In re Gurusamy, Inc. v. Materne

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: SP0111-24
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

in. "K .. L Lf i

2325 n, o PH• Lg: ?f''lr" jlll , ,. LJLJ JUn. u;_ 15 4: 16 r

IN THE THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM

IN THE MATTER MATTER OF: SP0I 11-24 Special Proceedings Case No. SP0111-24 Special

GURUSAMY, INC., INC.,doing doingbusiness business as as HEALTH HEALTH SERVICES SERVICES OFOF THE PACIFIC, BRIAN BRIAN CREGHAN, CREGHAN, PA-C, P A-C, and ADMIRAL and ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, COMPANY,

Petitioners-Defendants, DECISION AND ORDER vs. GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

ROSE MARIE MARIE G. MATERNE, MATERNE, Individually Individually and and as as Special Administratrix of of Estate of the Estate of Franklin Franklin Emmanuel Guerrero Materne, re, Deceased,

Respondent-Plaintiff.

This matter matter came before the Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez Gutierrez for a hearing on on Respondent- Respondent-

Plaintiff PlaintiffRose Rose Marie Marie G. G. Maternal's Motion to ("Maternal") Motion Materne's ("Materne") Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal for Lack to Dismiss

of of Subject Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Matter Jurisdiction Arbitral Decision of Non-Final Arbitral Under the Decision Under Mandatory Medical the Mandatory

Malpractice Act ("Motion Arbitration Act Malpractice Arbitration Dismiss"). At to Dismiss"). ("Motion to the hearing, Atthe Attorney Matthew hearing, Attorney J. Holley Matthew J.

appeared behalf of on behalf appeared on and Attorney Materne, and of Mateme, Minakshi V. Hemlani Attorney Minakshi appeared on Hemlani appeared behalf of on behalf

Petitioners-Defendants Gumsamy,Inc., Petitioners-Defendants Gurusamy, doingbusiness Inc.,doing HealthServices businessasasHealth of the Servicesof Pacific the Pacific

("Gurusamy") and ("Gurusamy") BrianCreghan, and Brian PA-C("Creghan") Creghan,PA-C collectively "HSP"). ("Creghan")((collectively Upon review of "HSP"). Upon the of the

arguments, pleadings, and applicable Guam law, the Court hereby GRANTS arguments, Motion to Materne's Motion GRANTS IV[aterne's

Dismiss. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SP0111-24, SPO Gurusamy, Inc., doing Gurusamy, Inc., doing business as Health business as Health Services Servicesof ofthe thePacific, Pacyic, Brian Brian Creghan, Creghan, PA-C, and Admiral Insurance Admiral InsuranceCompany Company vs. vs. Rose Marie G. Rose Marie G. Maternal Materne

BACKGROUND

This matter is before the Court upon a Notice of of Appeal (Aug. (Aug. 23, 2024) filed by HSP,

which seeks which seeks aa trial trial De de novo nova on the "Decision and Order on Respondents' Respondents' Motions for Judgment on

the Pleadings and to Dismiss" (hereafter, (hereafter, "Phase One Decision") Decision") issued by Arbitrator issued by Arbitrator Frederick

Horecky on on July 25, 2024.

underlying case The underlying case concerns concerns allegations ofmedical allegations of medical malpractice. malpractice. Mater Matemere claims that her

son, Franldin Emmanuel Guerrero Franklin Emmanuel Guerrero Mater re, died as a result of Mateme, of inadequate inadequate medical care provided

of HSP. by Creghan, an agent of HSP. See Not. App., Ex. A (Phase Decision). 1 On November 27, (Phase One Decision).1

2 023, 2 3 , in in aaccordance c c or da nc e wit withh t he the GGuam u a m M edic a l M aMalpractice Medical lp r a c t ic e MMandatory a nda t or y Ar b it r a t ion Ac Arbitration Actt

("MMMAA"), Mater Matemere served served HSP HSP with with a Petition Petition and and Demand Demand for Arbitration. Arbitration. Id Id at 2. On

December 28, December 28, 2023, HSP served their Answer sewed their Answer to to Maternal's Mateme's Petition Petition and Demand. Id and Demand. Id

On February 20, 2024, Mater Matemere and HSP entered into aa Joint Joint Stipulation Stipulation for for Arbitration.

