FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAtvI 1 2q22 APR I I PM 2:514 2 CLERK OF COURT
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
5 LETITIA S. LUJAN, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0308-14 6 (consolidated with C$0072-19 & CS0202-18) Plaintiff, 7 vs. 8 STEVEN E. SHIMIZU, DECISION AND ORDER 9 (Deftndant Motion for Jttdgment Re. Child Defendant. Support Arrears; Wage Assignment Order, 10 Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs)
11 INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas for a motion hearing on the 13 Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Re: Child Support Arrears; Wage Assignment Order; 14 Motion for Attorneys fees and Costs on february 1, 2022. Defendant Steven E. Shimizu 15 (“Defendant”) was represented by Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr. Plaintiff Letitia S. Lujan 16 (“Plaintiff’) was represented by Attorney James M. Maher. 17 Having considered the arguments and applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS 18 Defendant’s request for Judgment Re: Child Support Arrears and GRANTS Defendant’s 19 request for Wage Assignment Order for Plaintiffs support obligation of $675.16 per month. 20 Defendant is ORDERED to submit an updated Wage Assignment Order and/or Judgment 21 within fifteen (15) days of this Decision and Order. The Court further GRANTS the 22 Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s fees and awards Defendant $30,000.00 in attorney’s fees 23 and $5,454.08 in costs. 24
Page 1 of7 1 BACKGROUND
2 The Court hereinafter adopts the factual and procedural background as laid out in the
3 (Amended) findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Amended FfCL”) issued on October
4 28, 2021. Defense counsel subsequently filed the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Re: Child
5 Support Arrears; Wage Assignment Order; Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on
6 November 5, 2021. Defendant’s Statement of Costs was also filed on November 5, 2021. A
7 proposed Judgment for Child Support Arrears was submitted on October 29, 2021. On
8 December 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Opposition, followed by Defendant’s reply filed on
9 December 17, 2021. A motion hearing was held on February 1, 2022, after which the Court
10 took the matter under advisement.
11 DISCUSSION
12 I. The Court grants the Defendant’s request for Judgment and Wage Assignment Order. 13 Guam law provides that “[w]henever the Superior Court makes a finding that an obligor 14 is delinquent in child support payments and incorporates that finding in an order, the order shall 15 be automatically reduced to judgment.” See 5 G.C.A. § 34129. The Court issued the Amended 16 FFCL on October 28, 2021, awarding child support to the Defendant dating back to June 1, 17 2016. In light of this award, Defendant requests that the Court issue Judgment in the amount of 18 $63,777.08 for the Defendant, which represents Plaintiffs child support obligation through 19 October 2021. The Plaintiff does not oppose or otherwise object to the proposed Judgment filed 20 on October 29, 2021. 21 Defendant further requests that the Court issue a Wage and Earnings Assignment Order 22 for Plaintiffs current child support obligation of $675.16 per month. Guam law provides as 23 follows: 24
Page 2 of 7 1 In any proceeding where the court has ordered either or both parents to pay any amount of child support which is being enforced, the court shall order either or both parents to 2 assign to the appropriate government agency which is receiving support payments on behalf of obligees that portion of the salary or wages of that parent due or to be due in 3 the future as will be sufficient to pay the amount ordered by the court
4 See 5 G.C.A. § 34132. The Amended ffCL provided a current child support obligation of
5 $675.16 per month. Plaintiff does not oppose or otherwise object to the proposed Wage
6 Assignment Order. As such, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for Judgment Re: Child
7 Support Arrears and GRANTS Defendant’s request for Wage Assignment Order for Plaintiffs
$ support obligation of $675.16 per month. Defendant is ORDERED to submit an updated Wage
9 Assignment Order and/or Judgment within fifteen (15) days of this Decision and Order.
10 II. The Court grants Defendant 530K in attorney’s fees based on the equity exception to the American Rule. 11 In Guam, the awarding of attorney’s fees is governed by the “American Rule,” which 12 provides that each party bears their own litigation expenses. Fleming v. Quigley, 2003 Guam 4, 13 ¶J 7, 35. Several exceptions to this rule are recognized, and if an exception applies, fee-shifting 14 is permitted. Id. ¶ 7. Exceptions to the American rule include the following: “where attorney’s 15 fees are: (1) authorized by statute, (2) authorized by contract, or (3) allowed in judicially- 16 established equitable circumstances.” Id. (citing Young v. Redman, 128 Cal.Rptr. 86, 91 (Ct. 17 App. 1976). 18 In the instant case, the Court finds that fee-shifting is permitted due to equitable 19 considerations. “[C]ourts have the inherent discretionary power to award attorney’s fees in 20 accordance with equitable principles in specified circumstances.” Fleming, 2003 Guam 4 ¶ 32; 21 see also Matter of Guardianship ofMovlan, 2018 Guam 8 ¶ 24. “The commonly 22 recognized equitable exceptions to the American Rule include the common fund, substantial 23
Page 3 of 7 1 benefit, private attorney general, third-party tort, and bad faith theories of recovery.” Fleming,
2 2003 Guam 4 ¶ 7 n.3.
