entry, 10:49 AM (March 26, 2024).
2024). The
The Court is
is not aware
aware of any Guam rule or law that
2 2 AR 23-002 23-002 was was adopted
adopted and
and became
became effective on May 15,15, 2023, 2023, replacing
replacing all
allprior
priorcase
caseassignment
assignment
procedures. Sup.Ct. procedures. Sup. Ct.of of Guam
GuamAdmin.
Admin. R.
R. 23-002 (2023). AR
23-002 (2023). AR 24-001, 24-001, which will
willreplace
replacethe
the previous
previous case
case
assigmnent procedures,was assignment procedures, wasordered orderedonon March6,6,2024, March 2024,but
butwill
will not
not become
becomeeffective
effectiveuntil
until January
January1,l,
2025. Sup. Ct. 2025. Sup. Ct. of of Guam
GuamAdmin.
Admin. R.
R. 24-001
24-001 (2024).
(2024).
5
M.IRIARTE IRIARTE CV0396-23; Cyj9'ed, Ltd, v. David Cy.free!, Ltd, David Waathdad, al.
Waathdad, et al.
permits mit s the he rreassignment,
s ignment , rather
r a t her than
t ha n consolidation,
cons olida t ion,of
of cases
ca s es for
for the
he rreasons
ons raised
is ed by
Defendants. Defendants.
Further, even if AR r t her , even AR 223-002 3-0 was
wa s a applicable
p p lic le tto reassigning cases m aaddition s es in ddit ion tto
consolidating them, consolidating Defendants have not them, Defendants not established established that
that this
this matter
matter isis particularly
particularly complex.
However, Defendants imply that the underlying matter was complex by requesting requesting the Court to
take take judicial judicial notice notice of
of CV0735-18
CV0735-18 to
to understand
understand the
the volume
volume of
of the that the docket and the time that
11 :03 AM
Judge Iriarte has spent on that case. Min. Entry, 11:03 AM (March (March 26, 2024). 3
26, 2024).3
In People v. Diaz, Diaz, 2007 Guam 3, the Supreme Court of Guam interpreted Guam Rules of of
Evidence Rule Evidence Rule 201, 201, which
which governs
governs judicial
judicial notice
notice of
ofadjudicative
adjudicative facts.
facts. In
In that case, the Supreme
discretion to,
Court held that it had discretion to, but was not required required to, take judicial notice of of sentences
sentences
imposed in other cases when the requesting party provided only the names of of the defendants and
the Superior Court the Superior Court case case numbers,
numbers, but
but not
not copies
copies of
of the judgments or any
any description
description of the
particular facts facts within
within the file. Diaz, ,i 63.
Diaz, 2007 Guam 33 1] 63. The The Supreme
Supreme Court
Court noted
noted that "[c]ourts
generally have been reluctant reluctant to
to take
take judicial
judicial notice
notice of proceedings
proceedings in other cases and in other
courts." Diaz, ,i 66. The Diaz, 2007 Guam 33 1166. The Supreme Supreme Court further stated stated that
that "it
"it may
may be inappropriate
notice of entire case files, to take judicial notice files, proposing instead that a court may only take judicial
notice of of the truth truth of
of the
the facts
facts contained
contained in
in certain documents." Id.
certain documents." Id
Accordingly, although the Court may may have discretion
discretion to
to review
review CV0735-18,
CV0735-l8, it declines to
do so. First, First, a brief review of CV0735-18 would be be insufficient
insufficient to demonstrate demonstrate that
that the instant
instant
33 In In their Motion, Motion, Defendants
Defendants request
request that
that "this
"this Court
Court take
take judicial
judicial notice
notice of the record of this [above-
[
captioned] case and the record of CV0735-18 ..." Motion at 2. Defendants captioned] case and the record of CV0735-18 ... " Motion at 2. Defendants did not make clear make clear whether
they expected the Court toto review the entirety of the record of of CV0735-18 or to to review it within a limited scope. scope. Upon further inquiry at the Motion hearing, further inquiry hearing, Defendants clarified that their request clarified that request was was for the
Court to review only the volume of of the docket in CV0735-18 and the time that Judge Judge Iriarte kiarte has spent on
that case. Min. Entry, 11:03 AM (March 26, 2024).