The pa ties agreed parties eed that tha t they they "recognize ecognize the the Claim should should pr proceed under Gua Guam's Medica Medical

Malpractice Mandatory Arbitration Arbitration Act Act ... ... except except as as otherwise otherwise stipulated stipulated herein." herein." Not. Not. App., Ex.

at 11 (hereafter, "Stipulation"). B at "Stipulation"). The The parties parties further further agreed agreed that that they they "have "have agreed to and waive

"notwithstanding requirements under the Act." Id at objection" to certain stipulations "notwithstanding at 2, 2; see also

10 10 GCA GCA §§ 10129 10129 ("[a]ny ("[a]ny party who proceeds party who proceeds with with arbitration after knowledge arbitration after knowledge that that any provision any provision

of this chapter has of has not not been been complied with with and and fails fails to state his objections thereto in writing shall

be deemed waived his deemed to have waived his right right to object."). Although MMMAA requires Although the MMMAA requires that that an arbitration

"shall be "shall be heard heard by by aa panel panel of of three three (3) arbitrators," 10 (3) arbitrators," 10 GCA GCA §§ 10108, 10108, the the parties parties stipulated stipulated that the that the

11 Petitioner-Defendant Petitioner-Defendant AIC AIC was was added added to to the the case case on April 18, 2024, 2024, upon the of Materne's First the filing of First Amended Petition Amended Petition and and Demand for Arbitration. 2 2 I

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SP0111-24, SPO Gurusamy, Inc., doing business Gurusamy, Inc., asHealth business as Health Services Servicesof ofthe thePacific, Pacific, Brian Brian Creghan, PA-C, and Creghan, PA-C, Admiral Insurance Admiral Insurance Company Company vs. vs. Rose Marie G.Mater Rose Marie re Materne

arbitration would be heard heard only only by by aa single single arbitrator. arbitrator. Stipulation Stipulation at at 2. The parties also stipulated

to a two-phase arbitration arbitration as as follows follows::

Arbitration Phases: For For continuing continuing efforts efforts towards efficiency efficiency and minimizing costs, the parties agree that the the arbitration arbitration shall shall proceed proceed in in the the following following two steps:

determination of A. Phase One shall involve the determination of preliminary preliminary issues and not limited challenges including, but not limited to,to, the the statute statute of oflimitations. limitations. The The arbitrator arbitrator will hold aa prehearing meeting toto outline outline such such issues and determine what, if if any must be exchanged discovery must exchanged for for the the resolution resolution of ofsuch such issues. issues. The The arbitrator arbitrator will also also determine mine the the procedure ocedur e for for the the filing filing of motions motions and and or al ar oral gument, if argument, if requested.

i. Appeal: Appeal: Upon the issuance ofof the Arbitrator's decision and order on preliminary preliminary issues raised raised in Phase One, either either party may choose to appeal to the Superior Court of Guam within 30 days pursuant to 10 GCA 10139.

B. Phase Two shall involve adjudication of the merits and and shall shall commence commence within 45 days of of issuance issuance of of the Arbitrator's decision on any Phase One issues, Arbitrator's decision issues, neither party chose to appeal the Phase One order. assuming neither

13, 2025, the parties conducted their "Phase One" Id. (emphasis added). On June 13, One" arbitration. arbitration. On

July 25, 2024, Arbitrator Arbitrator Horecky Horecky issued issued his his Phase Phase One One Decision, Decision, denying denying HSP's Motion for for

Judgment on Judgment on the Pleadings and largely denying their Motion to Dismiss.

August 23, On August 23, 2024, 2024, HSP HSP filed filed aa Notice Notice ofofAppeal Appealininthe theSuperior SuperiorCourt CourtofofGuam. Guam.111 In

response, Mateme filedthetheinstant Matte filed instantMotion MotiontotoDismiss Dismisspursuant pursuanttoto Guam Guam Rule ofCivil Rule of Civil Procedure Procedure

("GRCP") 12(b)(1)_ ("GRCP") 12(b)(l). On On October October 10, 10, 2024, 2024, HSP HSP filed filed an Opposition to an Opposition to Dismiss to Motion to Dismiss

("Opposition"), and on October 30, 2024, Mateme filed her ("Opposition"), her Reply. Reply. On On February February 11, 11, 2025, the

Court heard the motion and took the matter under advisement.

