573%i.. €'»s». 5 2 =..J
§§;§Q C-QB T
21825565 F2 2% 2025-AUG I11I FT 2" 20
20
CLERK G? CLERK OF EUURT
COURT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
RON HOCOG and TIFFANY HOCOG, and TIFFANY civil CIVILCASE
CASE NO.
NO. CV0140
cvo140.:25
BY=-~,~---
Plaintiffs,
DECISION GRANTING DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING vs.
DEFENDANT MARIANA COOK- DEFENDANT DR. MARIANA
DR. MARIANACOOK-H~H, MARIANA COOK-HUY1;1H, GUAM GUAM HUYNH'S HUYNH'S MOTION
MOTION TO
TO DISMISS
DISMISS
MEMORIAL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
AUTHORITYand
and
DOES 1-20, 1-20,
Defendants. Defendants.
In this action alleging alleging medical
medical malpractice,
malpractice, Defendant
Defendant Dr.
Dr. Mariana
Mariana Cook-Huynh
Cook-Huynh seeks
seeks
dismissal basedon dismissal based onPlaintiffs PlaintiffsRon
Ron and
andTiffany
Tiffany Hocog's
Hocog's alleged
alleged failure
failure to
to serve
serve aa demand
demand for
arbitration. arbitration. The The Court
Court determines
determines that the
the Hocogs
Hocogs were required to effectuate personal personal service,
and in in failing failing to to do
do so,
so, failed
failed to
to timely commence
commence their
theiraction.
action. The Court thus
thusGRANTS
GRANTS Dr.
Cook-Huynh's Cook-Huynh's motion motion and
and dismisses her from this action.
In addition addition to addressing
addressing the dispositive procedural procedural aspects of this aspects of this case, the Court herein
raises concerns concerns relative relative to the unethical unethical conduct
conductof
of the
the Hocogs'
Hocogs' attorney,
attorney, Mark Smith, Esq.
I. 1. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Hocogs Hocogs brought
brought this action
action against Dr. Cook-Huynh, Guam Memorial Memorial Hospital, and
and
Does 1-20 1-20 for injuries and and damages
damagesthey
theyallege
allegearose
arosefrom
fromTiffany
Tiffany Hocog's
Hocog's admission to
to GMH
GMH
on February February 27, 27,2024.
2024. Pls.'s
P1s.'sCompl.
Con pl.atat1,1,33(Feb.
(Feb.26,
26,2025).
2025).The
The Hocogs
Hocogs allege medical
malpractice, wrongful death, personal injury, death, personal injury,negligent negligent infliction
infliction of
ofemotional
emotional distress,
distress, gross
negligence, negligence, failure failure to
to obtain
obtain proper informed consent, consent, loss
loss of
of chance,
chance, and
andloss
lossof
ofconsortium.
consortium. Id.
Id
at 5-10.
5-10. They They also also allege
allege negligent
negligent hiring,
hiring, training,
training, or
or supervision against
againstGMH.
GMH. Id.
Id. at
at 9.
CV0140-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. Page 2 MARIANA COOK-HUYNI-I'S
COOK-HUYNH'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Dr. Cook-Huynh moved to dismiss, arguing Dr. Cook-Huynh arguing that that the
the court
court lacks
lacks subj act matter
subject
jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of of limitations, and that two of the
Plaintiffs' claims are not recognized by Guam recognized by Guam courts.
courts. Def.
Def.'s's Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss at
at 11 (May 14,
14, 2025).
Relative to jurisdiction, Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh
Cook-Huynh declares she was never never served
served personally,
personally, nor
nor was a
demand for arbitration demand arbitration left left at
at her
her home. Cook-Hyunh Decl.
home. Cook-Hyunh Deel. at at 1-2
1-2 (May 14, 2025).
2025). Instead, the
demand was left with her office manager, demand manager, Corine Corine Ricalde-Blas,
Ricalde-Blas, on
on February
Febmary 20,
20, 2025.
2025. Sablan
Deel. at 2 (June 11, Deal. 11, 2025).
