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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
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
6
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,
7
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."').
8
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
9
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.
10
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 ---- ··- ~