3 3 I

DECISION AND ORDERORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO TO DISNIISS DISMISS SPOl SP0111-24, Gurusamy, Inc., doing Gurusamy, Inc., doing business as Health business as Health Services Services of of the thePaci.fie, Pocyic, Brian Brian Creghan, PA-C, and Creghan, PA-C, Admiral Insurance Admiral InsuranceCompany Companyvs. vs. Rose Rose Marie G. Maternal Marie G. Materne

DISCUSSION

1. 1. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction

Maternal arguesthat Mateme argues that her her Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss must must be be granted granted because because the Court lacks lacks

jurisdiction to entertain a Notice jurisdiction Notice of Appeal Appeal from from the the Phase Phase One One Decision. Decision. Although Although HSP responds

that the appeal does not not truly implicate implicate subj act matter subject matter jurisdiction, infra, the Court agrees that jurisdiction, see infra,

jurisdiction. Cf it must examine its jurisdiction. TeleguamHoldings cf. Telegram HoldingsLLC LLCv.v. Guam, Guam,2018 2018Guam ,r 19 Guam5511 19 ("Guam

courts have a duty to police their jurisdiction jurisdiction and power.").

Because this matter proceeds as an appeal from an proceeds as an arbitration under the arbitration under the MMMAA, it

implicates the Court's appellate appellate jurisdiction, as opposed to its general jurisdiction. The Organic

Act of of Guam confers upon upon the the Superior Superior Court Court "appellate jurisdiction over over all causes in Guam as

the laws the laws of of Guam Guam provide." provide." 48 48 U.S.C.A. U.S.C.A. §§ 1424-1(d). 1424-l(d). With With respect respect to to appellate appellate jurisdiction, jurisdiction, the the

laws of Guam provide that "except "except for those causes exclusively vested in the Supreme Supreme Court, Court, [the

Superior Court] may Superior Court] may have have appellate jurisdiction as appellate jurisdiction as may may be be provided provided by by the the Legislature." Legislature." 77 GCA GCA §§

3105; see also 7 GCA 3105, GCA §§ 4101(a) 4101(a) (the (the Superior Superior Court's Court's jurisdiction jurisdiction is is "as "as prescribed prescribed by by this this Title Title

and in other other laws laws of of Guam."); Gov't'r of Guam."), Gov v. Gutierrez of Guam v. Gutierrez ex ex rel. rel. Tories, Torres,2015 2015Guam ,r 14 (the Guam8811

has "some appellate jurisdiction, not exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court, Superior Court has Court,

the legislature."). as provided by the legislature."). Each Each of these sources make clear clear that that the the Superior Superior Court's

appellate jurisdiction appellate jurisdiction isis limited limited to to that that which which has has been provided by the Guam Guam Legislature. Cf Legislature. Cf

People v. Angoco, ,r 8 (the 18 118 Angoco, 2006 Guam 18 (the Guam Guam Supreme Court has "consistently held held that that [its] [its]

appellate jurisdiction jurisdiction is limited to those matters which the legislature permits [it] to review."). review."). The

Court must therefore determine whether the determine whether the Legislature Legislature has has conferred conferred jurisdiction jurisdictionto to hear hear an appeal

of of this nature.

4 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SP0111-24, SPOl Gurusamy, Inc., doing business Gurusamy, Inc., asHealth business as Health Services Servicesof ofthe thePacific, Pacyic, Brian Creghan, Creghan, PA-C, and Admiral Insurance Admiral Insurance Company Company vs. vs. Rose Marie G. Rose Marie re G. Materne

A. Title Title 10 GCA §§ 10139 10 GCA Does Not 10139 Does Not Confer Confer Appellate Appellate Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Here Here

It is undisputed that the claims in this case fall under the MMMAA, and and that that this requires

the claims the claims to to be be submitted submitted to to "mandatory "mandatory arbitration." arbitration." 10 GCA §§ 10102. 10 GCA 10102. Under Under the the MMMAA, MMMAA, the the

Superior Court has no power to hear a medical malpractice claim that (1) falls within the scope of of

the IVIMMAA, MMMAA, and and (2) (2) has has not not yet yet been been arbitrated:

If If any suit or proceeding is brought in the courts of Guam upon any issue referable under this chapter, to arbitration under chapter, the the court court in in which which said said suit suit isis pending, pending, upon upon being being satisfied that the the issue issue involved involved in such such suit suit or or proceeding proceeding isis referrable referable to arbitration under this chapter, shall upon application of under of one ofof the parties, stay all proceedings in the action until such arbitration hashas been been had in accordance with the terms of of this chapter, chapter.

