Fisher v. Santos

Superior Court of Guam·Decided August 22, 2025·No. CV0392-23·Unknown

Opinion

f zx I L i 1 : \ =--I t 1...J'

re \ \ -*»----§;¢*

r14-., \. 3 -. : " * - L e " l"rl »..3~._*x .L..i*»3i...*i**~ ' - J J I'-» J F" |*"\ t _ \ #J { 1 i* I ". l 5.11 .1 2 *1 1 .AB m ll

1 "*325 Aus2222 ri'FN 2025 AUG 1 2: 39

39

2 CLER\~ OfCOURT

Emf Q: COURT

3

4 By-_ 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 7 THOMAS J.

THOMAS J. FISHER, as Taxpayer and in his CIVIL CASE NO.

no. CV0392-23

CV0392-23

Official Capacity as a Senator of the 37th 8 Guam Legislature, 9 Plaintiff,

10 10 v.

V.

11 11 IGNACIO IGNACIO C. C. SANTOS, in his official 12 12 capacity as a Government Government of

of Guam Federal

Administrator and in his private Programs Administrator 13 13 capacity, and DOES 1-5, 14 Defendants.

15 15 DECISION AND ORDER 16 16 IGNACIO c. IGNACIO C.SANTOS, SANTOS,ininhis

his official

official

17 capacity as a Government of Guam Guam Federal

Programs Administrator Programs Administrator and and in

in his private

18 18 capacity,

19 19 Third-Party Plaintiff,

20 20 v.

V.

21 JON FERNANDEZ, JON FERNANDEZ, FRANK COOPER- NURSE,in NURSE, inhis his individual

individual capacity Chief 22 22 Auditor of Auditor of GDOE;

GDOE;K. K.ERIK

ERIK SW ANSON,

SWANSON,

23 in his official Ph.D., in capacity as official capacity as the Superintendent of Superintendent of the Guam Department Department of

of

24 24 Education, and Education, andthe theGOVERNMENT

GOVERNMENT OF

GUAM, 25

26 Third-Party Defendants.

Decision and Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV0392-23 Civil

This matter

matter came

came before

before the

the Honorable

Honorable Arthur

Arthur R. Barcinas on

R. Barcinas on May 15, 2025, May 15, 2025, for aa

1

2 hearing on aa Motion hearing on Motion to to Dismiss

Dismiss under

underGRCP

GRCP 12(b)(6),

l 2(b)(6), or, Alternatively, Motion Motion for

for Summary

Summary

3 Judgment("MSJ")

Judgment ("MSJ") or Rule 56 56 Motion

Motion filed

filed by

by Defendant

Defendant Ignacio

Ignacio C.

C. Santos,

Santos, in his official

4 capacity as a Government of Guam Guam Federal

Federal Programs Administrator Administrator and

and in his private capacity 5 ("Defendant"),on ("Defendant"), April2,2,2025.

onApril 2025. Attorney AttorneyEdwin

EdwinJ.J. Torres

Torreswas

waspresent

present on

on behalf of

ofDefendant,

Defendant,

6

and Attorney Rachel and Attorney Rachel Taimanao-Ayuyu was present Taimanao-Ayuyu was present on on behalf

behalf of Plaintiff

Plaintiff Thomas

Thomas J.

J. Fisher

Fisher

7

8 ("Plaintiff").

("Plaintiff').Also Alsopresent

presentwere

wereDeputy

DeputyAttorney

AttorneyGeneral

GeneralJoseph

Joseph Guthrie

Guthrie for

for the

the Government of

9 Guam, Guam, Attorney Vanessa L. Williams Williams for

forThird-Party

Third-PartyDefendant

DefendantJon

Jon Fernandez,

Fernandez, and

and Attorney

10 10 Matthew Matthew E. Wolff Wolfffor

forThird-Party

Third-PartyDefendants

DefendantsErik

ErikSwanson

Swansonand

andFranklin

Franklin Cooper-Nurse.

Cooper-Nurse.

11 II Having taken taken the

the matter

matter under

under advisement,

advisement, the Court

Court GRANTS the Motion

Motion for

for Summary

Summary

12

13 13 Judgmentin Judgment infavor favor of

of Defendant.

Defendant.

14 BACKGROUND

15 15 On July 5, 2023,

July 5, 2023,Plaintiff

Plaintiff Thomas

Thomas J.J. Fisher

Fisher ("Fisher"),

("Fisher"), filed

filedaaComplaint

Complaintagainst

against Santos

Santos

16 as a taxpayer and in taxpayer and in his

his official capacity

capacity as

as aa Senator

Senator of

of the

the 37th

37th Guam

Guam Legislature.

