FILE
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
JIN YONG YOON, ) CIVIL CASE NO. CVO14O-18 6 ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, ) 7 ) vs. ) 8 ) CHUNG KUN LEE, ) ) 10 Defendant/Counterclaimant. ) 11 ) CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL 12 HYE SUN and JUNG EUN KANG, ) CASE NO. CVO18O-19 ) 13 Plaintiffs, ) 14
15 uN YONG YOON, ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. 16 ) PLAINTIFF JIN YONG YOON’S Defendant, ) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 17
18 JINYONGYOON, ) 19 ) Third Party Plaintiff, ) 20 ) 21 vs. ) ) 22 CHUNGKUN LEE, ) ) 23 Third Party Defendant. ) 24
25 Introduction The matter of Plaintiff un Yong Yoon’s (‘Plaintiff’) Motion for Sanctions came for oral 26
27 argument before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on January 10, 2020. Plaintiff was present,
28 Yoon v. Lee; CVO14O-18 D&O re: Plaintiff Jin Yong Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page 1 of5 . . 1 together with his counsel of record attorney Terry E. Timblin, Esq., of the Law Office of Terry
2 E. Timblin, P.C. Defendant Chung Kun Lee (“Defendant”) was not present at the hearing, but
was represented by counsel Gloria L. Rudolph, Esq., of Lujan & Wolff LLP. Defendant filed an 4 Opposition to the Motion on January 9, 2020; however, this was submitted beyond the filing 5 deadline set in the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam CVR 7.1(d)(1). See Opp’n to Mot. 6 for Sanctions (Jan. 9, 2020). Following oral argument, the Court ruled from the bench,
8 GRANTING the Motion, in part, and DENYING the Motion, in part. The Court now issues the
instant DECISION and ORDER memorializing its oral ruling. 10 Background In this matter, both parties assert mutual claims for Assault and Battery. Plaintiff alleges 12 that on September 7, 2017, Defendant physically struck him in a parking lot in Harmon. Compl. 13 for Assault and Battery (Feb. 7, 2018). Meanwhile, Defendant claims that he was acting in self- 14
15 defense and that Plaintiff struck him first, causing him bodily injury. Answer and Countercl.
16 (Mar.26,2018). 17 On April 25, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to Settlement Court at their request’ and 18 the matter was assigned to the Honorable Linda L. Ingles, who, following a pre-settlement 19 conference scheduled the a Settlement Conference for August 1, 2019. The Settlement 20
21 Conference was subsequently rescheduled for September 26. At the June 18, 2019 pre
22 settlement conference, Referee Ingles ordered that both parties submit a Settlement Conference
23 Statement. Plaintiff submitted his final Settlement Conference Statement on August 6, 2019, but 24 Defendant never submitted the ordered Settlement Conference Statement. 25
27 1 Order Re Settlement Court (Apr. 25, 2019), 28
Yoon v. Lee; CVOI4O-18 D&O re: Plaintiff Jin Yong Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page2of5 1 The Court finds that the following series of events is undisputed: at the September 26,
2 2019 Settlement Conference, Plaintiff and counsel were present. Although Ms. Rudolph was
present, the Defendant was not present at the September 26 Settlement Conference. 4 Consequently, on October 2, 2019, Referee Ingles issued a Notice of Termination of Settlement 5 Conference, finding that “Defendant’s attorney was present, but the Defendant was not and 6
7 Defendant’s attorney did not have settlement authority.” Ntc. of Termination of Settlment Conf.
8 (Oct. 1, 2019)(emphasis added). Referee Ingles then terminated the settlement conference for
9 “failure of the Defendant to comply with CVR 16.6.” Id. 10 On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Sanctions with the Court, Id. 11 at 1-4, seeking sanctions against the Defendant due to his failure to comply with Referee Ingles’s 12 Orders and attend the Settlement Conference. Id. at 3-4. First, Plaintiff asked the Court to enter a 13
14 default judgment against Defendant regarding the issue of liability in this matter. Id. at 3.