10 10 GCA GCA §§ 10114 10114 (emphasis (emphasis added). added). However, However, the the Superior Superior Court Court may may have have jurisdiction jurisdiction to to

the arbitration entertain an appeal after the has concluded. arbitration has concluded. Under Under 10 GCA §§ 10139: 10 GCA 10139:

(a) Within thirty (30) days after the the award award is is served sewed upon the parties, any party may file with the clerk of of the Superior Court of Guam and serve on the other other parties and the Association a written Notice Notice of Appeal and Request for Trial Trial De De Novo ofof the action.

(b) After the filing and service of of the written Notice of of Appeal and Request Request for for Trial Novo, the De Novo, the case case shall shall be be set set for for trial trial pursuant to applicable court rules.

(c) If the action is triable triable by by right right to to aa jury, jury, and and aajury jurywas wasnot not originally originally demanded demanded but is demanded within ten demanded within 10) days of service of the Notice ten (10) Notice of Appeal Appeal and Request for Trial De Novo by a party having the right of of trial by jury, jury, the trial trial de de novo novo shall include a jury, and a jury jury trial fee fee shall shall be be paid paid as as provided provided by law. I

(emphasis added). Thus, Thus, while the Court Court has no jurisdiction to to entertain entertain a medical medical malpractice malpractice

claim prior to arbitration, it may may obtain appellate jurisdiction jurisdiction after service of af'er service ofan an arbitral arbitral award.

The problem with this appeal is that that the the Phase Phase One Decision does not appear appear to be an

"award" "award" within within the the meaning meaningof ofthe the MMMAA. MMMAA.Under Under10 10GCA GCA§§10133 an "award" 10133(a), an "award" must must include include

5 5 1

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SPOll 1-24, Gurusamy, SP0111-24, Inc., doing Gurusamy, Inc., doing business businessas asHealth HealthServices Servicesof ofthe the Pacu'ic, Pacific, PA-CL and Cretan, PA-C, BrianCreghan, Brian and Admiral AdmiralInsurance Insurance Company Companyvs.vs. Rose Rose Marie Marie G. G. Maternal Materne

"a determination "a determination of ofall all the questions questions submitted submitted to to arbitration arbitration by each party, the resolution resolution of which

is necessary to determine the dispute, controversy, controversy, or issue." issue." The The Phase Phase One Decision does not

address all the questions submitted to arbitration, address arbitration, nor was it intended to: to: the the parties parties explicitly explicitly

stipulated that the merits of the case will be heard at the Phase Two Arbitration, which has not yet

occurred. See Stipulation occurred. at 2; Stipulation at also Phase 2, see also Phase One Decision Decision at at 22, 22, 38 38 (reserving (reserving on on certain certain

hearing). If the questions until after the merits hearing). the Court were were to to construe construe the the Phase One Decision as

an an "award," "award," then then itit would would be be plainly plainly defective defective under under 10 10 GCA GCA §§10133(a). 10133(a). Instead, Instead, the the Court Court

concludes that that the the Phase Phase One Decision is One Decision is not not an an "award" "award" within within the the meaning meaning of the the MMMAA

because it does not resolve all the questions submitted to arbitration. arbitration. That That being being so, so, HSP's HSP's Notice

of Appeal was not filed "within of "within thirty thirty (30) days after the award is served," as required by 10 GCA

§§ 10139(a), 10139(a), because the award because the award has has not not been been served served yet. yet.

Because Because the Notice ofAppeal the Notice of Appealdoes doesnot notcomply complywith with10 10GCA GCA§§10139(a), 10139(a), the the Court Court has not has not

obtained appellate jurisdiction to hear the matter matter through through that that statute. statute. See, See, e.g., People v. Riot, Rios,

2011 ,r 11 ("a 2011 Guam 66 1111 ("a defective defective notice notice of appeal may deprive this court of of jurisdiction to hear an

appeal."); Gill v. appeal."), v. Siegel, ,r 55 ("The 10 1[ Siegel, 2000 Guam 10 ("The filing filing of of a timely timely notice of of appeal to take an

appeal as ofright right is is an an absolute absolute requirement requirement from from which this court has no discretion to digress."); digress."),

United States v. v. Robinson, Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 224 224 ((1960) 1960) ((tiling filing a timely timely notice of appeal is is "mandatory "mandatory

and jurisdictional"); jurisdictional"), Bourhis v. v. Lord, 295 P.3d 895, 895, 901 (Cal. (Cal. 2013) ("HIing ("filing a timely notice of of

appeal is a jurisdictional jurisdictional requirement."). requirement.").

