Gutierrez v. The Guam Election Commission
This text of Gutierrez v. The Guam Election Commission (Gutierrez v. The Guam Election Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Guam primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF GUAM
9 CARL T.C. GUTIERREZ, FRANK AGUON, JR., and JOHN and JANE DOE CITIZEN Case No. 1:10-cv-00031, 1:10-cv-00033 10 PLAINTIFFS 1–1000,
11 Plaintiffs, ORDER
12 v.
13 THE GUAM ELECTION COMMISSION, JOHN BLAS, JOSHUA TENORIO, JOSEPH 14 MESA, ALICE TAIJERON, JOHN TERLAJE, ROBERT CRUZ, MARTHA 15 RUTH, JOHN TAITANO, EDWARD B. CALVO, RAY TENORIO, and JOHN and 16 JANE DOE DEFENDANTS 1–1000,
17 Defendants.
18 19 I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 On November 2, 2010, the Guam Election Commission (GEC) conducted the General 21 Election of 2010 for Guam, which included elections for the offices of Governor and 22 Lieutenant Governor. On the morning of November 3, the tabulated results indicated that the 23 Republican gubernatorial candidates Edward B. Calvo and Ray Tenorio had garnered 19,879 24 votes, or 50.38 percent of the votes counted and that the Democratic candidates Carl T.C. 25 Gutierrez and Frank Aguon had garnered 19,296 votes or 48.90 percent of the votes counted. 26 On November 5, the GEC decided to conduct a machine recount of the gubernatorial ballots. 1 On November 6, the GEC certified the result of the machine recounts: 20,066 for Calvo- 2 Tenorio and 19,579 for Gutierrez-Aguon. 3 On November 19, Plaintiffs brought an action in federal court (10-cv-00031) alleging 4 that the manner in which the election and the recount had been conducted amounted to 5 violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of Guam Election 6 Laws. Plaintiffs request that Court enter an order declaring that the election results certified by 7 the GEC are invalid, and to issue a writ requiring the GEC to conduct a new election. On 8 November 23, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. (Case No. 1:10-cv-00031 (Dkt. No. 8).) 9 On December 20, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Case No. 1:10-cv-00031 (Dkt. No. 10 29).) 11 On November 23, Plaintiffs filed a second action (cv1891-10), this time in the Superior 12 Court of Guam, with substantially identical facts, parties, claims, and prayers for relief. (Case 13 No. 1:10-cv-00033 (Dkt. No. 5 at Ex. A).) On December 14, John Blas, Robert Cruz, Joseph 14 Mesa, Martha Ruth, Alice Taijeron, John Taitano, Joshua Tenorio, John Terlaje, and the Guam 15 Election Commission filed a notice removing the Superior Court action to the federal District 16 Court. (Case No. 1:10-cv-00033 (Dkt. No. 1).) Defendants Calvo and Tenorio did not consent 17 to the removal, and filed a motion to remand to the Superior Court of Guam. (Case No. 1:10- 18 cv-00033 (Dkt. No. 5).) The remaining Defendants have changed their position on removal and 19 now join in the motion for remand. (Case No. 1:10-cv-00033 (Dkt. No. 8).) 20 II. ANALYSIS 21 The first issue before the Court is Defendants’ motion to remand Case No. 1:10-cv- 22 00033 to the Guam Superior Court. After a case has been removed to federal court, a party 23 may move to remand the case for any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 24 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that removal is defective if all defendants 25 do not consent to the removal. See Aguon-Schulte v. Guam Election Comm'n, 469 F.3d 1236, 26 1240 (9th Cir. 2006). As the removing Defendants concede, removal was made without the 1 unanimous consent of Defendants. (Case No. 1:10-cv-00033 (Dkt. No. 8).) Accordingly, 2 Defendants’ motion to remand is GRANTED. (Case No. 1:10-cv-00033 (Dkt. No. 5).) 3 Due to the necessity of remanding to the Guam Superior Court, it is clear that the two 4 actions cannot be consolidated. This Court is therefore confronted with the potential for a 5 serious problem: one court ruling that the election results are valid and should be upheld, while 6 the other rules that they are invalid. In such a situation, the Court must consider whether it 7 would be appropriate to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. 8 In Colorado River, the Supreme Court held that federal courts may abstain from 9 exercising their validly conferred jurisdiction in certain exceptional circumstances of parallel, 10 duplicative litigation. Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 11 817 (U.S. 1976). The Court identified four factors a federal court should consider in deciding 12 whether the interests of wise judicial administration outweigh a court’s duty to exercise its 13 jurisdiction: (1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over property, (2) the relative 14 inconvenience of the federal forum, (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation, and 15 (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the state and federal courts. In Moses H. 16 Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983), the Supreme Court 17 added two more considerations: (5) whether federal law provides the rule of decision on the 18 merits; and (6) whether the state court proceeding can adequately address the rights of the 19 federal plaintiff. Id. at 23. “[T]he decision whether to dismiss a federal action because of 20 parallel state-court litigation does not rest on a mechanical checklist, but on a careful balancing 21 of the important factors as they apply in a given case. Id. at 16. 22 Of these issues, the three most significant are (3), (5), and (6). The problem of 23 piecemeal litigation is severe. Under 48 U.S.C. § 1422, the term of the new Governor starts on 24 the first Monday of the year, January 3, 2011. There would be precious little time to reconcile 25 any discrepancies between the rulings of two different courts. Further, there is a clear need to 26 avoid the sort of crisis that divided the country in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential 1 election, where a conflict over the proper forum for contesting the election consumed all 2 available time in which to contest it. The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs’ claims 3 should be resolved in a single forum. This factor, more than any other, counsels in favor of 4 abstention. 5 Second, it is Guam law that provides the rule of decision on the merits. Plaintiffs seek a 6 declaration that the election results are invalid and a writ ordering a new election. But the only 7 federal law Plaintiffs mention is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which merely creates liability for state 8 actors who deprive people of their constitutional rights. Federal law cannot provide the remedy 9 that Plaintiffs seek. Guam law is the only possible source of remedy. Title 3 of the Annotated 10 Guam Code, Chapter 12 provides a detailed framework for the Superior Court of Guam to 11 conduct a special session, hold a trial to determine a contested election, conduct a recount, 12 annul the prior certification of results, and declare a new winner. 3 G.C.A. §12101 et seq. Any 13 decision on the merits must come from Guam law, and Guam law provides the legal apparatus 14 that Plaintiffs need. This factor, too, counsels in favor of abstention. 15 Third, the state court proceeding can adequately address the rights of the federal 16 plaintiff. As a court of general jurisdiction, there is no reason why the Superior Court of Guam 17 cannot address Plaintiffs’ claims.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gutierrez v. The Guam Election Commission, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutierrez-v-the-guam-election-commission-gud-2010.