2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 3
4 CIVIL CASE NO. CVI848-1I 5 EST ATE OFT ALLIA C. MONTGOMERY, ~ ) 6 Plaintiff, ) ) 7 ) DECISION AND ORDER ) (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) 8 vs. ) ) 9 ) \
10 GUAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,)
11 Defendant. ~ 12 INTRODUCTION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on July 30, 2013, on Guam 14
15 Memorial Hospital Authority's ("Defendant GMHA") Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative,
16 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant GMHA was represented by Attorney Minakshi V. 17 Hemlani. Plaintiff Estate of Tallia C. Montgomery ("Plaintiff') was represented by Attorney 18 Phillip Torres. Following the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement. Upon 19 review of the written and oral arguments and legal authorities presented by both parties, the 20
21 Court hereby issues this Decision and Order DENYING Defendant's motion.
22 BACKGROUND 23 On November 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Negligence against the Guam 24 Memorial Hospital Authority. Defendant GMHA filed its Answer on January 17, 2012. On 25
26 July 31, 2012, following a Scheduling Conference, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, with a
27 bench trial set for July 17, 2013. On May 8, 2013, Defendant GMHA filed a Motion to 28 Dismiss, or in the alternative, a Motion for Summary Judgment. On the following day, Page 1 CV1848-11: Estate of Montgomery v. GMHA Decision & Order: Motion to Dismiss Defendant GMHA filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, a Motion for 1
2 Summary Judgment. Thereafter, Defendant GMHA filed an Ex Parte Application to Quash
3 Deposition Subpoena. Defendant filed the ex parte application "due to the shortness of time 4 until attendance under the subpoena is required." However, on May 15, 2013, Defendant 5 GMHA filed a Withdrawal of Ex Parte Application. Defendant GMHA withdrew its earlier ex 6
parte application "because shortly after receiving a copy of the motion, Phillip Torres, Esq. 7
8 contacted [Defendant GMHA's] counsel to advise that the subpoena was cancelled."
9 At a Further Proceedings before the Court on May 21, 2013, the bench trial initially 10 scheduled for July 17, 2013, was vacated due to the instant motion. Likewise, Plaintiff filed an 11 opposition to Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for 12
13 Summary Judgment. Defendant GMHA filed its Reply on June 20, 2013.
14 The Court heard oral arguments on July 30, 2013 and took the matter under advisement.
15 DISCUSSION 16 Guam Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) provides how defenses and objections are to b 17 presented by pleading or motion. 18
19 (b) How Presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, 20 shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: 21 (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 22 A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined to one 23 or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for which relief to which the adverse party is not 24 required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at trial any 25 defense in law or fact to that claim for relief. If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which 26 relief can be granted, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment 27 and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable 28 opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56.
Page 2 CV1848-11: Estate of Montgomery v. GMHA Decision & Order: Motion to Dismiss 1 Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2 In ruling on a 12(b)( 6) motion, a court's consideration is limited to the complaint, writte 3
instruments attached to the complaint as exhibits, statements or documents incorporated in th 4
5 complaint by reference, and documents on which the complaint heavily relies. Core Tech Int 'I.
6 Corp. v. Hanil Eng'g & Canst. Co., Ltd., 2010 Guam 13 ~ 29 (citing Mercado Arocho v. Unite 7 States, 455 F.Supp.2d 15, 19 (D.P.R.2006) (quotation omitted)). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6 8 is not proper unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts i 9
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." First Hawaiian Bank v. Manley, 200 10
11 Guam 2 ~ 9 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45-46, (1957). "[T]he court is not required t
12 accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions canno 13 reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged." !d. Further, the Court is to construe the pleading i 14 the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and resolve all doubts in the non-movin 15
16 party's favor. See !d. (citing Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, eta!. 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9t
17 Cir. 1994). 18 The Supreme Court of Guam has also instructed that in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motio 19 to dismiss, the dismissal motion must convert into a summary judgment motion whenever th 20 Court considers extraneous material outside the pleadings. See Core Tech Int 'f. Corp. v. Hani 21
22 Eng'g & Canst. Co., Ltd., 2010 Guam 13 ~ 29 (citing Newby v. Gov't of Guam, 2010 Guam 4
23 18). "[The Guam Supreme Court's] holding in Newby accords with the general rule that a Rul 24 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must be converted into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgmen 25 whenever 'matters outside the pleadings' are presented to and considered by the court: 26
If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the 27 pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the 28 pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be
Page 3 CV1848 11: Estate of Montgomery v. GMHA Decision & Order: Motion to Dismiss treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and 1 all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made 2 pertinent to such motion by Rule 56."