And apart from Horn 10 10 GCA GCA § 10139(a), lOI39(a), the Could Court finds no other legislative grant of of appellate

jurisdiction for thi~ this type type of of appeal. appeal. First, First,nothing nothing in inthe theMMMAA MMMAA explicitly explicitly contemplates contemplates any type

of appeal except the of the aforementioned appeal from an "award." Second, unlike the Supreme Court,

6 6 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SP0111-24, SP0ll Gurusamy, Inc., doing business Gurusamy, Inc., asHealth business as Health Services Servicesof ofthe thePacific, Pacyic, Brian Brian Creghan, Creghan, PA-C, PA-C, and Admiral AdmiralInsurance InsuranceCompany Company vs. vs. Rose Rose Marie G. Materne re

see see 77 GCA GCA §§ 33108(b l08(b), the the Superior Superior Court Court does does not not have have aa general general discretionary discretionary authority authority to accept to accept

interlocutory appeals.Third, interlocutory appeals. Third,the theparties parties have have notnot proposed proposed anyany other other Guam Guam is the state-nor is statute-nor

aware of Court aware of any-that wouldconfer any-that would conferjurisdiction jurisdictionhere. here. Since Since this this Court's Court's appellate appellate jurisdiction

exists only "as exists only "as may may be be provided provided by by the Legislature," 77 GCA the Legislature," GCA §§ 3105, 3105, and and since since the the Legislature has Legislature has

not provided jurisdiction in this circumstance, the Court concludes it lacks jurisdiction over the

Appeal. 2 Notice ofAppeal.2

B. 12(b)(l) Motion was Procedurally Materne's GRCP 12(b)(1) Procedurallv Proper

The Court Court next next turns to HSP's turns to HSP's contention contention that a motion to dismiss under under Guam Guam Rule Rule of

Civil Procedure I2(b)(1) 12(b)(l) is is an "improper "improper procedural procedural vehicle" vehicle" because because this this case case does does not not actually actually

present a question of of subject et matter matter jurisdiction. See Opposition jurisdiction. See Opposition at at 5. 5. HSP HSP argues argues that that as a matter

of of policy, if the arbitrability of a claim is arbitrability of as a true jurisdictional issue, then unpalatable is viewed as

results follow. See would follow. results would Seeid. (citing Wolff id (citing Wobv. v. Tomahawk Tomahawk Mfg., Mfg., 2022 WL 377926 377926 ** 4 (D. (D. Or. Or. Feb.

8, 2022)). It is is well-established well-established that that subject actmatter matterjurisdiction jurisdiction "can "can be be raised raised at at any any time, time, including including

after trial has concluded and and for for the the first time on appeal, and may may not be be waived or excused waived or excused by the

parties." Teleguam Holdings, 2018 Guam parties." Telegram ,r 19 (quoting Guam 55 1119 v. Lucan, (quoting Taitano v. Lujan, 2005 Guam Guam 26 ,r 21). 26 'H

That being so, if arbitrability is is viewed viewed as a truly parties would trulyjurisdictional issue, then panties would be unable

to mutually waive their their arbitration order to litigate arbitration rights in order litigate the matter matter instead. Wolff, 2022 instead. See Wo

WL 377926 * 4. Likewise, Likewise, if arbitrability could could be "raised at any any time," time," a court court would would be be powerless powerless

