IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, CIVIL CASE No. C V1 486-11 P laintiff,
vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER
ELSIE SMITH,
Defendant.
10 INTRODUCTION
I1 This matter came before the Honorable James L . Canto II pursuant to a Decision and
12 Order issued by this Court on October, 31, 2013 . Having considered the parties ' briefs and the
13 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.
14 BACKGROUND
15 On October 31, 2013, the Court held that Defendant is entitled to an attorney ' s fees and
16 co st s award o f Twent y-Two Tho u sand Ni net y-One Do l l ars and E i ght y-Two Cent s ($ 2 2 ,0 9 1 .8 2 )
17 pursuant to 7 GC A § 17106(g)( 1). Further, the Court impo sed a sanction upon P laintiff
18 pursuant to 7 G C A § 17106( g)(2) in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($ 20,000.00).
19 Both these amounts totaling Forty -Two Thousand Ninety-One Dollars and Eighty-Two Cents
20 ($42,091 . 82) were held to be due and owing to Defendant by Plaintiff.
21 On November 22, 2013, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 31,
22 2013 decision pursuant to Guam R. Civ . P. 60(b ). Plaintiff argues that the Court committed
23 clear error and argues that : ( 1) the denial of an award of attorney ' s fees between September 22,
24 2011 and December 11, 2012 is manifestly unjust ; ( 2) sanctions should be awarded against
25 P laintiff ' s attorneys; ( 3) Defendant presented evidence at the evidentiary hearing supporting her
26 claim for compensatory damages. ( Mot. Recons., 3-8, Nov. 22, 2013).
27 On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition and a cross-motion. P laintiff argues
28 that Defendant fails to meet any of the Rule 60(b) standards for reconsidering the Court's
i U ! Page 1 of 6 1 deci si o n. (Opp'n Mot. , 1, Dec. 13, 2013). Plaintiff claims that reference to any settlement 2 discussions, as new evidence, is improper pursuant to Rule 408 of the Guam Rules of Evidence.
3 Id. at 3 . In addition, Plaintiff himself appears to request the Court to reconsider the amount of
4 sanctions in the form of a cross-motion. Id. at 3-4.
5 On Dec. 17, 2013, Defendant filed a reply to the opposition of the motion for summary
6 judgment and an opposition to the cross-motion. Defendant reassert s hi s i ni t i al po si t i o n and 7 asserts that the new evidence presented by Defendant is not precluded by Rule 408 as Plaintiff
8 suggests, and that it shows that Plaintiff is the party who unnecessarily fought to maintain and
9 exacerbat e t he basel ess l awsu i t . (Repl y, 2 -3 , Dec. 17, 2013). F u rt hermo re, Defendant cl ai ms
10 that the $20,000.00 sanction award should be awarded against Plaintiff's counsel in addition to
Plaintiff pursuant to 7 GCA § 17106(g)(2). Id. at 7.
12 D IS C U S S IO N
13 1. Rule 60(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure
14 Under Guam law, a party may be relieved from final judgment, order, or proceeding for
15 the following reasons:
16 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 17 (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 18 (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; 19 (4) the judgment is void; 20 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that 21 the judgment should have prospective application; or 22 (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b) (2010). 23 A motion for reconsideration is justified where the "trial court (1) is presented with new 24 evidence; (2) committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 25 intervening change in controlling law." Petition of Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Gua m 1 9 ¶ 3 8 26 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 27
Page 2 of 6 II. De nia l of Attorne y 's Fees between September 22, 2011 and December 11, 2012
Defend ant's request for reconsideration o f the denial of at t o rney' s fees bet ween
September 22, 20 11 and Dece mber 11, 20 12 is grounded on the ir s ubmis s ion of a n e-mail exch ange bet ween the parties' counsels o n September 22, 201 1, September 25, 2011, and
Nove mbe r 6, 201 3, as well a s a c opy of a le tte r s e nt by De fe nda nt's counsel to Plaintiff's
6 counsel o n Sept e mber 25, 2011. (Decl. Robert L. Keo gh, Exhibits A-C, No v. 15, 2013).
7 Defendant claims that this is new evidence warranting reconsideration. The Court does not 8 agree.
9 Ne w evidence to justify reconsideration refers to newly discovered evidence. See
10 Marlyn Nutraceuticals , Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co ., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).
11 Thus , a motion for reconsideration " may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for
12 the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Id.
