Ehlert v. University of Guam

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 30, 2018
• Docket: SP0150-17
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

30 j: 09 ZOlB 2

3 OF ~Q:;

4 BY:-~-r,-- 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 DR. MICHAEL EHLERT, SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. SP 0150-17 8 Petitioner, 9 V. 10

UNIVERSITY OF GUAM, ROBERT DECISION AND ORDER 11 UNDERWOOD PRESIDENT UNIVERSITY 12 OF GUAM IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND UNIVERSTIY OF GUAM FACULTY 13 UNION LOCAL 6282, 14 Respondents. 15

16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on January 26, 2018, after 18 the Court's order for briefing regarding the Court's jurisdiction. Petitioner Dr. Michael Ehlert 19 was represented by Attorney Daniel Somerfleck. Respondents University of Guam and Dr. 20 Robert Underwood, in his official capacity as President of the University of Guam, were 21 represented by Attorney Mitch Thompson. Respondent University of Guam Faculty Local6282 22 was represented by Attorney Braddock Huesman. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 23 finds that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and t~e Court DENIES and DISMISSES 24 with prejudice Petitioner's Alternative Writ of Mandate. 25 BACKGROUND 26 Petitioner was a tenured Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Guam 27 since May 2005. On January 20, 2015, Petitioner received a Notice of Proposed Adverse Action 28 Decision and Order Dr. Michael Ehlert v. University of Guam, et. at., Special Proceedings Case No. SP 0150-17

from the University of Guam ("University") and on March 16, 2015, Petitioner received a 2 Notice of Adverse Action placing Petitioner on administrative leave without pay. On July 31, 3 2017, a jury found Petitioner guilty of one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct as a 4 felony and one count of attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct as a felony for behavior 5 which led to the University's adverse action against Petitioner. The University terminated 6 Petitioner's employment on August 1, 2017. 7 Petitioner filed his Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate on October 9, 2017. 8 Respondents University and Dr. Underwood filed their Opposition to the Petition on October 9 12, 2017. 10 The Court, in an abundance of caution, ordered all parties to submit briefing on the issue 11 of the Court's jurisdiction, and whether Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies before 12 filing his Petition. Petitioner and Respondents University and Dr. Underwood submitted 13 briefings on December 19, 2017. Respondents University and Dr. Underwood filed their 14 Response to Petitioner's Brief on December 29, 2017. Respondent University of Guam Faculty 15 Local6282 ("Local6282") filed its brief on December 29, 2017. Petitioner filed his response to 16 Respondents' briefs on January 5, 2018, and Respondent Local 6282 filed its Reply to the 17 Parties' Response on January 5, 2018. 18 The Court held a hearing on the issue of the Court's jurisdiction on January 26, 2018. At 19 the hearing, all parties rested on their briefs. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took 20 this matter under advisement. 21 DISCUSSION 22 The United States Supreme Court, in Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), 23 ruled that courts "have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 24 jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Id. at 514. The Arbaugh 25 court ruled that, if a court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must 26 dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Id. The Court will execute its duty to examine the question 27 of the Superior Court's subject-matter jurisdiction in this matter. 28

Page 2 of 3 Decision and Order Dr. Michael Ehlert v. University of Guam, et. al., Special Proceedings Case No. SP 0150-17

The Court finds the points and authorities cited by Respondents University and Dr. 2 Underwood in their brief regarding jurisdiction to be extremely persuasive. In the interest of 3 judicial economy, the Court adopts all the points and authorities cited by Respondents 4 University and Dr. Underwood in their brief filed on December 19, 2017. Therefore, the Court 5 finds that Petitioner was required to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his 6 Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate. The Court further fmds that Petitioner failed to 7 exhaust those administrative remedies by failing to seek an appeal or reconsideration of his 8 dismissal and by failing to file a claim under the Government Claims Act. By virtue of 9 Petitioner failing to exhaust his administrative remedies, the Court finds that the Court lacks 10 subject-matter jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly, the Court DENIES and DISMISSES 11 with prejudice Petitioner's Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate for lack of subject-matter 12 jurisdiction. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES and DISMISSES Petitioner's 15 Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandate with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 16

17 JA_N_3_0_Z_01_8___ SOORDERED ______

19 • 20 '"' .....,,co..L.O' ....,.LJ ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam 21

23 SE~VICE VIA COURT BU,

Page 3 of 3