6
M.IRIARTE IRIARTE CV0396-23; Cyfied, Ltd, CV0396-23; Cyfred, Ltd, v.
v. David
DavidWaathdad,
Waathdad, et al.
al.
matter is is complex.
complex. Even if the Court were to to agree
agree with
with Defendants
Defendants that
that the
the matter
matter contained
contained
voluminous voluminous filings filings and
and was
was time-consuming
time-consuming for
for Judge
Judge Iriarte, that does
harte, that does not
not indicate
indicate that
that the
malicious prosecution malicious prosecution case case which
which is before this Court is before Court will will also
also be
be complex.
complex. Additionally,
Additionally,
because of the because of the Supreme Supreme Court's
Court's noted
noted hesitance
hesitancetoto take
takejudicial
judicial notice of
of another
another court's
court's case
case
files, the Court declines to take judicial files, judicial notice of CV0735-18, especially without more direction
as to to relevant relevant facts facts or
or filings
filings which
which Defendants
Defendants request the Court to to review.
3. Reassigning This Matter Would Provide Minimal Judicial Efticiencv Efficiency
In addition to the aforementioned reasons to aforementioned reasons to decline decline to
to reassign
reassign this
this matter,
matter, the Court also
finds that reassigning finds reassigning this this matter
matter would
would ultimately
ultimately provide minimal judicial efficiency because
demanded aa jury
Defendants have demanded jury trial.
Plaintiff argues argues that
that the
the case
case need
need not be reassigned because any disputable issues in this
case would be be tried
tried by
by aa jury rather than the Court. Min. Entry, 10:58 AM (March (March 26, 2024). To
the contrary, Defendants the contrary, Defendants argue argue that
that "[a]lthough
"[a]lthough in
in this
this case,
case, aa jury
jury trial
trial has
has been demanded,
Judge Iriarte can more expeditiously make the relevant relevant determinations
determinations leading
leading up
up to
to the
the jury
jury trial
case along
to move this case along .... Motionatat3.3.InInsupport ...." "Motion supportof oftheir
their argument,
argument, Defendants
Defendants stated
stated that in
other cases involving the same parties and facts, facts, Attorney
Attorney Wong
Wong and
and Attorney Van de veld spent
significant time resolving resolving issues
issues prior
prior to trial. Min. Entry, 10:50 AM (March 26, 2024).
if Judge Iriarte
Even if Iriarte thoroughly understands the facts in CV0735-18, a jury will need to
be apprised of any facts facts relevant
relevant to
to deciding
deciding this
this case,
case, which
which will
will take
take the
the same amount of time
in either court.
court. Defendants'
Defendants' concern that the parties may engage in lengthy pre-trial pre-trial proceedings
is speculative and therefore does not persuade the Court to reassign the matter. Accordingly, the
Court finds that reassigning reassigning this
this matter
matter would
would provide
provide minimal efficiency to the Court.
7
M.IRIARTE IRIARTE CV0396-23; Cyfrea Ltd, CV0396-23; Cyfred, Ltd,v.v. David DavidWaathdad,
Waathdad, et
et al.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion is DENIED. The Cou1"c reasons, Defendants' shall set the Court shall
matter for a continued Conference. 4 continued Scheduling Conference.4 Jura JUN 14ij2024
202,
SO O ORDERED:
ORD
---------
HOD LE UAN GUT RREZ Judy or COurt bf Guam
44 On On October October 12, 12, 2023,
2023, the
the Clerk
Clerk of
of Court
Court issued
issued an
an Amended 16.1 Form 1, ordering the parties to Amended CVR 16.1
file a proposed Scheduling file Scheduling Order Order and Discovery Plan by November 3, 2023, and a proposed Discovery 2023, and setting a Scheduling Conference Scheduling Conferencefor forNovember November14, 14,2023.
2023.AtAtthe
theNovember
November14,14,2023
2023 hearing,
hearing, Attorney
Attorney Van
veld requested de veld requested aa continuance continuance for for personal personal matters,
matters, which the Court
Court granted.
granted. However, the
Court did not set a date for the the continued Scheduling Conference Conference because
because both
both parties
parties indicated
their intent intent to to file
file motions which may need to motions which to be be addressed
addressed prior
prior to
to aa continued
continued Scheduling
Scheduling
including this Motion
Conference, including Motion to Reassign Reassign Case
Case to Judge Elyze
Blyze M.
M. Iriarte.