3 The Supreme Court of the United States has held that “a federal court may award
4 counsel fees to a successful party when his opponent has acted ‘in bad faith, vexatiously,
5 wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 7, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d
6 702 (1973); see also In re Itel Sec. Litig., 596 F. Supp. 226, 233 (N.D. Cal. 1984), affd, 791
7 f.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1986). “[A]n award of attorney’s fees is justified when reckless conduct is
8 combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose.”
9 Ibrahim v. US. Dep’t ofHomeland Sec., 912 f.3d 1147, 1180—81(9th Cir. 2019) (quoting
10 Rodriguez v. United States, 542 F.3d 704, 709 (9th Cir. 2008)). “[A]cting without justification
11 qualifies as vexatious behavior that can support the award of attorneys’ fees....” Prince v.
12 Co/yin, 94 F. Supp. 3d 787, 801 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting Seals v. Herzinglnc.-New Orleans,
13 482 fed.Appx. 893, 897 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted). As the Prince court
14 explained:
15 [A]n award of attorney’s fees is justified when reckless conduct is combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose; that [a] 16 frivolous case is one that is groundless with little prospect of success; often brought to ...
embarrass or annoy the defendant; and that a case is frivolous when the government’s 17 position was foreclosed by binding precedent or so obviously wrong as to be frivolous.
18 Prince v. Colvin, 94 F. Supp. 3d 787, 802 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (internal citations omitted). “Either
19 the lack of legal foundation or the abusive nature of litigation tactics employed by a party could
20 support an award of attorneys’ fees against it.” In re Owners of Harvey Oil Ctr., 788 f.2d 275,
21 279 (5th Cir. 1986).
22 Here, the Parties litigated a simple child support matter for over five years. Defendant
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAtvI 1 2q22 APR I I PM 2:514 2 CLERK OF COURT
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
5 LETITIA S. LUJAN, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0308-14 6 (consolidated with C$0072-19 & CS0202-18) Plaintiff, 7 vs. 8 STEVEN E. SHIMIZU, DECISION AND ORDER 9 (Deftndant Motion for Jttdgment Re. Child Defendant. Support Arrears; Wage Assignment Order, 10 Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs)
11 INTRODUCTION 12 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas for a motion hearing on the 13 Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Re: Child Support Arrears; Wage Assignment Order; 14 Motion for Attorneys fees and Costs on february 1, 2022. Defendant Steven E. Shimizu 15 (“Defendant”) was represented by Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr. Plaintiff Letitia S. Lujan 16 (“Plaintiff’) was represented by Attorney James M. Maher. 17 Having considered the arguments and applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS 18 Defendant’s request for Judgment Re: Child Support Arrears and GRANTS Defendant’s 19 request for Wage Assignment Order for Plaintiffs support obligation of $675.16 per month. 20 Defendant is ORDERED to submit an updated Wage Assignment Order and/or Judgment 21 within fifteen (15) days of this Decision and Order. The Court further GRANTS the 22 Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s fees and awards Defendant $30,000.00 in attorney’s fees 23 and $5,454.08 in costs. 24
Page 1 of7 1 BACKGROUND
2 The Court hereinafter adopts the factual and procedural background as laid out in the
3 (Amended) findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Amended FfCL”) issued on October
4 28, 2021. Defense counsel subsequently filed the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Re: Child
5 Support Arrears; Wage Assignment Order; Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on
6 November 5, 2021. Defendant’s Statement of Costs was also filed on November 5, 2021. A
7 proposed Judgment for Child Support Arrears was submitted on October 29, 2021. On
8 December 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Opposition, followed by Defendant’s reply filed on
9 December 17, 2021. A motion hearing was held on February 1, 2022, after which the Court
10 took the matter under advisement.