3 !d. 4
5 Plaintiff argues that the instant case arises out of a negligence claim. Defendant GMHA
6 argues that the Complaint fails to identify any cause of action. See Def's. Mot. to Dismiss at 1 7 (May 8, 2013). Moreover, Defendant GMHA, inter alia, argues that allegations of negligence 8 by a health care provider in which treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of 9
10 practice in the medical community is a claim for medical malpractice. See Def's. Reply at 1
11 (Jun. 20, 2013). Likewise, Defendant GMHA contends that a medical malpractice case cannot 12 be established without expert testimony, and Plaintiff has failed to provide any expert testimony 13 in this case. !d. at 2. 14
15 Plaintiff maintains that the Complaint herein is based on negligence. "In a case for
16 negligence, the establishment of tort liability requires the existence of a duty, the breach of such 17 duty, causation, and damages." Guerrero v. McDonald's Int'l Prop. Co., 2006 Guam 2 ~ 9 18 (citing Leon Guerrero v. DLB Constr. Co., 1999 Guam 9 ,! 14 (citing Restatement (Second) 19 Torts §§ 281, 282 (1988))).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 3
4 CIVIL CASE NO. CVI848-1I 5 EST ATE OFT ALLIA C. MONTGOMERY, ~ ) 6 Plaintiff, ) ) 7 ) DECISION AND ORDER ) (Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) 8 vs. ) ) 9 ) \
10 GUAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,)
11 Defendant. ~ 12 INTRODUCTION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on July 30, 2013, on Guam 14
15 Memorial Hospital Authority's ("Defendant GMHA") Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative,
16 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant GMHA was represented by Attorney Minakshi V. 17 Hemlani. Plaintiff Estate of Tallia C. Montgomery ("Plaintiff') was represented by Attorney 18 Phillip Torres. Following the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement. Upon 19 review of the written and oral arguments and legal authorities presented by both parties, the 20
21 Court hereby issues this Decision and Order DENYING Defendant's motion.
22 BACKGROUND 23 On November 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Negligence against the Guam 24 Memorial Hospital Authority. Defendant GMHA filed its Answer on January 17, 2012. On 25
26 July 31, 2012, following a Scheduling Conference, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, with a
27 bench trial set for July 17, 2013. On May 8, 2013, Defendant GMHA filed a Motion to 28 Dismiss, or in the alternative, a Motion for Summary Judgment. On the following day, Page 1 CV1848-11: Estate of Montgomery v. GMHA Decision & Order: Motion to Dismiss Defendant GMHA filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, a Motion for 1
2 Summary Judgment. Thereafter, Defendant GMHA filed an Ex Parte Application to Quash
3 Deposition Subpoena. Defendant filed the ex parte application "due to the shortness of time 4 until attendance under the subpoena is required." However, on May 15, 2013, Defendant 5 GMHA filed a Withdrawal of Ex Parte Application. Defendant GMHA withdrew its earlier ex 6
parte application "because shortly after receiving a copy of the motion, Phillip Torres, Esq. 7
8 contacted [Defendant GMHA's] counsel to advise that the subpoena was cancelled."
9 At a Further Proceedings before the Court on May 21, 2013, the bench trial initially 10 scheduled for July 17, 2013, was vacated due to the instant motion. Likewise, Plaintiff filed an 11 opposition to Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for 12
13 Summary Judgment. Defendant GMHA filed its Reply on June 20, 2013.
14 The Court heard oral arguments on July 30, 2013 and took the matter under advisement.
15 DISCUSSION 16 Guam Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) provides how defenses and objections are to b 17 presented by pleading or motion. 18
19 (b) How Presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, 20 shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: 21 (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 22 A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined to one 23 or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for which relief to which the adverse party is not 24 required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at trial any 25 defense in law or fact to that claim for relief. If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which 26 relief can be granted, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment 27 and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable 28 opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56.
Page 2 CV1848-11: Estate of Montgomery v. GMHA Decision & Order: Motion to Dismiss 1 Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2 In ruling on a 12(b)( 6) motion, a court's consideration is limited to the complaint, writte 3
instruments attached to the complaint as exhibits, statements or documents incorporated in th 4
5 complaint by reference, and documents on which the complaint heavily relies. Core Tech Int 'I.