15 Second, Plaintiff asked the Court to order that Defendant pay reasonable attorney’s fees in the 16 amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,350.00) for work done in preparation 17 of the Settlement Conference. Id. at 4. 18 At the Motion Hearing, Plaintiff restated the relief requested in the Motion. Minute Entry 19
20 (Jan. 10, 2020). Defendant, through counsel, stated a non-objection to paying the attorney’s fees
21 requested, but did object to the request for a default judgment, arguing that it was too harsh of a
22 sanction. Id. Ruling from the bench, the Court granted the request for attorney’s fees, but denied 23 entry of default judgment as too harsh a sanction under the circumstances presented and for the 24 reasons set forth herein. 25
26 2 In Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff originally asked for One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Dollars ($1,370.00), 27 which included a Twenty Dollar ($20.00) fee for filing the present Motion. However, at the Motion Hearing, Plaintiff informed the Court that he did not incur this fee and amended his requested amount. 28 Yoon V. Lee; CVOI4O-1$ D&O re: Plaintiff Jin Yong Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page 3 of 5 1 Discussion 2 The Guam Rules of Civil Procedure state that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment
3 for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules
and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the partys default.” 5 GRCP 55(a). The Guam Supreme Court has articulated a “strong policy statement generally 6 disfavoring default judgments and in favor of having cases heard on the merits.” Midsea
$ Industrial, Inc. v. HK Engineering, 199$ Guam 14 ¶ 18. The question in this matter is whether
9 Defendant’s willful failure to appear at the Settlement Conference as ordered by Referee Ingles
10 constitutes grounds for the Court to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability. 11 Guam has not addressed the question of whether entry of default is appropriate after a 12 party fails to attend a required settlement conference. However, other jurisdictions have ruled on 13 the issue. In Katantaty v. Mention, 756 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000), the trial court issued a 14
15 default judgment against the Appellant for failure to appeal at a settlement conference. On
16 appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a default judgment was an inappropriate 17 sanction when a party fails to appear at a settlement conference. Id. at 674. The Court explained 1$ that a settlement conference was akin to a pretrial conference. Id. The Court noted that pursuant 19 to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party failed to appear at trial, the appearing 20
21 party could proceed cx parte. Id. However, the Court further noted that a settlement conference is
22 not akin to a trial, as “no record is produced of the proceedings at the conference; an appellate
23 court would be prevented from conducting an effective review of such a proceeding on appeal.” 24 . Id. Thus, despite one party not appearing at a settlement conference, a trial court is not .
25 empowered to conduct an cx parte settlement conference when a defendant fails to appear, only 26 to proceed to trial. Id. 27
Yooi, v. Lee; CVOI4O-18 D&O re: Plaintiff Jin Yone Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page 4 of 5 . 1 Further, the Court in Katantcuy explained that “[a] trial court may not deny a party’s right
2 to a jury trial because his or her attorney failed to attend a pretrial conference; there are many
alternative sanctions which would not pre-empt the innocent litigant’s constitutional right to a 4 jury trial, including the imposition of fines against the attorney...” Id. at 674-75.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILE
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
JIN YONG YOON, ) CIVIL CASE NO. CVO14O-18 6 ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, ) 7 ) vs. ) 8 ) CHUNG KUN LEE, ) ) 10 Defendant/Counterclaimant. ) 11 ) CONSOLIDATED WITH CIVIL 12 HYE SUN and JUNG EUN KANG, ) CASE NO. CVO18O-19 ) 13 Plaintiffs, ) 14
15 uN YONG YOON, ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. 16 ) PLAINTIFF JIN YONG YOON’S Defendant, ) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 17
18 JINYONGYOON, ) 19 ) Third Party Plaintiff, ) 20 ) 21 vs. ) ) 22 CHUNGKUN LEE, ) ) 23 Third Party Defendant. ) 24
25 Introduction The matter of Plaintiff un Yong Yoon’s (‘Plaintiff’) Motion for Sanctions came for oral 26
27 argument before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon on January 10, 2020. Plaintiff was present,
28 Yoon v. Lee; CVO14O-18 D&O re: Plaintiff Jin Yong Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page 1 of5 . . 1 together with his counsel of record attorney Terry E. Timblin, Esq., of the Law Office of Terry
2 E. Timblin, P.C. Defendant Chung Kun Lee (“Defendant”) was not present at the hearing, but
was represented by counsel Gloria L. Rudolph, Esq., of Lujan & Wolff LLP. Defendant filed an 4 Opposition to the Motion on January 9, 2020; however, this was submitted beyond the filing 5 deadline set in the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam CVR 7.1(d)(1). See Opp’n to Mot. 6 for Sanctions (Jan. 9, 2020). Following oral argument, the Court ruled from the bench,
8 GRANTING the Motion, in part, and DENYING the Motion, in part. The Court now issues the
instant DECISION and ORDER memorializing its oral ruling. 10 Background In this matter, both parties assert mutual claims for Assault and Battery. Plaintiff alleges 12 that on September 7, 2017, Defendant physically struck him in a parking lot in Harmon. Compl. 13 for Assault and Battery (Feb. 7, 2018). Meanwhile, Defendant claims that he was acting in self- 14
15 defense and that Plaintiff struck him first, causing him bodily injury. Answer and Countercl.