11 DISCUSSION
12 I. The Court grants the Defendant’s request for Judgment and Wage Assignment Order. 13 Guam law provides that “[w]henever the Superior Court makes a finding that an obligor 14 is delinquent in child support payments and incorporates that finding in an order, the order shall 15 be automatically reduced to judgment.” See 5 G.C.A. § 34129. The Court issued the Amended 16 FFCL on October 28, 2021, awarding child support to the Defendant dating back to June 1, 17 2016. In light of this award, Defendant requests that the Court issue Judgment in the amount of 18 $63,777.08 for the Defendant, which represents Plaintiffs child support obligation through 19 October 2021. The Plaintiff does not oppose or otherwise object to the proposed Judgment filed 20 on October 29, 2021. 21 Defendant further requests that the Court issue a Wage and Earnings Assignment Order 22 for Plaintiffs current child support obligation of $675.16 per month. Guam law provides as 23 follows: 24
Page 2 of 7 1 In any proceeding where the court has ordered either or both parents to pay any amount of child support which is being enforced, the court shall order either or both parents to 2 assign to the appropriate government agency which is receiving support payments on behalf of obligees that portion of the salary or wages of that parent due or to be due in 3 the future as will be sufficient to pay the amount ordered by the court
4 See 5 G.C.A. § 34132. The Amended ffCL provided a current child support obligation of
5 $675.16 per month. Plaintiff does not oppose or otherwise object to the proposed Wage
6 Assignment Order. As such, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for Judgment Re: Child
7 Support Arrears and GRANTS Defendant’s request for Wage Assignment Order for Plaintiffs
$ support obligation of $675.16 per month. Defendant is ORDERED to submit an updated Wage
9 Assignment Order and/or Judgment within fifteen (15) days of this Decision and Order.
10 II. The Court grants Defendant 530K in attorney’s fees based on the equity exception to the American Rule. 11 In Guam, the awarding of attorney’s fees is governed by the “American Rule,” which 12 provides that each party bears their own litigation expenses. Fleming v. Quigley, 2003 Guam 4, 13 ¶J 7, 35. Several exceptions to this rule are recognized, and if an exception applies, fee-shifting 14 is permitted. Id. ¶ 7. Exceptions to the American rule include the following: “where attorney’s 15 fees are: (1) authorized by statute, (2) authorized by contract, or (3) allowed in judicially- 16 established equitable circumstances.” Id. (citing Young v. Redman, 128 Cal.Rptr. 86, 91 (Ct. 17 App. 1976). 18 In the instant case, the Court finds that fee-shifting is permitted due to equitable 19 considerations. “[C]ourts have the inherent discretionary power to award attorney’s fees in 20 accordance with equitable principles in specified circumstances.” Fleming, 2003 Guam 4 ¶ 32; 21 see also Matter of Guardianship ofMovlan, 2018 Guam 8 ¶ 24. “The commonly 22 recognized equitable exceptions to the American Rule include the common fund, substantial 23
Page 3 of 7 1 benefit, private attorney general, third-party tort, and bad faith theories of recovery.” Fleming,
2 2003 Guam 4 ¶ 7 n.3.
3 The Supreme Court of the United States has held that “a federal court may award
4 counsel fees to a successful party when his opponent has acted ‘in bad faith, vexatiously,
5 wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 7, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d
6 702 (1973); see also In re Itel Sec. Litig., 596 F. Supp. 226, 233 (N.D. Cal. 1984), affd, 791
7 f.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1986). “[A]n award of attorney’s fees is justified when reckless conduct is
8 combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose.”
9 Ibrahim v. US. Dep’t ofHomeland Sec., 912 f.3d 1147, 1180—81(9th Cir. 2019) (quoting
10 Rodriguez v. United States, 542 F.3d 704, 709 (9th Cir. 2008)). “[A]cting without justification
11 qualifies as vexatious behavior that can support the award of attorneys’ fees....” Prince v.
12 Co/yin, 94 F. Supp. 3d 787, 801 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting Seals v. Herzinglnc.-New Orleans,
13 482 fed.Appx. 893, 897 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted). As the Prince court
14 explained:
15 [A]n award of attorney’s fees is justified when reckless conduct is combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose; that [a] 16 frivolous case is one that is groundless with little prospect of success; often brought to ...
embarrass or annoy the defendant; and that a case is frivolous when the government’s 17 position was foreclosed by binding precedent or so obviously wrong as to be frivolous.
18 Prince v. Colvin, 94 F. Supp. 3d 787, 802 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (internal citations omitted). “Either
19 the lack of legal foundation or the abusive nature of litigation tactics employed by a party could
20 support an award of attorneys’ fees against it.” In re Owners of Harvey Oil Ctr., 788 f.2d 275,
21 279 (5th Cir. 1986).
22 Here, the Parties litigated a simple child support matter for over five years. Defendant
23 filed his Motion to Modify Child Support, along with his supporting Child Support Worksheet
24 on June 1, 2016. This worksheet indicated Defendant’s annual salary was $44,000.00, and
Page 4 of 7 1 Plaintiffs annual income was $100,000.00. In Defendant’s worksheet, Plaintiffs child support
2 obligation for the three (3) minor children was $1,329.10. Plaintiff disputed this income
3 information and did not pay any child support despite being ordered to pay temporary child
4 support in the amount of $1,000.00 per month by Referee Linda Ingles on June 7, 2017. See
5 (Amended) FfCL (Oct. 28, 2021) p. 2, ¶ 4. The parties engaged in extensive discovery related
6 to income information, including depositions, over the span of five (5) years. Id. pp. 4—5, ¶
7 10—11. Since then, three of the four children have aged out and attained the age of eighteen. Id.