Legislature. In the

17 Complaint, Complaint, Fisher alleged that that Santos, as the

Santos, as the Federal

Federal Programs

Programs Administrator

Administrator for the

the Guam

Guam

18 18

19 Department of Education Department of Education("GDOE"), ("GDOE"), had

had failed

failedtotoproperly

properlydischarge

dischargehis

his duties

duties in

in regard

regard to the

20 management of public management of public monies monies after overtime

overtime payments were

were issued

issuedto

to GDOE

GDOE employees.

21 On On August 15,

15, 2023, Defendant filed 2023, Defendant filed the the MSJ,

MSJ, arguing that Plaintiffs arguing that Plaintiffs taxpayer taxpayer action

action

22 fails as as aa matter

matter of

of law

law because

because there

there is

is no

no evidence

evidence that

that Defendant

Defendant "expended"

"expended" funds

funds as

as

23 23

24 required required under under 55 GCA

GCA §§7103.

7103. Defendant

Defendant asserts

asserts that

that he

he merely

merely certified

certifiedthat

that the

the expenditures

expenditures

25 were eligible eligiblefor

forfederal

federalreimbursement

reimbursement but

but lacked

lacked authority

authority to actually

actually approve or

or release

release any

any

26 funds. The motion funds. The motion was was filed

tiled together

together with

with a Statement

Statementof

of Issues

Issues("SOI")

("SOI") and

and aa Statement

Statement of

27 Undisputed MaterialFacts Undisputed Material Facts("SUMF").

("SUMF").

28 28

Page 2 of7

of 7

Decision and Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV0392-23 Civil

On October 3, 2023,

2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition, asserting that findings findings by the Office of l

2 raised disputed issues of fact concerning Defendant's role in the Public Accountability ("OPA") raised

3 disbursement process.

process. Plaintiff further further asserted

asserted that summary judgment was was premature

premature absent

absent

4 discovery and sought leave to conduct discovery conduct discovery under GRCP 56(d).

56(d). On

On October

October 31,

31, 2023,

2023,

5 Defendant filed Defendant filed his his reply

reply to the

the opposition

opposition as part of

of an

an omnibus

omnibus response.

response. In the

the reply,

reply,

6

Defendant argued that Defendant argued that Plaintiflf's reliance on Plaintiff's reliance on the the OPA findings

findings was

was misplaced

misplaced because

because the

7

8 findings never alleged alleged that Defendant

Defendant had

had expenditure

expenditure authority.

authority. Defendant further further noted that

9 Plaintiff Plaintiff failed to adhere to the GRCP 56(d) requirement that he must identify the specific facts 10 he wishes wishes to to elicit

elicit inin discovery,

discovery, and

and Plaintiff

Plaintiff had

had never

never previously

previously attempted

attempted to

to conduct

conduct

11 discovery or even requested Defendant to engage in aa prerequisite Rule 26(f)

26(t) conference.

12 12

13 13 12, 2024,

On April 12, 2024, upon

upon Plaintiff's GRCP56(d)

Plaintiffs GRCP 56(d) application application for

for time

time to

to take

take discovery,

discovery,

14 14 the Court the Court granted granted aa continuance

continuance on the

the MSJ,

MSJ, preserving

preserving Defendant's

Defendant's summary

summary judgment

judgment

15 15 argument pending completion of discovery. On May May 9,

9, 2024,

2024, the Court set a dispositive-motion 16 cutoff for November 22, 22, 2024,

2024, and Plaintiff sought no extensions extensions and

and conducted

conducted no written

written

17 17

discovery. On December 10, 2024, 2024, Defendant

Defendant moved

moved to

to set

set deadlines

deadlines for

for Plaintiff's opposition Plaintiffs opposition

18 18

19 and Defendant's reply on the pending MSJ.

20 On February February 18,

18, 2025,

2025, the Court

Court heard

heard arguments

arguments on Defendant's

Defendant's Motion

Motion to Set

Set

21 Briefing Schedule on Motion for Summary Judgment ("Briefing Motion"), and Plaintiff Plaintiff did not

22 argue against the Briefing Motion at hearing or file argue file an an opposition.

opposition. On

On February

February 20,

20, 2025,

2025, the

23

Court granted Defendant's Briefing Motion Motion and

and scheduled

scheduled Plaintiff'

Plaintiff's opposition to the MSJ to 24

25 be due April 1, 2025, 2025, with

with Defendant's reply to to be

be due

due on April 15,

15, 2025. Plaintiff

Plaintiff failed to file

26 an opposition by the deadline, and on April April 21,

21, 2025,

2025, Defendant filed a Request Request for

for Court to

27 Consider Facts Undisputed and Grant Summary Judgment ("Request").

28

Page 3 of

of7

Decision and Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV0392-23 Civil

On May 15,

15, 2025, the Court took the the matter

matter under

under advisement.

1

2 DISCUSSION

3 I. Legal Standard 4 Guam law,

Under Guam law, a party

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fisher v. Santos, (superctguam 2025).

Fisher v. Santos (Fisher v. Santos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.