2025). Also, Ricalde-Blas attests in her declaration that she is not authorized
to receive service for Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh,
Cook-Huynh, nor
nor did
did she
she represent that
that she
she was
was authorized.
authorized. Ricalde-
Second Decl.
Blas Second Deel. at at 1-2
1-2 (May 14,
14, 2025).
In their opposition, the Hocogs argue argue that they
they have
have complied with the requirements in 10
GCA Chapter 10, the Medical Malpractice Mandatory Mandatory Arbitration Act (MMMA), (MMMA), and
and that
that Dr.
Cook-Huynh Cook-Huynh waived waived any
any rights
rights under
under the MMMA
MMMA by
by refusing to consent
consent to arbitration.
arbitration. Pls.'
Opp'n at Opp'n at 2-3 2-3 (June (June 11,
11, 2025). The
TheHocogs'
Hocogs'process
processserver,
server,David
DavidSerbian,
Sablan, attests
attests that Ms.
Ricalde-Blas "represented "represented that
that she was authorized to to accept
accept documents
documents on
on behalf
behalfof
ofDr.
Dr. Mariana
Cook-Huynh" and Cook-Huynh" and that that she
she was
was an
an authorized
authorized agent
agent for
for Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh.
Cook-Huynh. Sablan
SablanDecl.
Deel.atat2-3
2-3.
Hocogs additionally The Hocogs additionally assert assert that
that they mailed
mailed aa copy ofthe
copy of the demand
demandtotothe Defendants.11 theDefendants.
II. LAW AND AND DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
A. Cook-Huynh was Dr. Cook-Huynh was not
not properly
properly served.
served.
Any claim involving involving aa patient
patient and a health care professional "shall be submitted to
mandatory arbitration" under mandatory arbitration" under the the MMMA.
MMMA. 10
10 GCA
GCA §§ 10102.
10102. "Arbitration
"Arbitration is
is initiated by a
initiated by
11 The The American American Arbitration Arbitration Association
Association closed
closed the
the Hocogs'
Hocogs' arbitration
arbitration demand,
demand, concluding it did not have the authority to to administer
administer the
the dispute
dispute under
under the
the consumer
consumer rules. Deel. Anita mies. Decl. Anita Arriola, Ex. D (May 14, 2025).
2025). Dr. Cook-Huynh contends contends this
this occurred because the Hocogs filed the wrong arbitration demand form.
arbitration demand
1
l I ! I E 5 -q t \ a
. .II . 1
T \
E
CV0140-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. Page 3 Page
MARIANA COOK-I-IUYNH'S
COOK-HUYNH'S MOTION TO DISMISS
petitioner or petitioners serving a written demand petitioner for arbitration upon a respondent or demand for
manner provided
respondents in the same manner provided by law law for
for the service of
of summons in the Superior summons in
Court of Guam Court of Guam..."
... " 10
10 GCA
GCA §10103.
§ 10103. Thus,
Thus, ifif the Hocogs did the Hocogs did not
not follow
follow Guam
Guam law
law and
and rules
rules to
to
Defendants with
serve the Defendants with the the written
written demand
demandfor
forarbitration
arbitration properly,
properly, arbitration
arbitration was not
The burden
initiated. The proper service falls on the Hocogs. Fuqua uv. Turner, burden to demonstrate proper Turner, 996
F.3d 1140, 1156 (11 1140, 1156 (nthth Cir. 2021).
Guam law requires Guam law requires personal personalservice
serviceon
onindividual
individualdefendants.
defendants.77GCA
GCA§ 14l05(g). Guam
§ 14105(g). Guam
Rule of elaborates on of Civil Procedure 4 elaborates on this this process:
process: an individual may be served by delivering
a copy of the summons and and the complaint
complaint to
to the individual
individual personally,
personally, by leaving
leaving aa copy at the
individual's home individual's home with with someone ofsuitable
someone of suitable age
age and
and discretion
discretion who
who resides
resides there,
there, or
or by
delivering delivering a copy to an agent authorized by appointment appointment or
or law to receive service of of process.
