McDonald v. Gov Guam

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF GUAM

2

3 JON B MCDONALD, ALMA S ) Civil Case ho.CV0223-1 0 4 MCDONALD, ESTATE OF DOMINGO )

BAE GUERRERO, ESTATE OF JOSE C )

5 PEREDO, JOSE G PERDO, )

DECISION AND ORDER

)

6 Plaintiffs, )

7 vs. )

)

8 )

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, FELIX P CAMACHO, )

9 )

10 Defendants.

II INTRODUCTION

I2 This matter is before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of 13 the Court's local rules Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was taken under I4 advisement by the Court on August 04, 2013. Defendant was represented by Assistant 15

I6 Attorney General Kathy A. Fokas. Plaintiff was represented by Peter C. Perez. After

I7 considering the matters presented, the Court now issues the following decision DENYING 18 Defendant's motion for their failure to adequately develop their request.

19 BACKGROUND

20 The instant action stems from a 7 GCA § 11311.1 inverse condemnation action brought 21

1

by the Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on the behalf of a class of persons similarly situated.

22 In their pleading Plaintiffs' alleged that between August 1, 1950 and July 1, 1994, the 23 Government of Guam expropriated private lands, including those owned by Plaintiffs, for 24 public purposes without providing just compensation to the land owners.

25 Summary Judgment Papers 26 On January 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a paper entitled Motion for Partial Summary 27

28

Page I of5

Judgment. In its papers Defendant requests that the Court enter a partial order of summary 2 judgment on the following issues:

3 1. Plaintiffs are the fee simple owners of the properties respectively claimed;

4 2. The government of Guam expropriated for public purposes Plaintiffs' respective private properties;

5 3. The expropriations occurred between August 1, 1950 and July I, 1994.

6 4. The government of Guam did not make payment to Plaintiffs respectively of just compensation;

7 5. The government of Guam has not implemented, administered, enforced, or fully complied with Public Laws 22-73 and 23-128;

8 6. Neither the government of Guam nor the Governor have complied with Public Law 22-

9 73 which requires that they shall immediately research and compile an exhaustive list of all private property which has been taken by the various agencies and departments of the 10 government of Guam since 1945 and for which either no compensation or grossly inadequate compensation has been given, either in terms of money or by land II exchanges.

12 Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the following issues:

13 1. That the government of Guam and the Governor of Guam implement, administer, 14 enforce, and fully comply with Public Law 22-73 and 23-128;

15 2. Award Plaintiffs and the class Plaintiffs represent just compensation in payment for each of their respective private properties expropriated.

16

17 In support of these requests Plaintiffs cite to the standards which the Guam Supreme Court has

18 held apply when moving for and deciding upon a motion for summary judgment. They next in

19 a seven-page section entitled, Rule 56 Materials appear to have re-typed and inserted, without 20 any analysis, their complaint, and the Defendant Government of Guam's answer, and 21 opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. This section subsequently also contains 22

23 a narrative of Plaintiffs' Freedom of Information Requests/Sunshine act requests and an

24 verbatim two-page insertion of the U.S. Department of the Interior Inspector General's 25 The next five pages of November 1992 Audit Report recommendations and findings.

26 Plaintiff's brief include, without analysis: 1) re-typed complete or partial portions of the U.S.

27

28 1 On May 28, 2013 the Court entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Page 2 ofS

Constitution and the US Code: 2) Guam Public Laws 22-73 Sections one, two, and nine; 3)

2 Section 11311.1 of Title 7 of the Guam Code; and 4) one page of block quoted language from 3 the Guam Supreme Court's opinion in Cepeda v. Government ofGuam, 2005 Guam 11, ~~ 16-

4 17. Last, Plaintiffs assert, without any analytical argument of the possible essential elements of 5

6 the legal conclusions contained therein, that there are no genuine issues of material fact

7 regarding the following issues: 8 1. Plaintiffs are fee simple owners of the properties respectively claimed;

9 2. The government of Guam expropriated for public purpose Plaintiffs' respective private properties;

10 3. The expropriations occurred between August 1, 1950 and July 1, 1994;

II 4. The government of Guam did not make payment to Plaintiffs respectively of just compensation;

12 5. The government of Guam has not implemented, administered, enforced, or fully complied with Public Laws 22-73 and 23-128;

13 6. Neither the government of Guam nor the Governor have complied with Public Law 22-

14 73.