13 (quoting Kona Enters ., Inc. v . Estate of Bishop , 229 F .3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000 )). The alleged
14 new evidences submitted by Defendant are evidences which could have reasonably been raised
15 earlier in the litigation to support their claim . Id. In the absence of newly discovered evidence,
16 the Court is unable to grant Defendant ' s motion on this ground. Id.
17 Defendant alternatively claims that the denial of attorney's fe e s during this pe rio d is
18 manifestly unjust and that the Court committed clear error. Clear error has been defined by the
19 Guam Supreme Court as follows:
20 Clear error requires more than a mere allegation that a prior panel rendered an 21 u nfavo rabl e deci si o n. Cl ear erro r l eadi ng t o mani fest i nj u st i ce i s j u dged u nder a stringent standard: A mere suspicion of error, no matter how well supported, does 22 not warrant reopening an already decided point. 23 People v. Orallo, 2006 Guam 8 ¶ 12 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 24 In t hi s case, t he Co u rt fi nds t hat Defendant has no t met her bu rden t o sho w cl ear erro r.
25 The Court carefully considered the reasonable amo u nt o f at t o rney' s fees attributable to
26 Defendant , and Defendant is seeking reconsideration o f a n issue that has been previously
27 presented before the Court. (Mot. Recons., 3-7, Nov. 15, 2013). Given that Defendant's motion 28
Page 3 of 6 presented no pertinent new evidence, law, or demonstration of clear error, the motion is denied.
See Quitugua, 2004 Guam 19 ¶ 38.
III. S a nc tio ns
Under Gu am law, "t he co u rt shall award a moving party who i s di smi ssed, without
5 regards to any limit under Guam law: ... (2) such additional sanctions upon the responding party,
6 its attorneys or law firms as it determines will be sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct
7 and comparable conduct by others similarly situated." 7 GCA § 17106(g)(2) (2005). Defendant
8 requests that the sanction be amended to include Plaintiff's counsel "a s re quire d by 7 GC A 9 §17106( g)(2)." (Reply, 2-3, Dec. 17, 2013).
10 The Court does not agree with Defendant's interpretation of the statute. Under the plain
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, CIVIL CASE No. C V1 486-11 P laintiff,
vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER
ELSIE SMITH,
Defendant.
10 INTRODUCTION
I1 This matter came before the Honorable James L . Canto II pursuant to a Decision and
12 Order issued by this Court on October, 31, 2013 . Having considered the parties ' briefs and the
13 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.
14 BACKGROUND
15 On October 31, 2013, the Court held that Defendant is entitled to an attorney ' s fees and
16 co st s award o f Twent y-Two Tho u sand Ni net y-One Do l l ars and E i ght y-Two Cent s ($ 2 2 ,0 9 1 .8 2 )
17 pursuant to 7 GC A § 17106(g)( 1). Further, the Court impo sed a sanction upon P laintiff
18 pursuant to 7 G C A § 17106( g)(2) in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($ 20,000.00).
19 Both these amounts totaling Forty -Two Thousand Ninety-One Dollars and Eighty-Two Cents
20 ($42,091 . 82) were held to be due and owing to Defendant by Plaintiff.
21 On November 22, 2013, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 31,
22 2013 decision pursuant to Guam R. Civ . P. 60(b ). Plaintiff argues that the Court committed
23 clear error and argues that : ( 1) the denial of an award of attorney ' s fees between September 22,
24 2011 and December 11, 2012 is manifestly unjust ; ( 2) sanctions should be awarded against
25 P laintiff ' s attorneys; ( 3) Defendant presented evidence at the evidentiary hearing supporting her
26 claim for compensatory damages. ( Mot. Recons., 3-8, Nov. 22, 2013).
27 On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition and a cross-motion. P laintiff argues
28 that Defendant fails to meet any of the Rule 60(b) standards for reconsidering the Court's
i U ! Page 1 of 6 1 deci si o n. (Opp'n Mot. , 1, Dec. 13, 2013). Plaintiff claims that reference to any settlement 2 discussions, as new evidence, is improper pursuant to Rule 408 of the Guam Rules of Evidence.
3 Id. at 3 . In addition, Plaintiff himself appears to request the Court to reconsider the amount of
4 sanctions in the form of a cross-motion. Id. at 3-4.
5 On Dec. 17, 2013, Defendant filed a reply to the opposition of the motion for summary
6 judgment and an opposition to the cross-motion. Defendant reassert s hi s i ni t i al po si t i o n and 7 asserts that the new evidence presented by Defendant is not precluded by Rule 408 as Plaintiff
8 suggests, and that it shows that Plaintiff is the party who unnecessarily fought to maintain and
9 exacerbat e t he basel ess l awsu i t . (Repl y, 2 -3 , Dec. 17, 2013). F u rt hermo re, Defendant cl ai ms
10 that the $20,000.00 sanction award should be awarded against Plaintiff's counsel in addition to
Plaintiff pursuant to 7 GCA § 17106(g)(2). Id. at 7.