6 Corp. v. Hanil Eng'g & Canst. Co., Ltd., 2010 Guam 13 ~ 29 (citing Mercado Arocho v. Unite 7 States, 455 F.Supp.2d 15, 19 (D.P.R.2006) (quotation omitted)). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6 8 is not proper unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts i 9
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." First Hawaiian Bank v. Manley, 200 10
11 Guam 2 ~ 9 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45-46, (1957). "[T]he court is not required t
12 accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions canno 13 reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged." !d. Further, the Court is to construe the pleading i 14 the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and resolve all doubts in the non-movin 15
16 party's favor. See !d. (citing Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, eta!. 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9t
17 Cir. 1994). 18 The Supreme Court of Guam has also instructed that in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motio 19 to dismiss, the dismissal motion must convert into a summary judgment motion whenever th 20 Court considers extraneous material outside the pleadings. See Core Tech Int 'f. Corp. v. Hani 21
22 Eng'g & Canst. Co., Ltd., 2010 Guam 13 ~ 29 (citing Newby v. Gov't of Guam, 2010 Guam 4
23 18). "[The Guam Supreme Court's] holding in Newby accords with the general rule that a Rul 24 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must be converted into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgmen 25 whenever 'matters outside the pleadings' are presented to and considered by the court: 26
If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the 27 pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the 28 pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be
Page 3 CV1848 11: Estate of Montgomery v. GMHA Decision & Order: Motion to Dismiss treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and 1 all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made 2 pertinent to such motion by Rule 56."
3 !d. 4
5 Plaintiff argues that the instant case arises out of a negligence claim. Defendant GMHA
6 argues that the Complaint fails to identify any cause of action. See Def's. Mot. to Dismiss at 1 7 (May 8, 2013). Moreover, Defendant GMHA, inter alia, argues that allegations of negligence 8 by a health care provider in which treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of 9
10 practice in the medical community is a claim for medical malpractice. See Def's. Reply at 1
11 (Jun. 20, 2013). Likewise, Defendant GMHA contends that a medical malpractice case cannot 12 be established without expert testimony, and Plaintiff has failed to provide any expert testimony 13 in this case. !d. at 2. 14
15 Plaintiff maintains that the Complaint herein is based on negligence. "In a case for
16 negligence, the establishment of tort liability requires the existence of a duty, the breach of such 17 duty, causation, and damages." Guerrero v. McDonald's Int'l Prop. Co., 2006 Guam 2 ~ 9 18 (citing Leon Guerrero v. DLB Constr. Co., 1999 Guam 9 ,! 14 (citing Restatement (Second) 19 Torts §§ 281, 282 (1988))). On that basis, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged that GMH 20
21 bore, and breached a duty to employ its "patient checks, controls, and record keeping," which
22 proximately caused the death of Tallia Montgomery." See Complaint at ~~12, 22-30. 23 Consequently, expert testimony is not required at this juncture of the proceeding, as a matter of 24 law for the cause of action brought forth by the Plaintiff. The Court also agrees with Plaintiff 25
26 that Defendant has not argued that any genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to the
27 elements of negligence, only that, if the present case were a claim for medical malpractice,
Page 4 CV1848-11: Estate of Montgomery v. GMHA Decision & Order: Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff would be unable to support it at trial because of the peculiar nature of medical 1
2 malpractice claims.
3 Defendant also moves the Court to dismiss the case at bar pursuant to Rule 12 (c). 4
(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the pleadings are closed but 5 within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the 6 pleadings. If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be 7 treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made 8 pertinent to such motion by Rule 56. 9
10 Guam R. Civ. P. 12(c). 11 In review of the Complaint and written instruments attached therein as exhibits fo 12 purposes of a 12(b)( 6) motion, and 12 (c), the Court is satisfied at this time that Plaintiff ha 13
14 pled the instant matter with sufficient facts to support a claim for negligence required unde
15 Guam's Rules of Civil Procedure. Likewise, the Court is of the opinion that the instant motio 16 to dismiss can be decided without considering matters outside of the pleadings. Therefore, 17 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 18 CONCLUSION 19
20 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court
21 DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 22
23 f Further Proceedings is set for -----'-/-=-14 41_,1,_;,_,1;,__..3!:..--_ at A-~ SO ORDERED this-=--=-- day of OCTOBER, 2013. 24
28 Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Page 5 CV1848-11: Estate of Montgomery v. GMHA Decision & Order: Motion to Dismiss