15 Plaintiffs conclude by asserting their entitlement to summary finding that: 1) the Defendants 16 must implement, administer, enforce and fully comply with Public Laws 22-73 and 23-128;

17 and 2) Award Plaintiffs and the class Plaintiffs represent just compensation in payment for 18 each of their respective private properties expropriated.

19

20 Defendants filed their opposition on June 4, 2013. In it Defendants assert that the

21 arguments and relief requested by Plaintiffs in their motion were also raised and denied in the 22 Court's May 28, 2013 Decision and Order regarding Plaintiffs' motion for class certification 23 and writ of mandamus. Accordingly, Defendants reason that the Plaintiffs' requests should be 24 denied. Defendants further list the elements of an inverse condemnation claim and cite to 25

26 specific portions of the Court's May 28, 2013 order which they argue create disputed issues of

27 material fact. 28

and writ of mandamus.

Page 3 of5

Plaintiffs did not file a reply.

2 DISCUSSION

3 Rule 56 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure regulates when a court may grant 4 summary judgment. Guam R. Civ. P. 56. Summary Judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, 5

6 deposition, interrogatories and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any show that

7 there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 8 judgment as a matter of law. Guam R. Civ. P. 56(c). Izuka Corp. V Kawasho International, 9 (Guam), Inc., 1997 Guam 10, ~7.

10 [A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of II informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those 12 portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes 13 demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 14 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

15 In rendering its decision on a motion for summary judgment, a court must draw 16

17 inferences and view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Bank of

18 Guam v. Flores, 2004 Guam 25. If however, the movant can demonstrate that there are no 19 genuine issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on allegations contained in 20 the pleading, but must produce at least some significant probative evidence to support the 21 pleading. Edwards v. Pacific Financial Corporation, 2000 Guam 27, ~7.

22

23 Consequently, a court's "ultimate inquiry is to determine whether the 'specific facts' set

24 by the nonmoving party, coupled with undisputed background or contextual facts, are such that 25 a rational or reasonable jury might return a verdict in its favor based on that evidence."

26 Edwards, 2000 Guam 27, ~7.

27 Motion Sufficiency 28

Applying the above standard to the instant case the Court IS dismayed by the Page 4 of5 inadequacy ofthe Plaintiffs' motion. Mot. at 1-20. As set forth in the above and common the 2 sufficiency requirements of all papers, a summary judgment movant must at a minimum 3 separately identify the disputed and undisputed facts and essential elements of the cause of 4 action for which summary dismissal is sought and apply and analyze them under the 5

6 appropriate standard. Guam Sanko Transportation, Inc. v. Pacific Modair Corporation, 2012

7 Guam 2, ~~ 7-8; see, Lamb v. Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2, ~~ 34-36 ( In order to conduct a 8 meaningful review, the parties must articulate their arguments in a way that allows this court to 9 apply recognized rules of law); Guam R. Civ. P. 7 (An application to the court for an order 10 shall ... shall state with particularity the grounds therefor .... ).

II

12 In this case Plaintiffs' motion contains no outline of the essential elements of Plaintiffs'

13 claims. Mot. at 1-20. It contains no verifiable list of the undisputed and disputed facts. ld. It 14 lacks any analysis of how the undisputed material facts, when viewed in the light most 15 favorable to the non-movant, require a summary dismissal is as a matter of law. Id. Lamb, 2008 16 Guam 2, ~~ 34-36; Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Edwards, 2000 Guam 27, ~7.

17

18 Absent this the court is unable to begin any appropriate analysis of Plaintiffs' requests.

19 CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons set forth above Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 5 ofS