Gutherie v. Board of Trustees of GGRF
Opinion
FtLED
SUPERIOR COURT
OF G(JAM;
2022 FEB 7 PM L: 37
2 CLERFOFCOURT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6
TAKAKO B. GUTHRIE AND JOSEPH A. ) SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. SP0094-20 8 GUTHR1E ETAL, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, ) AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER RE:
) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND 10 v. ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF )
i BOARD Of TRUSTEES OF THE GOVERNMENT Of GUAM 12 RETIREMENT FUND, 13 Respondents/Defendants.
14 This matter came before the court upon the Government of Guam Retirement fund 15 motion to dismiss Petitioners/Plaintiffs Takako B. Guthrie and Joseph A. Guthrie (hereinafier 16
17 the Guthries) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. The Board contends that the
18 Guthries may not combine the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief styled as a 19 class action with their Petition for Writ of Review of an administrative decision.
20 Procedural history
21 The Guthries filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling before the Board. The copy of the 22 23 Petition attached to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Petition for
24 Peremptory Writ of Mandamtis Class Action labeled as Exhibit 1 (herçinafter Guthrie 25 Memorandum) is undated and unsigned. The stated reason for the filing the Petition was to 26 “establish Petitioner Takako B. Guthrie’s rights to surviving spouse pension in the event Joseph 27
A. Guthrie pre-deceases her. (Guthrie Memorandum page 2 of Exhibit 1). The Board issued its decision on April 24, 2020 finding that Takao Guthrie would not be entitled to receive a 1
2 surviving spouse annuity.( Guthrie Memorandum Exhibit 2) The decision of the Board was
3 based on specific facts relating to Joseph A. Guthrie’s work history and retirement as presented
to the Board.(Guthrie Memorandum Exhibit 3 GGRF No DR2020-Ol)
,
5 On July 10 2020 the Guthnes filed a Preemptory Write of Mandate invoking the 6 appellate jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Guam to review the decision and order of the
Board. At the same time, the Guthries plead in the alternative, a Complaint for Declaratory and
9 Injunctive relief styled as a class action and invoking the Superior Court’s original jurisdiction 10 under the Declaratory Judgment Act 7 GCA 26801. Both the appeal and the Complaint center 11 on the same contention; that upon his death Mr. Guthrie’s Spouse Takako Guthrie is entitled to 12
, surviving spouse benefits under 4 G.C.A. 8134(a)(l)(A). The Guthries seek to certify a class
14 action on both the appeal and the complaint for declaratory relief.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss the Alternative Complaint for Declaratory and 16 Injunctive asserting that the Guthries could not pursue the appeal of the Boards decision while
simultaneously invoking the original jurisdiction of the court by filing a Complaint for 18
19 Declaratory Relief as a class action and joining parties that were not a part of the original
20 hearing before the Board. This court agrees with the position of The Board of Tnistees of the 21 Government of Guam Retirement fund that the Complaint for Declaratory Relief and 22 Injunction (which fall under the general jurisdiction of the Superior Court 7 GCA §4101)
23 cannot be joined with a writ of review which is an appeal from a ruling of an inferior tribunal.
24
25 The appeal is brought pursuant to Guam writ of review statute 7 G.C.A § 31202. The review
26 upon the writ cannot be extended further than to determine whether the inferior tribunal, board, 27 or officer has regularly pursued the authority of such tribunal, board or officer. 7 GCA §31108.
The court is limited determining whether the agency decision is in in accordance with the law, 1
2 supported by substantial evidence, affirming, reversing or remanding it for further proceedings
3 pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act 5 GCA 9240. The trial court is required to
affirm the agency’s findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence.
5 5 GCA § 9240. Decision: Review. Judicial review may be had of any agency 6 decision by any party affected adversely by it. If the agency decision is not in accordance with law or not supported by substantial evidence, the court shall order the agency to take action according to law or the evidence.
8 The decision, of the Board is limited to the facts pertaining to the Guthrie claims because they 9
were the only parties to the action.
10 11 The conversion of Guthries’ case into a class action Complaint for Declaratory and
12 Injunctive Relief would require action on the part of the court outside the scope of the ADA ‘ including permitting extensive discovery not contemplated by the ADA. Administrative review 14 differs with civil actions in that Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (a) (1) (E) (xx) provides that 15
16 writs are exempt from initial discovery requirements unless otherwise ordered by the court.
17 Guam Police Department Major Chargzialaf v Government of Guam Retirement Fund, 2021 18 Guam 17J31.
19 By its plain language the code provides for judicial review of an adverse agency 20 decision issued to a named party. The Guthries’ claim was the only one heard in the 21
22 administrative proceedings; no other “person” was a named party to the case resulting in the
23 decision from which the Guthries seek judicial review. Case law supports this interpretation of 24 Guam statutes. It is not appropriate to allow a class action as part of an administrative appeal.
25 A Peremptory Writ of Mandate may also be de-nominated a writ of review. 7 GCA 26
31201. Guam’s writ of review statute 7 GCA § 31202 milTors the California Code of Civil 27
28 Procedure § 1085. Guam Fed’n of Teachers ex rel. Rector v Perez, 2005 Guam 25 ¶ 23 n.4.
“When Guam statutes are based on nearly identical California statues. California case law is 1 -
2 persuasive, absent any compelling reason to deviate from California’s interpretation.” Banes v.
Superior C’ourt, 2021 Guam 11 ¶11, Island Eve Center Inc. v Lombard. 2020 Guam 32 ¶ 11.
4 Since Guarn1s mandamus statute is rooted in California Code of Civil Procedure § 10851 5
6 California case law construing the identical statute is persuasive. Holmes et al v Territorial
7 Land Use Commission, Department of Land Management et a?, 1998 Guam 8 11 6 (“[S]ince 8 Guam!s mandamus statutes were adopted from the California Civil Code [sic] California cases 9 applying the mandamus standard are persuasive authority.”); Ueda v. Bank of Guam, 2005 10
Guam 23, ¶ 16 n. 7 (We find California case law to be authority in the interpretation of Title
12 21 GCA § 1254, as that section was derived from California Civil Code § 711”). 13 It is well settled under California law that the proper remedy for review of 14 administrative order is administrative mandamus and not declaratory relief. Hostetter v 15
16 Alderson 38 Cal.2d 499,500,241P.2d 230(1952) (an action for declaratory relief is not
17 appropriate for review of an administrative order but the complaint may be treated as a petition 18 for writ of mandate) Guilbert v Regents of Univ. California, 93 Cal App 3d, 233, 244, 155Cal.
19 Rptr. 583, 587 (1979). In Gidibert the plamtiff attempted to join a declaratory relief action with 20 an action for review of an administrative order in connection with disciplinary proceedings in 21
22 which he was suspended without pay. The court of appeals agreed with the trial court that
23 Guilbert had not cited any cases for the proposition that “declaratory relief may be pursued 24 where an administrative mandamus action provides and adequate remedy for resolving the 25 issues raised.” 93 Cal App 3d at 244, 155 Cal Rptr. at 588. As the Respondents point out in 26
their brief the preceding rule applies to an action seeking injunctive relief as well. The
Petitioners must exhaust their administrative remedies before they can pursue further action in
2 the form of a civil suit.
3 CONCLUSION
The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief cannot be joined with the 5 proceedings for administrative review of the Boards decision. The Board’s motion to dismiss is 6
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gutherie v. Board of Trustees of GGRF (Gutherie v. Board of Trustees of GGRF) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.