GRCP 4(e)(2). Attorney Attorney Smith
Smith argues
argues that Guam follows
follows aa liberal
liberal notice pleading
pleading standard,
implying implying that that the Court can consume requirements liberally, construe service requirements liberally, however, however, this standard of of
pleading relates relates to to the
the contents
contents of
ofaapleading-not the timeliness pleading-not the timeliness of Ukau v.v Wang, of aa claim. See Ukase Wang,
2016 Guam 26 ,r,r W 22-33 (describing a liberal, liberal, notice
notice pleading
pleading requirement,
requirement, meaning a pleading
may make may make aa short short and
and plain
plain statement
statementof
ofaa claim)
claim).
In contrast, the the Guam Supreme Court has explicitly "adopted "adopted a rule of
of strict compliance
with statutory service requirements".
requirements Pineda v.u Pineda, 2005 Guam 10 ,r 18. This means that 10 1118.
statutory service service requirements,
requirements, specifically the requirements that Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh
Cook-Huynh be served
personally or an agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service of appointment or of process must be
strictly complied with. This This Court
Court abides
abides by
by the
the strict
strict service compliance standards standards expressly
stated by the Guam Supreme Court.
It is undisputed that Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh
Cook-Huynh did not receive the arbitration demand demand personally or
IR ,_ P I . 1
9 ' l~ .wr
v.
(. u My
CV0140-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. Page4 Page
MARIANA COOK-HUYNH'S
COOK-HUYNH'S MOTION
MOTION TO
TO DISMISS
at her home. The The Hocogs
Hocogs contend
contend that
that service
service upon
upon Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh was accomplished through
her assistant and under the doctrine of apparent authority;
authority, however, that concept applies to
service on corporations, corporations, not
not individuals.
individuals. Pls.'
Pls.' Opp
Opp'n at 11, Direct Mail
11; Direct Mail Specialists, Specialists, Inc.
Inc. v.v Ee/at
Eclat
Computerized Computerized Technologies, Inc., 840 F.2d Technologies, Inc., F.2d685, 688 (9th Cir.
Cir. 1988).
1988). Dr. Cook-Huynh
Cook-Huynh is
is named
named
in her personal and individual capacity, capacity; thus, arguments relative to apparent authority do not
apply. This This means means that
that the
the argument
argument that
that Ms.
Ms. Ricalde-Blas
Ricalde-Blas had
had apparent
apparent authority to accept
service fails.
fails. Additionally, Additionally, Ms.
Ms. Ricalde-Blas
Ricalde-Blas was
was not
not identified
identified as
as Dr. Cook-Huynh's agent
through appointment or law, law, making the later section of Rule 4 inapplicable as well.
The Hocogs filrther Dr. Cook-Huynh further argue that Dr. Cook-Huynh was served by mail;
mail, however, service by
mail is not an authorized service method for a private individual within Guam or the United
States under the the Guam
Guam Rules.
Rules. See GRCP 4. Considering Considering these
these facts
facts and
and the
the Guam
Guam Supreme
Court's strict adherence standards for service, the Court concludes that Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh was not
properly served. Moreover, Moreover, because
because service of
of the
the demand
demand was not accomplished accomplished under Rule 4,
the Hocogs did not initiate arbitration as required under Guam law.
B. There was no no waiver
waiver of
of compliance
compliancewith
withthe
theMandatory
Mandatory Medical
Medical Malpractice
Malpractice
Arbitration Act.
Next, the Hocogs claim that Dr. Cook-Huynh has has waived
waived the
the right
right to
to arbitrate under the
MMMA MMMA because she failed to act or affirmatively participate in the arbitration process. P1s.'
Pis.'
Opp'n Opp'n at at 4. They Theyargue
argue that
that Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh's
Cook-Huynh's inaction
inaction "reflects
"reflects aa complete
complete relinquishment of of
any purported right to to demand
demand compliance
compliance with
with the
the arbitration
arbitrationprocess
processunder
underthe
theMMMA."
MMMA." Id.
Id
The MMMA MMMA addresses waiver: "Any party party who
who proceeds
proceeds with arbitration after
knowledge that any provision provision of
of this chapter has not been complied with and fails to state his
obi actions thereto objections in writing thereto in writing shall shall be
be deemed
deemed to
to have
have waived
waived his
his right
right to
to object."
object." 10
10 GCA
GCA §§
"\
\*..»# |
»u Inwe
] x.I
I
r
f
$
1
1
s ~
I: .