12 D IS C U S S IO N
13 1. Rule 60(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure
14 Under Guam law, a party may be relieved from final judgment, order, or proceeding for
15 the following reasons:
16 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 17 (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 18 (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; 19 (4) the judgment is void; 20 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that 21 the judgment should have prospective application; or 22 (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Guam R. Civ. P. 60(b) (2010). 23 A motion for reconsideration is justified where the "trial court (1) is presented with new 24 evidence; (2) committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 25 intervening change in controlling law." Petition of Quitugua v. Flores, 2004 Gua m 1 9 ¶ 3 8 26 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 27
Page 2 of 6 II. De nia l of Attorne y 's Fees between September 22, 2011 and December 11, 2012
Defend ant's request for reconsideration o f the denial of at t o rney' s fees bet ween
September 22, 20 11 and Dece mber 11, 20 12 is grounded on the ir s ubmis s ion of a n e-mail exch ange bet ween the parties' counsels o n September 22, 201 1, September 25, 2011, and
Nove mbe r 6, 201 3, as well a s a c opy of a le tte r s e nt by De fe nda nt's counsel to Plaintiff's
6 counsel o n Sept e mber 25, 2011. (Decl. Robert L. Keo gh, Exhibits A-C, No v. 15, 2013).
7 Defendant claims that this is new evidence warranting reconsideration. The Court does not 8 agree.
9 Ne w evidence to justify reconsideration refers to newly discovered evidence. See
10 Marlyn Nutraceuticals , Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co ., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).
11 Thus , a motion for reconsideration " may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for
12 the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Id.
13 (quoting Kona Enters ., Inc. v . Estate of Bishop , 229 F .3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000 )). The alleged
14 new evidences submitted by Defendant are evidences which could have reasonably been raised
15 earlier in the litigation to support their claim . Id. In the absence of newly discovered evidence,
16 the Court is unable to grant Defendant ' s motion on this ground. Id.
17 Defendant alternatively claims that the denial of attorney's fe e s during this pe rio d is
18 manifestly unjust and that the Court committed clear error. Clear error has been defined by the
19 Guam Supreme Court as follows:
20 Clear error requires more than a mere allegation that a prior panel rendered an 21 u nfavo rabl e deci si o n. Cl ear erro r l eadi ng t o mani fest i nj u st i ce i s j u dged u nder a stringent standard: A mere suspicion of error, no matter how well supported, does 22 not warrant reopening an already decided point. 23 People v. Orallo, 2006 Guam 8 ¶ 12 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 24 In t hi s case, t he Co u rt fi nds t hat Defendant has no t met her bu rden t o sho w cl ear erro r.
25 The Court carefully considered the reasonable amo u nt o f at t o rney' s fees attributable to
26 Defendant , and Defendant is seeking reconsideration o f a n issue that has been previously
27 presented before the Court. (Mot. Recons., 3-7, Nov. 15, 2013). Given that Defendant's motion 28
Page 3 of 6 presented no pertinent new evidence, law, or demonstration of clear error, the motion is denied.
See Quitugua, 2004 Guam 19 ¶ 38.
III. S a nc tio ns
Under Gu am law, "t he co u rt shall award a moving party who i s di smi ssed, without
5 regards to any limit under Guam law: ... (2) such additional sanctions upon the responding party,
6 its attorneys or law firms as it determines will be sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct
7 and comparable conduct by others similarly situated." 7 GCA § 17106(g)(2) (2005). Defendant
8 requests that the sanction be amended to include Plaintiff's counsel "a s re quire d by 7 GC A 9 §17106( g)(2)." (Reply, 2-3, Dec. 17, 2013).