2 The Court's holding comports with that of other Superior Court Judges. See 2 Court's holding comports with that of other Superior Court Judges. See Devera v. Guam Regional Medical City, CV0028-18 (Dec. & Medical & Order Order at at 4, May May 4, 4, 2018) 2018) (Judge (Judge Cenzon: Cenzon: "The Court similarly finds it "The Court subject matter lacks subject matter jurisdiction jurisdiction until until Plaintiff completes arbitration"), Plaintiff completes Manibusan v. Guam arbitration"); Man Guam Healthcare Dev., CVl165-17 CV1165-l 7(Dec. (Dec.&&Order Orderat at 4, 4, Mar. 23, 2018) 2018) (same); Atilano v. (same),Atilano v. Bryson, CVl224-l1 CV1224-11(Dec. (Dec. & & Order, Order, March March 23, 2012) 2012) (Presiding Judge Lamorena:"the Judge Lamorena: "theMMMAA MMMAA implicitly implicitlyprecludes precludes court court involvement involvement with with the arbitration proceedings: proceedings: the the only only authority authority granted granted to to the theCourt CoLu'tby bythetheMMMAA MMMAA prior to an appeal appeal from from a final arbitration arbitration decision decision is is the the authority authority to stay stay aa related related court court action action and and issue issue an order directing the parties 'to proceed proceed with with arbitration accordance with arbitration in accordance with the theterms termsofofthis thischapter."'). chapter."'). 7 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SP01 l 1-24, Gurusamy, SPO 111-24, Inc., doing Gurusamy, Inc., asHealth businessas doing business HealthServices Servicesofofthe the Pacyie,Brian Pacific, BrianCreghan, Cretan, PA-C, PA-C, and and Admiral AdmiralInsurance Insurance Company Companyvs. vs. Rose Rose Marie Marie G. G. Maternal Materne

from fully availing itself of litigation, and then, to prevent a party from upon receiving a disappointing then, upon

result, demanding that result, demanding that the the whole be nullified litigation be whole litigation because the nullified because case needed the case to have been needed to

See id. arbitrated instead. See at ** 5. id at

However, this policy argument assumes that argument assumes arbitration and litigation are two alternatives that arbitration

which the contracting parties might freely parties might choose between. freely choose In Wolff, between. In for example, the underlying Wolf for

claim was for breach of sort of contract, which is the sort of contract, claim that of claim courts generally that courts subject generally have subject

jurisdiction over. When the WoW matter jurisdiction arbitrate their claim, they agreed that Wolff parties agreed to arbitrate

they would would not of the federal courts, even though the claim otherwise could have not avail themselves of

been addressed addressed in that that forum. In that circumstance, it may be reasonable that circumstance, conclude that the reasonable to conclude

of jurisdiction that it otherwise has. parties' private arbitration agreement does not strip the court of

See Minnesota Supply See Minnesota Supply Co. Co. v.v. Mitsubishi Mitsubishi Caterpillar Inc., 822 Cater pillar Forklift America, Inc., ad 896, 822 F. Supp. 2d

904 n.l0 (D. Minn. n.10 (D. 2011) ("the Minn. 2011) fact that ("the fact the parties that the have contractually parties have any contractually agreed to resolve any

particular dispute particular by arbitration dispute by says nothing arbitration says about whether that dispute would satisfy nothing about federal satisfy federal

other basis of question, diversity or any other subject-matter jurisdiction."); of subject-matter Seldin v. Selden, jurisdiction."), Selden 879 F.3d Seldin, 879

(8th Cir. 269, 272 (8th ("An arbitration Cir. 2018) ("An alone, without other arbitration agreement alone, statutory or binding other statutory

divest the federal courts jurisdictional limitations, does not divest of subject matter jurisdiction."). courts of

does not begin with jurisdiction over medical malpractice By contrast, the Superior Court does

claims. See 10 claims. See GCA §§ 10102 10 GCA 10102 ("Any ("Any [medical [medical malpractice] malpractice] claim claim that that accrues or is being pursued

territoryof in the territory Guam... ofGuam submitted to ... shall be submitted mandatory arbitration to mandatory of arbitration pursuant to the terms of

this Chapter .... (emphasisadded). ....")")(emphasis The Superior added). The jurisdiction to hear a medical Superior Court may obtain jurisdiction medical

malpractice malpractice appeal, but only appeal, but only upon upon aa timely timely appeal appeal from from an an "award" "award" under under 10 GCA GCA § 10139(a). lOl39(a). For

that reason, the that reason, policy concerns the policy highlighted by concerns highlighted Wolff would by WoM' not arise would not in the arise in context of the the context

8 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SPOl 11-24, Gurusamy, SP0111-24, Inc.,doing Gurusamy, Inc., doingbusiness businessasasHealth HealthServices Servicesofof thethe Pacyic, Pacific, Brian Brian PA-C, and Cretan, PA-C, Creghan, and Admiral AdmiralInsurance Insurance Company Companyvs.vs. Rose Marie G. Rose Marie G. Maternal Materne

There is MMMAA. There is no no danger danger that that aa crafty crafty party party might seek seek to to nullify nullify aa completed completed medical medical

malpractice malpractice litigation litigation by by belatedly demanding arbitration. arbitration. Such a medical malpractice malpractice litigation

could never commence commence because because the the Superior Superior Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain jurisdiction to entertain it prior

to arbitration.