CV0140-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. Page 5 Page
MARIANA COOK-HUYNI-I'S
COOK-HUYNH'S MOTION TO DISMISS
10129. In In reviewing reviewing the
the statute,
statute, the
the Court
Court looks
looks at
at the
the plain
plain language
language of
of the statute, looking at
the statute as as aa whole. 14 ,i whole. Aguon v.u Gutierrez, 2002 Guam 14 116.
6. Section 10129 must be read read in
in
conjunction with other provisions, including the statutory deadline for a respondent's response,
which which must must occur "after service occur "after service of
of aa demand
demand for
for arbitration."
arbitration." 10
10 GCA
GCA §§ 10104.
10104. If
If aa respondent
respondent
fails to respond to a demand for arbitration within within 20 days of service, "then the petitioner petitioner or
petitioners petitioners may may proceed
proceed in
in default
default to
to appoint
appoint an
an arbitration
arbitration panel
panel pursuant
pursuant to
to §§ 10108
10108 of this
of this
Chapter." Chapter." 10 10 GCA
GCA §10104.
§ 10104.
This issue again relates back to the fact fact that Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh
Cook-Huynh was
was not
not adequately
adequately served
sewed
with process. The The statutory
statutory provision
provision on
on waiver
waiver covers
covers the
the conduct
conduct of
of a party who
who proceeds with
arbitration despite knowing knowing that there
there was
was noncompliance
noncompliance with
with the
the MMMA.
MMMA. That
That did
did not occur
here as the Hocogs have not demonstrated that Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh engaged
engaged in the arbitration
proceedings after successful service.
service. In
In order
order for Dr. Cook-Huynh to have waived compliance,
she must have first been adequately adequately served
sewed and then proceeded with the arbitration process.
process. The
Hocogs point to Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh's attorney being being the
the recipient
recipient of
of correspondence from the
AAA, AAA; however, that in itself itself does not demonstrate that Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh proceeded with the
arbitration of this dispute.
Proper service of the the demand
demand remains
remains the
the lynchpin
lynchpin in this case.
case. Without strict
compliance with Rule 4's service service requirements, the Court cannot impute knowledge of of these
proceedings upon Dr.
Dr. Cook-Huynh.
Cook-Huynh. Again,
Again, the
the Court
Court isis tied
tied to
to abiding
abiding by
by the
the requisite
requisite stn'ct
strict
adherence standard and cannot find that service was effectuated correctly.
correctly. Without this, the
Hocogs' Hocogs' argument argument collapses.
c. C. The statute of of limitations has expired.
According According to to 77 GCA
GCA §11308, "an action
§ 11308, "an action to
to recover damages for
recover damages for injuries injuries to
to the person
the person
I
I
, "\. 12
L* : !f
I: t>~. I I Q' li I:
l
:w
'E
IJ
I* I ` *; ::"» e
- L \. \| ='? ' L
CV0140-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. Page 6 Page
MARIANA MARIANACOOK-HUYNH'S
COOK-HUYNH'SMOTION
MOTIONTO
TO DISMISS
DISMISS
arising from any medical, surgical or dental treatment, omission or or operation shall be
commenced commenced with with one
one (1)
(1) year
year from the date when
when the
the injury is first
first discovered
discovered..."
... " The Hocogs
state that their their claims
claims arose
arose from
from the
the delivery
delivery of
of their
their son
son on
on February
February 27-28,
27-28, 2024.
2024. Pls.'
Pls.' Opp'n
Opp'n
at 7. Dr. Cook-Huynh 7. Dr. Cook-Huynh states states in her
her motion
motion to dismiss
dismiss that
that the statute of limitations began on
February 27, 2024.
2024. Def.'s
Def. 's Mot.
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss at
at 8.
8. Per
Perthe
theone-year
one-yearstatute
statute of limitations, the oflimitations, the Hocogs Hocogs'
claims would expire on February 27, 27, 2025.
2025. This means
means that if Defendant Dr. Cook-Huynh was Dr. Cook-Huynh
not properly served served before
before February 27, 2025, the statute of limitations has expired.