8 p. 1, ¶ 1. The Court ultimately determined that in 2016 Steven’s income was about $48,751.00
9 and Letitia’s income was about $101,647.20, which is very similar to the amounts claimed in
10 Defendant’s original 2016 Child Support Worksheets. Id. p. 13, ¶J l0—1l.The Court found a
11 June 2016 child support obligation of $1,157.55, which is only a $171.55 difference from the
12 amount calculated in Defendant’s June 1, 2016 Child Support Worksheet. This shows that the
13 Defendant’s calculations for child support have been on par with the Child Support Guidelines
14 since his initial Motion to Modify Child Support filed in 2016.
15 Had Plaintiff acknowledged her obligations under the Child Support Guidelines in
16 2016, such extensive, vexatious, and burdensome litigation could have been avoided. Instead,
17 Plaintiff vigorously litigated this matter. Plaintiff appeared to reduce her income by over 50%
18 between 2017 to 2019 and made a concerted effort to reduce her income by placing assets and
19 properties in the LL & GC Trust. Amended FFCL, pp. 7—8, ¶J 17—18. In considering the
20 totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff engaged in vexatious and bad faith
21 litigation. Meanwhile, Defendant spent approximately $99,000.00 in attorney’s fees to obtain
22 roughly $63,777.08 in child support that he was clearly entitled to under the Child Support
23 Guidelines. See Def.’s Submission of Attorney’s Fees Under Seal (Feb. 3, 2022). For these
24 reasons, and after a consideration of the evidence presented, the Court finds that equity
Page 5 of 7 1 warrants an award of Defendant’s attorney’s fees, and that $30,000 is a reasonable amount
2 when taking into account the length of the litigation, the difficulty in ascertaining both parties’
3 incomes, and the overall attorney’s fee amount.
4 The Court, finding that judicial equity weighs in favor of awarding a reasonable amount
5 of Defendant’s attorney’s fees, ORDERS Plaintiff to pay $30,000.00 in Defendant’s attorney’s
6 fees. As the Court’s holding relative to the equity exception to the American Rule is dispositive
7 of the attorney’s fee issue, the Court need not address the remaining arguments related to the
$ remaining exceptions to the American Rule.
9 III. The Court grants costs to the Defendant in the amount of $5,454.08 pursuant to GRCP 54(d)(1). 10 Guam Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(d)(1) provides that costs other than attorney’s 11 fees shall generally be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs, or 12 except when otherwise provided for in statute or the civil rules. Guam R. Civ. P. 54(d)(l). 13 When determining prevailing party status for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees, the court 14 should look at the lawsuit as a whole to determine which party prevailed. Rahmani v. Park, 15 2011 Guam 7 ¶ 64. The prevailing party is generally the one who successfully prosecutes or 16 defends an action and who prevails on the merits of the main issue. Id. ¶ 61 (citing Am. Jur. 2d 17 Costs § 11(2010). 1$ Here, the Court finds that Defendant is the prevailing party as Defendant received 19 favorable judgment through the Court’s awarding to the Defendant of child support dating back 20 to 2016. Defendant received nearly the precise amount he requested from the Court. This was 21 after five (5) years of litigating the sole issue of child support. Defendant also successfully 22 appealed Judge Benjamin Sison’s decision concerning this issue. Thus, when viewing the case 23 as a whole, Defendant clearly successfully prevailed on the main issue before the Court. 24
Page 6 of 7 1 Because Defendant is the prevailing party, he is entitled to an award for costs in the amount of
2 $5,454.08. See Def.’s Statement of Costs (Nov. 5, 2021).
4 CONCLUSION
5 For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s request for
6 Judgment Re: Child Support Arrears and GRANTS Defendant’s request for Wage Assignment
7 Order for Plaintiffs support obligation of $675.16 per month. Defendant is ORDERED to
8 submit an updated Wage Assignment Order and/or Judgment within fifleen (15) days of this
9 Decision and Order. The Court further GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
10 and awards Defendant $30,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $5,454.08 in costs.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED APR I ‘D22 L =
14 ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 16 copy of the original was e-mailed to: GL i4laA,,, ‘9ç -.
17 1;*i Iir,. Date:hl’/’hh/2t 1$
19 Deputy Clerk, Sunerior Court of Guam
Page 7 of 7