10 The Court does not agree with Defendant's interpretation of the statute. Under the plain
11 reading of the statute, imposition of a sanction is at the Court's discretion and it may be imposed 12 on the responding party, its attorney, or law firm. See Sumitomo Constr. Co., Ltd v. Gov't of
13 Gu a m, 2001 Guam 23 ¶ 17 ("It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must look
14 first to the language of the statute itself. Absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, the plain
15 meani ng prevails."). Defendant al so requests for clarification as to whether the sanction is
16 imposed on Plaintiff's counsel. In the Decision and Order issued on October 31, 2013, the 17 Court stated as follows: "the Court hereby imposes a sanction upon Plaintiff pursuant to 7 GCA
18 § 1 7 1 0 6 (g)(2 ) i n t he amo u nt o f Twent y Tho u sand Do l l ars ($ 2 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 )." (Dec. & Order, 10,
19 Oct. 31, 2013). The Court finds no ambiguity in its decision to impose a sanction on Plaintiff, 20 and not his attorney. Furthermore, Defendant has not met her burden for the Court to reconsider
21 its decision regarding the sanctions. S ee Quitugua, 20 04 Gu am 19 ¶ 38. Acco rdi ngl y,
22 Defendant's motion to reconsider is denied as to this ground. 23 Similarly, Plaintiff has not met his burden for the Court to reconsider its decision to 24 i mpo se sanct i o ns. S ee i d . Therefore, Plaintiff's cross-motion to reconsider the imposition of
25 sanctions is denied.
26 IV . C o m p e n s a t o r y Damages
27 Defendant seeks the Court to reconsider its October 21, 2013 decision and award her 28 co mpen sat o ry damages for the damages caused by this laws uit by arguing that the cou rt
Page 4 of 6 committed clear error and the decision was mani fest l y unjust. Defendant correctly cites that
Defendant testified in person at the evidentiary hearing about how the lawsuit affect ed her, her
hu sband , and he r wo rk performance. ( Mot. Recons., 7-8, Nov . 15, 2013). However, the Court
is not convinced that her testimony alone is sufficient for an award of compensatory damages in
this case.
6 Under Guam law, "[c]ompensatory damages are intended to redress the concrete loss 7 that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant's wrongful conduct . " Park v. Mobil Oil
8 Gu a m, In c., 2 0 0 4 Gu am 2 0 ¶ 1 3 (quoting State Farm Mt. Auto Ins. Co. v. Ca mp b el l , 5 3 8 U.S.
9 408, 416 (20 03 )). The measure of damages for the breach of an obligation not arising from 10 contract is "the amount whi ch will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused t hereby,
11 whether it could have been anticipated or not." 20 GCA § 2225 ( 2005).
12 In this case, Defendant testified that she did not lose any wages as a result of the service
13 of the complaint . ( Testimony of Elsie Smith, Reco rd Lo g at 11:26, June 24, 2013). Further,
14 Defendant fails to adequ at el y connect the serv ice o f the complaint and the lawsuit to her
15 sufferings . She testified that she wa s stressed while being deployed to Kuwait for ove r 6
16 months. Id . However, she acknowledged that being away from her family without adequate
17 access to a telephone during her deployment added to the stress. Id. Absent fu rt her evi dence,
18 t he Co u rt i s u nabl e t o fi nd that her testimony alone adequately shows that the lawsuit was the
19 proximate cau se o f her harm. In addition, Defendant fails to quantify the extent o f her alle ged
20 harm.
21 Moreover, under Guam law, the award of compensatory damages to a person damaged
22 or injured by reason o f a claim filed in viola tion o f the ir immunity under the CPGA is
23 discretionary. 7 GCA § 1710 6(h). The Court, in its discretion, finds that compensatory damages
24 are not appropria te in this case.
Page 5 of 6 V. Violation of Rule 11, Guam Rules of Civil Procedure.
Guam R. Civ. P. Rule I 1 states in pertinent part:
By presenting to the Court ... a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney o r unrepresented part y is certifying that to the best of the pers o n' s kno wl edge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, - (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law for the establishment of new law; (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; ... 10 Guam R. Civ. P. Rule 11(b) (2010). I1 The Court may impose sanctions upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties who violate 12 this Rule, pursuant to Guam R. Civ. P. Rule 11(c). The Court is highly concerned that it appears 13 Defendant's motion for reconsideration was filed with the Court in violation of subsections 14 (b)(1) and (b)(3) of Rule 11. Thus the Court will separately issue an order to show cause against 15 Defendant's counsel for said violation, in accordance with Guam R. Civ. P. Rule 11(c)(1)(B). 16
19 CO NCLUSI O N 20 Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 21 In addition, Plaintiff's cross-motion is hereby DENIED. 22
23 SO ORDERED this I I I )-f - day of March, 2014. 24
26 S E R V I C E V I A COURT BOX I acknow ledge that a copy of the 27 origi nal hereto was placed in the HON. JAMES L. CANTO II cgttrt box of: J udg e, S upe rio r Co urt o f Gua m 28
Page 6 of 6