According According to
to 10
10 GCA
GCA §lOl05,
§ 10105, "a
"a claim
claim shall
shall be
be waived
waived and
and forever
forever barred
barred as
as against
against aa
respondent respondent if if on the date the demand demand is
is served
served the
the applicable
applicable statute
statute of
of limitations would bar the
claim." claim." 10 10 GCA GCA §10105.
§ 10105. Therefore,
Therefore, the
the Hocogs
Hocogs must
must have
have served
served the
the demand
demandfor
for arbitration
arbitration
before February 27, 2025, 2025, for
for the
the claim
claim to
to still
stillbe
be valid.
valid. As
As just
just found,
found, the
the demand
demand was never
sewed. served.
The Court recognizes the implications of of this determination. ItIt understands understands that
that this
presents the Hocogs with the inability to to litigate
litigate their
their claims.
claims. While the Court can sympathize
with the Hocogs, it cannot waive the requirement requirement of
of proper service.
D. Attorney Smith
Attorney Smith is
is warned
warned to
to adhere
adhere with
with the
the Guam
GuamRules
Rules of
ofProfessional
Professional
Conduct.
Under Under the Guam Rules
Rules of
of Professional Conduct, a lawyer has duties of of competence
competence and
when representing their clients.
diligence when Prof'l Conduct clients. See Guam R. Prof'l Conduct 1.1, 1.1, 1.3.
1.3. The duty of
of
competence requires a lawyer to exercise the competence the "legal knowledge, knowledge, sldll,
skill, thoroughness, and
preparation reasonably reasonably necessary
necessary for
for the
the representation." of diligence requires a lawyer representation." The duty of
"with reasonable to act "with reasonable diligence diligence and promptness in representing a client."
Attorney Smith made no
no less
less than eleven
eleven erroneous
erroneous citations
citations in
in his Opposition brief.
;~
x
Lr 1 . rt/
L
' =; -.r
l~ L, r
\
'L
i'
'.. L.__,
CV0140-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. Page 7 MARIANA COOK-I-IUYNH'S
COOK-HUYNH'S MOTION TO DISMISS
These amount to a violation of his ethical responsibilities, and have wasted this Court's time and
resources, not to mention mention that
that of
of his
his clients.
clients. The
The Court
Court found
found at
at least three instances of of Attorney
Smith citing citing incorrect incorrect statutes or cases, six instances of providing quotations that did not exist in
the cases he cited, three instances of misstating a statute or holding of of a case, and one instance of
citing to a case that does does not
not exist.
exist. More specifically, Attorney Smith made the following
misstatements in his Opposition:
• "Additionally, "Additionally, under under 77 GCA
GCA §lOl05,
§ 10105, failure
failure to
to arbitrate
arbitrate does not automatically does not automatically extinguish extinguish
the cause of the cause of action."
action." Pls.'
Pls.' Opp'n
Opp'n at
at 5.
5. However,
However, 77 GCA
GCA §10105
§lOl05 does
does not
not exist.
exist. The
The
Court Court recognizes Attorney Smith recognizes Attorney Smith could could bebe referencing
referencing 1010 GCA
GCA§§ 10105.
10105.
• "'A "' A defendant defendant cannot
cannot invoke
invoke aa statutory
statutory prerequisite to shield itself itself from litigation while simultaneously refusing to participate in that very process.' Brown v. Dillard s, Inc., Dillardiv, Inc., 430
th
F.3d 1004, 1012 (9 1004, 1012 lathCir.
Cir.2005)."
2005)."Pls.'
Pls.'Opp'n
Opp'n at
at 5.
5. This quote cannot be found in the case cited.
• "An employer employer who
who imposes
imposes arbitration
arbitration as a condition of of employment, represents to employees that arbitration is their only recourse, recourse, and
and then refuses to arbitrate when the employee attempts to do so have waived its right to compel arbitration."
arbitration." Pls.'
Pls.' Opp'n at 5
(citing Brown, 430 F.3d F.3d 1004).
1004). This quote cannot be found in the case cited.