HSP further argues that that interpreting arbitrability as interpreting arbitrability as aajurisdictional jurisdictionalquestion question would would impinge impinge

upon the parties' parties' freedom-of-contract freedom-of-contract rights. rights. However, However, even assuming assuming that parties parties are are free free to

MMMAA, 3 it is well-established that parties do contract around certain strictures of the MMMAA,3 do not have

the contractual "freedom" to create jurisdiction where it does not otherwise exist. See, e.g., e.g., Kolbe

v. Trudey, v. 1268, 1270 (D. Truden, 945 F. Supp. 1268, 1270 (D. Ariz. 1996) ("The parties cannot agree to invest invest this Court

with subject matter jurisdiction. Either subject subject matter subject matter matter jurisdiction exists or it does not exist, aa isdiction exists

matter independent independentof ofthe theparties' parties'agreement."); Polk County agreement."), Polk v. Sojka, County v. Sofia, 702 So. 2d 1243, 1245 ad 1243, 1245 (Fla.

1997) ("the parties cannot stipulate 1997) stipulate to to jurisdiction jurisdiction over the subject matter where none exists."), exists.");

Judge v. Nijjar Really, Judge Inc., 181 Cal. Rptr. Realty, Inc., Rptr. 3d ad 622 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The parties cannot confer

jurisdiction on an appellate appellate court by consent or stipulation."). This is a logical corollary to the or stipulation.").

principles that (1) (1) parties parties cannot cannot waive waive jurisdiction jurisdiction and (2) comts courts must consider jurisdiction sua sue

sponge if necessary. Telegram sponte if Teleguam Holdings, ,i 19. Guam 55 1] Holdings, 2018 Guam 19. Each Each supports supports the the premise that the

Superior Court's C0u1"r'sjurisdiction jurisdictionisisasasprovided providedby bythe theLegislature-not the litigants. Legislature-not by the

3 3 The parties' The parties' various stipulations-for stipulations-for instance, instance,the theagreement agreementotouse useaasingle singlearbitrator arbitratorrather ratherthan than aa panel of of three arbitrators-appear to three arbitrators-appear to derive derive from from mutual agreementtotouse mutual agreement usethe theMMMAA' MMMAA's waiver waiver provision, provision, 10 10 GCA§§10129. GCA 10129.Since Sincethe theCourt Courthas has determined determined that that it currently lacks it currently jurisdiction over lacks jurisdiction over this this matter, matter, and and since since the issue issue is is not necessary necessaryto to determine determine thetheMotion Motion to Dismiss, thethe Court expresses no opinion opinion as to whether the other stipulations are permissible permissible under theMMMAA. The The Court Court holds only that the the parties' parties' Stipulation Stipulation could not, and did not, create jurisdiction jurisdiction here. here. 9 la Sr

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SP0111-24, Gurusamy, Inc., SP0lll-24, Gurusamy, business as Inc., doing business as Health Health Services Services of of the thePacific, Pacyic, Brian Brian Creghan, Creghan, PA-C, PA-C, and Admiral Insurance Company Admiral Insurance Company vs. vs. Rose Marie Marie G. Maternere

As this Decision Decision and Order Order has explained, explained, HSP'ss appeal appeal presents presents a bona bona fide fide question question

regarding the regarding of the the scope of the Superior Superior Court's Court's appellate appellate jurisdiction. jurisdiction. That That being being so, so, a motion to

dismiss under GRCP l2(b)(l), 12(b)(l),specifically, specifically, isis an an appropriate appropriate vehicle vehicle to to seek seek review review of of that issue.

CONCLUSION

the above Based on the above analysis, analysis, the the Court Court finds finds that that itit lacks lacks subject subject matter matter jurisdiction to

entertain this interlocutory appeal. appeal. The Court therefore GRANTS Mateme's Mateme's Motion Motion to to Dismiss

without prejudice. without prejudice. HSP HSP is is not precluded from not precluded from aa future future appeal, in accordance appeal, in accordance with with 10 GCA §§ 10139, 10 GCA 10139,

after an arbitral award is served sewed on the parties.

SO ORDERED: - - JUL 11s62025 ------ 2025

HON( HON~ .n,,..,.,u,LE D AlA. GUTI EZ Judge,Supe§ior Judge Co rt of (Buam ---- ··- ~