16 (Mar.26,2018). 17 On April 25, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to Settlement Court at their request’ and 18 the matter was assigned to the Honorable Linda L. Ingles, who, following a pre-settlement 19 conference scheduled the a Settlement Conference for August 1, 2019. The Settlement 20
21 Conference was subsequently rescheduled for September 26. At the June 18, 2019 pre
22 settlement conference, Referee Ingles ordered that both parties submit a Settlement Conference
23 Statement. Plaintiff submitted his final Settlement Conference Statement on August 6, 2019, but 24 Defendant never submitted the ordered Settlement Conference Statement. 25
27 1 Order Re Settlement Court (Apr. 25, 2019), 28
Yoon v. Lee; CVOI4O-18 D&O re: Plaintiff Jin Yong Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page2of5 1 The Court finds that the following series of events is undisputed: at the September 26,
2 2019 Settlement Conference, Plaintiff and counsel were present. Although Ms. Rudolph was
present, the Defendant was not present at the September 26 Settlement Conference. 4 Consequently, on October 2, 2019, Referee Ingles issued a Notice of Termination of Settlement 5 Conference, finding that “Defendant’s attorney was present, but the Defendant was not and 6
7 Defendant’s attorney did not have settlement authority.” Ntc. of Termination of Settlment Conf.
8 (Oct. 1, 2019)(emphasis added). Referee Ingles then terminated the settlement conference for
9 “failure of the Defendant to comply with CVR 16.6.” Id. 10 On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Sanctions with the Court, Id. 11 at 1-4, seeking sanctions against the Defendant due to his failure to comply with Referee Ingles’s 12 Orders and attend the Settlement Conference. Id. at 3-4. First, Plaintiff asked the Court to enter a 13
14 default judgment against Defendant regarding the issue of liability in this matter. Id. at 3.
15 Second, Plaintiff asked the Court to order that Defendant pay reasonable attorney’s fees in the 16 amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,350.00) for work done in preparation 17 of the Settlement Conference. Id. at 4. 18 At the Motion Hearing, Plaintiff restated the relief requested in the Motion. Minute Entry 19
20 (Jan. 10, 2020). Defendant, through counsel, stated a non-objection to paying the attorney’s fees
21 requested, but did object to the request for a default judgment, arguing that it was too harsh of a
22 sanction. Id. Ruling from the bench, the Court granted the request for attorney’s fees, but denied 23 entry of default judgment as too harsh a sanction under the circumstances presented and for the 24 reasons set forth herein. 25
26 2 In Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff originally asked for One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Dollars ($1,370.00), 27 which included a Twenty Dollar ($20.00) fee for filing the present Motion. However, at the Motion Hearing, Plaintiff informed the Court that he did not incur this fee and amended his requested amount. 28 Yoon V. Lee; CVOI4O-1$ D&O re: Plaintiff Jin Yong Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page 3 of 5 1 Discussion 2 The Guam Rules of Civil Procedure state that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment
3 for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules
and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the partys default.” 5 GRCP 55(a). The Guam Supreme Court has articulated a “strong policy statement generally 6 disfavoring default judgments and in favor of having cases heard on the merits.” Midsea
$ Industrial, Inc. v. HK Engineering, 199$ Guam 14 ¶ 18. The question in this matter is whether
9 Defendant’s willful failure to appear at the Settlement Conference as ordered by Referee Ingles
10 constitutes grounds for the Court to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability. 11 Guam has not addressed the question of whether entry of default is appropriate after a 12 party fails to attend a required settlement conference. However, other jurisdictions have ruled on 13 the issue. In Katantaty v. Mention, 756 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000), the trial court issued a 14
15 default judgment against the Appellant for failure to appeal at a settlement conference. On
16 appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a default judgment was an inappropriate 17 sanction when a party fails to appear at a settlement conference. Id. at 674. The Court explained 1$ that a settlement conference was akin to a pretrial conference. Id. The Court noted that pursuant 19 to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party failed to appear at trial, the appearing 20
21 party could proceed cx parte. Id. However, the Court further noted that a settlement conference is
22 not akin to a trial, as “no record is produced of the proceedings at the conference; an appellate
23 court would be prevented from conducting an effective review of such a proceeding on appeal.” 24 . Id. Thus, despite one party not appearing at a settlement conference, a trial court is not .
25 empowered to conduct an cx parte settlement conference when a defendant fails to appear, only 26 to proceed to trial. Id. 27
Yooi, v. Lee; CVOI4O-18 D&O re: Plaintiff Jin Yone Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page 4 of 5 . 1 Further, the Court in Katantcuy explained that “[a] trial court may not deny a party’s right
2 to a jury trial because his or her attorney failed to attend a pretrial conference; there are many
alternative sanctions which would not pre-empt the innocent litigant’s constitutional right to a 4 jury trial, including the imposition of fines against the attorney...” Id. at 674-75. The Court 5 therein continued, “[t]here is simply is no authority in the Rules of Civil Procedure or elsewhere 6 for the proposition that a trial court may summarily enter judgment against a defendant who fails
8 to appear for a settlement conference.” Id. at 675.
9 Additionally, the Court in Rearden Family Trttst v. Wisenbaker, 65 P.3d 1029 (Haw. 10 2003) came to a similar conclusion. In that case, the trial court entered default against Defendant 11 Appellant for failure to appear at a final settlement conference. Id. at 1045. The trial court later 12 denied Defendant’s Motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to the federal Rules of 13
14 Civil Procedure, Rule 60. Id. On final appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that “the court
15 had the discretion, subject to review, to levy lesser sanctions for Defendant’s original failure to 16 attend settlement conferences in person.” Id. at 1047. 17 However, the Hawaii Supreme Court also determined that the trial court’s denial of the 18 Rule 60 Motion to set aside default was an abuse of discretion. Id. “Under the foregoing 19
20 circumstances, the denial of Defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment ‘exceed[ed] the
21 bounds of reason.” Id. (citing Shanghai mv. Co., Inc. v. Alteka Co., Ltd., 993 P.2d 516, 525
22 (Haw. 2000)). The Court held that lesser sanctions for Defendant’s nonappearance at a 23 settlement conference, such as ordering reasonable attorney’s fees, would “better serve the 24 interests of justice.” Id. 25 This Court finds those cases instructive. In the case at bar, Plaintiff asks the Court to 26
27 issue a default judgment on the issue of liability due to Defendant’s willful nonappearance at the
28 Yoon v. Lee; CVOI4O-18 D&O re: Plaintiff un Yong Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page 5 of 5 . 1 Settlement Conference. However, while Guam has not addressed the question, the Court is
2 persuaded by the rulings in the cases cited herein. It is incontrovertible that Defendant’s failure
to appear at the Settlement Conference despite an order from both this Court and Referee Ingles 4 is inexcusable and grounds to impose a sanction for such blatant disregard of a court order. 5 However, this Court finds that entering default against the Defendant on the issue of liability 6 without allowing a trial on the merits is far too harsh a sanction given the Court’s “strong policy
$ statement generally disfavoring default judgments and in favor of having cases heard on the
merits.” Midsea, 199$ Guam 14 ¶ 1$. For these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion 10 for Sanctions with regard to the Plaintiffs request for an entry of default judgment against the 11 Defendant. 12
13 Conclusion Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for 14
15 Sanctions with regard to Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of One Thousand
16 Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,350.00). However, the Court DENIES the Motion with regard 17 to the entry of default on the issue of liability in this matter. Further, pursuant to a separate order 1$ of this Court GRANTING the Motion to Consolidate in CVOY8O-19, all subsequent pleadings 19 and other documents shall be filed under the Civil Case No. CVO14O-18 and captioned as set 20
21 forth above. •1D fl 7 ‘non 22 SO ORDERED this W 4 nunc pro tune January 10, 2020.
25 SERVtCE VA CORT fl> HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON acnoMuge that a A,p 26 ornlrag ereto w JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM DOLJrI oxo -
OUtCrkSdp r Yoon v. Lee; CVOI4O-18 ret Plaintiff Jin Yong Yoon’s Motion for Sanctions Page 6 of 5