• "As held in Brown v. Dillard s, Inc., Dillardiv, Inc., ...: 'A party cannot cannot rely on
on arbitration
arbitration to bar litigation while refusing to to participate
participate in
in arbitration."'
arbitration."' Pls.' Opp'n Opp'n at
at 6. This
This quote
quote cannot
cannot be
found in the case cited.
• "Westcon "Westcon Construction Corp. Corp. v.u County ofof Sacramento, Sacramento, 152 Cal. App. 4th 4 th 183 (2007):
'The 'The doctrine doctrine of
of substantial compliance is an an equitable equitable doctrine that excuses technical imperfections in compliance with aa statute when the purpose of the statute is nonetheless fulfilled. It is not intended to defeat actions but to avoid forfeitures, and it will be applied only where where there is actual compliance in respect respect to the substance essential to every th
reasonable objective of the statute.' (Westcon, (Westcon, 152 Cal. App.
App. 4th atat199.)"
199.)" Pls.'
Pls.' Opp'n
Opp'n at 6,
7. This This quote
quote cannot
cannot be
be found in in the case cited.
• "As "As the the California
California Court
Court of
of Appeal held: 'Where
'Where aa statute
statute requires pre-litigation alternative dispute resolution, courts have applied the doctrine of substantial compliance
IF ? /.= r
m
:' e . 1'
L' k._:...=
CV0140-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. Page Page 88
MARIANACOOK-I-IUYNH'S MARIANA COOK-HUYNH'S MOTION MOTION TO
TO DISMISS
DISMISS
so long as the statutory purpose purpose hashas been
been met and the adverse party was not prejudiced.' -
th
Diaz v.u Bukey,.195 Cal. App. 4th 315 315 (2001), (2001), review
review granted
granted and dismissed,
dismissed, 262262 P.3d 1007 (Cal. 2011)." (Cal. Pls.' Opp'n at 7, 201l)." Pls.' 7, 8.
8. Diaz was vacated by the California Supreme Court in Diaz v.u Bukey, Bukey, 287 P.3d
P.3d 67
67 (Cal.
(Cal. 2012),
2012), which
which Attorney
Attorney Smith
Smith fails
fails to
to note.
note. Moreover,
262 P.3d 1007 is is the the citation
citation for
for anan unrelated
unrelated Hawaii criminal case.
• '"Dismissal isis not "'Dismissal not warranted warranted where
where the
the party
party seeking
seeking judicial
judicial relief
relief has
has substantially
substantially
complied with complied with the administrative administrative prerequisites prerequisites and
and made
made aa good
good faith
faith effort
effort to exhaust
available remedies.' Westcon Construction Corp. available remedies.' Corp. v. Courtly County of Sacramento,
Sacramento, 152 152 Cal. App.
th 4th 183 183 (2007)."
(2007)." Pls.'
Pls.' Opp'n
Opp'n at 8. cannot be found in the case cited.
8. This quote cannot
• "In Moylan v. Citizens Bank, 2015 Guam 36, Citizens Security Bank, 36, and Lin SHR Construction Co. Co. v.u Acetown, Inc., Inc., 2023 Guam 18, 18, the Guam Supreme Court recognized emotional emotional distress and familial damages as as compensable compensable in in tort."
tort." Pls.' Opp'n
Opp'n at 10. 10. Lin SHR Construction Co. Co. v.u Acetown, Inc.
Inc. is not a Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court case, case, itit is
is a Superior
Superior Court case that
was before Judge Terlaje.
Terlaje. 2023
2023 Guam
Guam 18 18 isis the
the citation
citation for an unrelated criminal case, People v. Aldan.
Aidan.
• "Under "Under 77 GCA GCA §ll306(a)
§ 11306(a)andand11038(3), 11038(3), service
service of
of process
process may
may bebe made
made by by delivering
delivering aa
copy ofof the Summons Summons andand Complaint
Complaint to to an
an agent
agent authorized by appointment appointment or or by law to receive receive service of process."
service of process." Pls.'
Pls.' Opp'n
Opp'n at at 11.
11. 77 GCA
GCA§§ ll306(a)
11306(a)sets
sets the
the statute
statute of
of
limitations for "assault, battery, battery, false
false imprisonment,
imprisonment, seduction
seduction of a person
person below
below the age
of of legal consent, or for injury to, or for thethe death of, a person person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of or neglect of another;"
another," it
it does
does not
not discuss
discuss service
service of
of process.
process. 77 GCA
GCA§§ 11038(3) does not 11038(3) does not
exist. exist. 77 GCA GCA §§ 11308
11308 sets
sets the
the statute
statute ofof limitations
limitations for
for injuries
injuries arising
arising from
from medical
medical
malpractice.
• "In "In Penthouse Inf Ltd v. Playboy Enters., Int'l,'I, Ltd. Enters., Inc., 663 663 F.2d
F.2d 371,
371,383 (Zd
(2d Cir.
Cir. 1981), the
court held that aa principal principal isisestopped
stopped from denying
denying the the authority authority of
of an agent when the
principal permits the agent agent to appear appear to have such
such authority,
authority, and a third party reasonably relies on it." Pls.'
Pls.' Opp'n
Opp'n at 11. Penthouse Inf 11. Penthouse Int 'I,
'l, Ltd. does not
Ltd does notdiscuss
discuss the
theissue
issueofofestoppels
estoppel
based on apparent authority.
• "In In re Application of "In of Santos, Guam 11 1116, Santos, 2001 Guam ~16, the theSupreme
Supreme Court
Court of
of Guam
emphasized that procedural rules must be applied to secure substantive emphasized that justice." Id.
substantive justice." at 13.
Id at 13.
2001 Guam 11 is a criminal case, People v. Chargualaf Chargualaf.
The Court is in in the
the process
process of
of reviewing
reviewing Attorney
Attorney Smith's
Smith's misconduct in his Opposition
and will take appropriate measures in a separate Order or proceeding.
proceeding.
s
'I
:;
Q
1*
Lr ,. ; ,.<
5 uxu
r
I
D
!H ee I
"1
I
11
I I* it* l_ .
Q" "w, L
I'
I l b \- '...
CV0140-25 CVOl40-25 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. Page 9 Page
MARIANA COOK-HUYNH'S
COOK-HUYNH'S MOTION
MOTION TO DISMISS
III. 111. CONCLUSION AND ORDER CONCLUSION
The Hocogs Hocogs fail
failtotodemonstrate
demonstratethat
that they
they served
served their
their arbitration
arbitration demand Dr. Cookdemand upon Dr. Cook-
Huynh in compliance compliance with
with Guam
Guamlaw
law and
andRule
Rule4.4. Therefore, Dr. Cook-Huynh's motion to
GRANTED? 2A A
dismiss is GRANTED. Partial PartialJudgment
Judgment shall
shall issue.
issue.
SO ORDERED SO ORDERED this this 11
11 August 2025.
~-~~--.~ HOI* . V _ ZE M. IRIARTE ~ Z E M. IRIARTE Judge,*Superior Court of Guam Judge/Superior Court
Attorneys:
Appearing Attorneys: Mark S. Smith, Smith,Esq.,
Esq.,Law
Law Offices
Offices of Mark S.
S. Smith,
Smith, P.C.,
P.C.,for
forPlaintiffs
PlaintiffsRon
Ron&&Tiffany
Tiffany Hocog
Hocog
Anita P. Arriola, Anita Arcola, Esq., Esq., Arriola
Arriola Law
Law Firm,
Firm, LLC,
LLC,for
forDefendant
DefendantDr.Dr. Mariana
Mariana Cook-Huynh
Cook-Huynh
Phillip Phillip Tories, Torres, Esq.,
Esq., Tories
Torres Law
LawGroup,
Group, for
forDefendant
Defendant Guam
Guam Memorial Hospital
Hospital Authority
2 2 Having dismissed Dr. Cook-I-Iuynh Having dismissed Cook-Huynh from this action, the the Court
Court declines
declines to
to rule
rule on
on other
other issues
issues
raised in in her motion.
.' = \ *\
t ';: ·::_) !' t(_:·:::
~\ -.
I
1. ,
= Ir
\
... 1__./'
_/