Leon Guerrero v. Ji

Opinion

t ......ED ·:p - SUPERIOR COURT .~r"" 1 \I I I'.~ I \I

70!Q JUL -7 P~1 /.1: 23 2 CLEHI< r...; 3 BY:_ --t:-:A- ~-...___ 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 5 OF GUAM 6 MARIA D. LEON GUERRERO, ) Civil Case no. CV0832- 12 7 ) Plaintiff, ) 8 ) vs. ) 9 DECISION AND ORDER ) JAMES Jl, 10 ) Defendant. ) II ___________________________) 12

13 INTRODUCTION 14 Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam, Defendant's 15 motion to withdraw was taken under advisement by the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo 16 on April 16, 20 14. Defendant was represented by attorney Ron Moroni. Plaintiff was 17 represented by attorney Anita Arriola. After having carefully considered, received, and 18

19 reviewed the arguments, papers, and the file herein, the Court again grants Defendant's motion.

20 It further enters other orders in accordance with the Superior Court of Guam's Administrative 21 Rule No. 13-003. 22 BACKGROUND 23 This case anses out of Plaintiff's July 11, 2012, Complaint for breach of contract, 24 negligence, declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff's causes of action are based in allegations 25

26 surrounding a home renovation contract. Default was entered against Defendant on August 28,

27 2012. The default was set aside by stipulation and Defendant filed a Verified Answer and

28 Counterclaim on January 31 , 2013.

Page I of4 On August I, 2012, the mater was assigned to the court's Master Calendar Case and on 2 August 28, 2012, a Default Judgment was signed and entered by the Honorable Magistrate 3 Alberto E. Tolentino. By stipulation of the Parties, signed on January 16 and 17, 2013, the 4 default judgment was agreed to be set aside. Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaim and 5 Plaintiff filed an Answer to Defendant's pleading and a motion to dismiss and sanction. On 6 March 6, 2013, the matter was assigned to the Honrable Judge Arthur Barcinas. On March II, 7 2013, pursuant to 7 GCA §§ 6105 and 6107, Judge Barcinas filed a notice of recusal. The 8 notice of recusal was found insufficient by the Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena on March 9 26,2013. 10 On July 29, 2013, pursuant to 7 GCA §§ 6105 and 6106 Judge Barcinas filed a II

12 Disqualification Memorandum and Order requiring that the parties file a Notice of Consent or

13 Non-Consent to Judge's Barcinas' explanation of possible disqualifying facts. Subsequently the

14 case was re-assigned to this Court on September 3, 2013.

15 On October 25, 2013, the Court signed and filed an order disposing of the Parties' pending 16 motions and specifically granting Attorney Ron Moroni's motion to withdraw. The order was 17 entered on October 28, 2013. In conjunction with the Court's filing of its decision and order 18 granting Attorney Moroni's motion to withdraw, Attorney Moroni filed a paper requesting that 19 his motion to withdraw as counsel of record be voided. On the same day of the Parties also 20 filed a paper indicating that they had reached an agreement regarding the pending motions. The 21 paper indicated that the Defendant had agreed to dismiss count II of his counterclaim in 22 consideration for Plaintiff withdrawing her motion for fees and sanctions, unknowingly already 23 denied by the Court. 24 On December 27, 2013 Attorney Moroni again filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of 25 record in this matter. In support of his motion Attorney Moroni asserts that Defendant has 26 indicated he is unwilling to pay the fees agreed upon in the retainer agreement and that 27 Defendant has insisted upon a course of action which Attorney Moroni fundamentally 28 disagrees. Page 2 of4 Defendant requests that Attorney Moroni not be allowed to withdraw as counsel until the terms 2 of the settlement agreement which the Parties filed on October 25,2013, are enforced or Count 3 II of Defendant's counterclaim is otherwise dismissed. 4 Defendant did not file a reply to Plaintiffs opposition paper. However, on February 10, 5 2014, the Parties filed a stipulation to dismiss count II of Defendant's counterclaim with 6 prejudice. 7 DISCUSSION 8 It appears from the Court's review of the papers herein that all motions currently pending 9 before this Court have been resolved. The Court therefore finds the Plaintiffs reasons for 10

II opposing Attorney Moroni's request are moot. Furthermore it finds that he has asserted

12 sufficient undisputed facts to support an order allowing his withdrawal. 13 Because ofthe unusual facts of this case: 14 I) the entry and setting aside of default; 15 2) the recent resolution of the contentious issue ofSLAPP sanctions; 16

17 3) the multiple motions to withdraw filed by Defendant's counsel; and

18 4) the multiple assignments of judges; 19 the Court finds for purposes of the Guam Supreme Court's Administrative rule 13-003 the 20 starting date of this case should begin at the date of the Court ordered and entered the Parties 21 stipulation to setting aside the default judgment, November 18, 2013. Accordingly the Parties 22

23 shall have a maximum of 180 to 540 days to resolve this matter from the November date.

24 II 25 II 26

Page 3 of 4 CONCLUSION

2 Based on the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 3 Additionally the Parties are hereby ordered to submit stipulated or separate scheduling and 4 discovery orders within 20 days of the entry of this order. Further proceedings shall be set in 5

6 this matter on JuL.'{ ____:.~ --=--~--' 2014, at _ Cf.;.._____ t\. m. 7

day of_---=J ~ iu_t...-tj'------ 2014. 8 SO ORDERED, this ":::f- 9

II

13 Judge, Superior Court of Guam

15 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 16

Page4of4