Hocog v. Cook-Huynh

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: August 11, 2025
• Docket: CV0140-25
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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 In- we ] 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. Cook- demand 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__./' _/