Flores v. Flores

Opinion

fltE D

SUPERlOR COURT

OF GUAM

1 IO2IDEC23 ‘PM 2: 3

2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

3 GELA LYNN FLORES, DOMESTIC CASE D121 4 Plaintiff,

5 vs.

6 PAUL BRANDON FLORES, DECISION AND ORDER Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to 7 Defendant. Amend Complaint for Divorce

$ 9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on October 12, 2021 for a 11 motion hearing on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint for Divorce. Plaintiff 12 Angelina Lynn Flores (“Plaintiff’) is represented by Attorney Gary Gumataotao. Defendant 13 Paul Brandon Flores (“Defendant”) is represented by Attorney Catherine Bejerana Camacho. 14 Having considered the arguments, pleadings and applicable law, the Court hereby 15 GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint for Divorce. 16 BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff and Defendant (the “Parties”) were married on June 24, 2016 and separated on 1$ January 1, 2020. Compl. (Mar. 16, 2021). Claiming irreconcilable differences, Plaintiff filed 19 the Verified Complaint for Divorce on March 16, 2021. Defendant filed the Verified Answer 20 and Counterclaim for Divorce on April 9, 2021, which Plaintiff answered on April 20, 2021. 21 On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining 22 Order. Defense counsel filed the Reply and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary 23 Restraining Order on May 19, 2021. Plaintiff filed a Partial Response and Objection to TRO on 24 May 19, 2021. After a hearing held on May 19, 2021, the Court issued an Order After Hearing

24

1 preventing the Parties from threatening, harassing or communicating with each other except as 2 expressly provided in the order, setting temporary visitation arrangements for the parties’ 3 children, setting communication parameters, and providing for the use of certain community 4 property and payment of community debt. 5 On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Pendente Lite Spousal Support and 6 Attorney’s fees, to which Defendant opposed on July 6, 2021. Plaintiff filed a Reply to the 7 Defendant’s opposition on July 20, 2021. The Court issued a Decision and Order denying the 8 Plaintiff’s Motion for Pendente Lite Spousal Support and Attorney’s fees on October 20, 2021. 9 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint for Divorce on August 3, 2021, 10 and Defendant filed his Opposition on August 31, 2021. A motion hearing was held on October 11 12, 2021, after which this matter was taken under advisement. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiff brings this motion to amend the Complaint pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil 14 Procedure (“GRCP”) 15(a), which provides the following:

15 A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served . . Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading .

16 only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.

17 Guam R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Guam Supreme Court has indicated that leave to amend pleadings 18 should be liberally granted. Arashi & Co., inc. v. Nakashima Enterprises, inc., 2005 Guam 21 19 ¶ 16 (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). However, a reviewing court should 20 consider factors which may mitigate against leave to amend, such as undue delay, bad faith, 21 dilatory motives, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previously allowed amendments, 22 undue prejudice, or futility of the amendment. id. In considering undue prejudice, a court 23 should consider whether a defendant will be faced with additional discovery, cost, and 1 preparation to defend against new theories, and courts should also weigh prejudice to the 2 nonmovant against prejudice that would result to the moving party should leave to amend be 3 denied. In Re Kim, No. Civil Action No. 16-00001, 2016 WL 7385721, at *9 (D. Guam Dec.

4 16, 2016) (citing Cureton v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001);

(8th

5 Belt v. Allstate Ltfe Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 Cir. 1998)).

6 Here, Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Verified Complaint is substantially similar to 7 the original Complaint filed with the Court. The main differences between the original 8 Complaint and First Amended Complaint are that the First Amended Complaint puts forth that 9 the divorce is based on adultery, and extreme mental and physical cruelty, rather than 10 irreconcilable differences. Second, the First Amended Complaint calls for spousal support. 11 Third, the Amended Complaint incorrectly states that child support should be set according to 12 the guidelines and subject to Child Support Case No. C50285-15, when the relevant case is 13 Child Support Case No CS0026-2 1. 14 Plaintiff argues that the First Amended Complaint will not result in undue prejudice to 15 the Defendant because it incorporates elements of pleadings that have already been filed and 16 contains allegations of which Defendant is aware of. Defendant on the other hand argues that 17 allowing the First Amended Complaint for Divorce will have minimal impact on the overall 18 outcome of the divorce, but will dramatically increase attorney’s fees for both parties. 19 Defendant argues that this was a short marriage with barely any community property and debt, 20 and that even if Plaintiff is able to prove adultery and extreme cruelty, the impact would likely 21 be minimal. Defendant also argues that allowing the First Amended Complaint to be filed will 22 cause the parties to start over, thereby wasting fees already expended. Furthermore, because all 23 the facts that would support Plaintiff’s allegations would have existed prior to the filing of the 24 original Complaint, Defendant argues he should not have to suffer additional fees for the

24

1 Plaintiff’s regret and miscalculations. Finally, Defendant notes that Plaintiff’s ability to file a 2 motion requesting for spousal support was not impacted by her failure to include such a request 3 in her original Complaint. 4 When considering the points raised by both Parties, the Court finds no indication to 5 suggest bad faith, undue delay, dilatory motives, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies on the 6 part of the Plaintiff. The proposed amendments also would not be futile because of the effect 7 such amendments could have on the disposition of community property under 1$ G.C.A. § 8 8411(a) (“If the decree be rendered on the ground of adultery or extreme cruelty, the 9 community property shall be assigned to respective parties in such proportions as the court, 10 from all the facts in the case, and the condition of the parties, may deem just.”). Furthermore, 11 when weighing the prejudice that may result to the Plaintiff by failing to grant leave to amend, 12 the Court does not find undue prejudice to be a factor weighing against granting the Motion for 13 Leave to Amend simply because doing so would require additional filings on the part of both 14 Parties. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend 15 Complaint for Divorce. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to 18 Amend Complaint for Divorce. The Court further ORDERS the Plaintiff to file the First 19 Amended Verified Complaint for Divorce within thirty (30) days of this Decision and Order.

20 nLr92p21

LJti L J J

21 IT IS SO ORDERED

22

23 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam