FILED
2020 f£8 2 I PM 2: I6
IN THE SUPERIOR couR.ftjf lj;.~, Yrl,9 u ! \:l v '"' URT Pi1 2: SUPE _lOR COU[If( r GUAM DAVID MEREDITH, Superior Court Case No. DM0435-18
Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER RE vs. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS YUCHEN JESSICA WANG,
Defendant.
The Court here considers Defendant Yuchen Jessica Wang's Motion for Leave to File
Amended Counterclaims. Having reviewed the parties' arguments and the relevant rules and law,
the Court GRANTS Wang's Motion.
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Plaintiff David Meredith initiated this divorce action. Compl. (July 23, 2018). Wang filed
an Answer and Counterclaims on October 1, 2018. Now more than a year later and beyond the
deadline to amend pleadings, Wang seeks to make three changes to her counterclaims: clarify
her emotional distress and adultery claims, counterclaim for dissolution of marriage, and change
the parties' date of separation. Mot. at 1 (Dec. 13, 20 19).
Meredith asks the Court to deny the Motion because the discovery cutoff and the parties'
April 30, 2019 deadline for amending pleadings has passed. Sched. Order at 2 (Apr. 3, 2019);
Opp'n at 1 (Jan. 10, 2019). Meredith also claims that Wang acts in bad faith and with dilatory
motive. Opp'n at 6. Specifically, Meredith alleges Wang did not seek leave to amend sooner "in DM0435-18 J.Ju·~~"'''vn AND ORDER REMOTION FOR Page2 TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
order to secure some ulterior tactical advantage. . . she was attempting to avoid the statute of
limitations while also attempting to reconcile with Meredith." Id.
To the contrary, Wang attributes her delay to two causes: Meredith's delay in complying
with his discovery obligations and his untimely filed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Sched. Order at 2; Mot. at 2, 6. Wang also points to her efforts to mediate, which concluded
unsuccessfully on August 20, 2019. Stip. (May 29, 2019); Mot. at 3.
D. LAW AND DISCUSSION
Under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave shall be freely given absent the
following factors: "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc." M Elec. Corp. v.
Phil-Gets (Guam) Int'l Trading Corp., 2016 Guam 35 ~ 42 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962)).
The Court does not find sufficient evidence that Wang acted in bad faith or with dilatory
motive in attempting to amend her counterclaims as she first attempted to reconcile with
Meredith instead of divorcing. SeeM Elec. Corp., 2016 Guam 35 ~ 63 ("[T]he trial court's
findings of bad faith and prejudice were clearly erroneous because they were not supported by
substantial evidence."). Nor is there sufficient evidence demonstrating how a late amendment
helps Wang avoid any applicable statute of limitations. Wang admits that she sought to amend
her pleading after the parties' failed mediation and Meredith's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and Motion in Limine, but only because these events made her realize reconciliation
between the parties was impossible. Mot. at 5. The Court therefore finds Wang did not act with
bad faith or dilatory motive by seeking to amend her pleadings past the parties' deadline. DM0435-18 -'-''-''vh~J,u-n AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR Page 3 TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
The Court now analyzes each of Wang's amendments for prejudice to Meredith and
futility. "[P]rejudice to the opposing party ... carries the greatest weight... [it] is the touchstone
of the inquiry under Rule 15(a)." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052
(9th Cir. 2003). 1
A. Emotional Distress and Adultery Claims
Meredith argues that he would be prejudiced if the Court allowed Wang to assert extreme
cruelty and adultery claims because they "change[] the entire theory ofthe case." Opp'n at 14.
Wang's delay in asserting them "will require the reopening of the pleadings, discovery and more
motion practice that could have been avoided or minimized." Id. at 16.
While Wang does seek to amend her counterclaims several months after the April 30
deadline, "delay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to
amend." United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981). Moreover, Wang argues that
Meredith will not suffer any prejudice because she is clarifying claims she has already asserted.
For example, in her original Answer, Wang pleaded grievous mental and emotional suffering,
which she now recharacterizes as extreme cruelty. Answer at 2, ~ 4 (Oct. 1, 2018); Berman
Decl., Ex. 1 at 3, ~ 4 (Dec. 13, 2019). Wang also alleged adultery in her original Answer but not
as a separate counterclaim. Answer at 2, Affirmative Defenses~ 1; Berman Decl., Ex. 1 at 3, ~ 4.
As Wang points out, her originally pleaded counterclaims reference "all preceding paragraphs as
if fully set forth herein," which includes her allegation of adultery. !d.
Under 19 GCA § 8205, "[e]xtreme cruelty is the wrongful infliction of grievous bodily
injury, or grievous mental suffering, upon the other by one party to the marriage." Because Guam
1 "[F]ederal interpretation ofFRCP 15 is persuasive when interpreting our own GRCP 15." M Elec. Corp. v. Phil-Gets (Guam) lnt'l Trading Corp., 2016 Guam 35 ~ 40. DM0435-18 AND ORDER REMOTION FOR "'-'-'-'''-'U-''''-'" Page4 TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
law defines extreme cruelty as wrongful infliction of grievous mental suffering, which Wang
originally pleaded as a counterclaim, the Court finds Meredith had notice of the claim and is not
prejudiced by its clarification. Similarly, because Meredith had notice of Wang pleading adultery
as part of her other counterclaims even if it was not its own counterclaim, the Court finds that the
clarification as a separate counterclaim does not prejudice Meredith.
As to Meredith's claim that the amendment is futile because Wang's claims are
time-barred and fail to state a claim, the Court disagrees. "[A] proposed amendment is futile only
if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a
valid and sufficient claim or defense." Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir.
1988). Guam law recognizes adultery and extreme cruelty as claims, and the applicability or
tolling of their statutes of limitations remains a triable issue of fact. The Court therefore
GRANTS Wang's request to amend her Answer to include the counterclaims of adultery and
extreme cruelty.
B. Counterclaim for Dissolution of Marriage
Wang admits that she did not originally counterclaim for dissolution of marriage because
she did not want to divorce Meredith and believed she could still save her 25 year long marriage.
Reply at 8 (Jan. 23, 2020).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED
2020 f£8 2 I PM 2: I6
IN THE SUPERIOR couR.ftjf lj;.~, Yrl,9 u ! \:l v '"' URT Pi1 2: SUPE _lOR COU[If( r GUAM DAVID MEREDITH, Superior Court Case No. DM0435-18
Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER RE vs. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS YUCHEN JESSICA WANG,
Defendant.
The Court here considers Defendant Yuchen Jessica Wang's Motion for Leave to File
Amended Counterclaims. Having reviewed the parties' arguments and the relevant rules and law,
the Court GRANTS Wang's Motion.
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
Plaintiff David Meredith initiated this divorce action. Compl. (July 23, 2018). Wang filed
an Answer and Counterclaims on October 1, 2018. Now more than a year later and beyond the
deadline to amend pleadings, Wang seeks to make three changes to her counterclaims: clarify
her emotional distress and adultery claims, counterclaim for dissolution of marriage, and change
the parties' date of separation. Mot. at 1 (Dec. 13, 20 19).
Meredith asks the Court to deny the Motion because the discovery cutoff and the parties'
April 30, 2019 deadline for amending pleadings has passed. Sched. Order at 2 (Apr. 3, 2019);
Opp'n at 1 (Jan. 10, 2019). Meredith also claims that Wang acts in bad faith and with dilatory
motive. Opp'n at 6. Specifically, Meredith alleges Wang did not seek leave to amend sooner "in DM0435-18 J.Ju·~~"'''vn AND ORDER REMOTION FOR Page2 TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
order to secure some ulterior tactical advantage. . . she was attempting to avoid the statute of
limitations while also attempting to reconcile with Meredith." Id.
To the contrary, Wang attributes her delay to two causes: Meredith's delay in complying
with his discovery obligations and his untimely filed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Sched. Order at 2; Mot. at 2, 6. Wang also points to her efforts to mediate, which concluded
unsuccessfully on August 20, 2019. Stip. (May 29, 2019); Mot. at 3.
D. LAW AND DISCUSSION
Under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave shall be freely given absent the
following factors: "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc." M Elec. Corp. v.
Phil-Gets (Guam) Int'l Trading Corp., 2016 Guam 35 ~ 42 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962)).
The Court does not find sufficient evidence that Wang acted in bad faith or with dilatory
motive in attempting to amend her counterclaims as she first attempted to reconcile with
Meredith instead of divorcing. SeeM Elec. Corp., 2016 Guam 35 ~ 63 ("[T]he trial court's
findings of bad faith and prejudice were clearly erroneous because they were not supported by
substantial evidence."). Nor is there sufficient evidence demonstrating how a late amendment
helps Wang avoid any applicable statute of limitations. Wang admits that she sought to amend
her pleading after the parties' failed mediation and Meredith's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and Motion in Limine, but only because these events made her realize reconciliation
between the parties was impossible. Mot. at 5. The Court therefore finds Wang did not act with
bad faith or dilatory motive by seeking to amend her pleadings past the parties' deadline. DM0435-18 -'-''-''vh~J,u-n AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR Page 3 TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
The Court now analyzes each of Wang's amendments for prejudice to Meredith and
futility. "[P]rejudice to the opposing party ... carries the greatest weight... [it] is the touchstone
of the inquiry under Rule 15(a)." Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052
(9th Cir. 2003). 1
A. Emotional Distress and Adultery Claims
Meredith argues that he would be prejudiced if the Court allowed Wang to assert extreme
cruelty and adultery claims because they "change[] the entire theory ofthe case." Opp'n at 14.
Wang's delay in asserting them "will require the reopening of the pleadings, discovery and more
motion practice that could have been avoided or minimized." Id. at 16.
While Wang does seek to amend her counterclaims several months after the April 30
deadline, "delay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of leave to
amend." United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981). Moreover, Wang argues that
Meredith will not suffer any prejudice because she is clarifying claims she has already asserted.
For example, in her original Answer, Wang pleaded grievous mental and emotional suffering,
which she now recharacterizes as extreme cruelty. Answer at 2, ~ 4 (Oct. 1, 2018); Berman
Decl., Ex. 1 at 3, ~ 4 (Dec. 13, 2019). Wang also alleged adultery in her original Answer but not
as a separate counterclaim. Answer at 2, Affirmative Defenses~ 1; Berman Decl., Ex. 1 at 3, ~ 4.
As Wang points out, her originally pleaded counterclaims reference "all preceding paragraphs as
if fully set forth herein," which includes her allegation of adultery. !d.
Under 19 GCA § 8205, "[e]xtreme cruelty is the wrongful infliction of grievous bodily
injury, or grievous mental suffering, upon the other by one party to the marriage." Because Guam
1 "[F]ederal interpretation ofFRCP 15 is persuasive when interpreting our own GRCP 15." M Elec. Corp. v. Phil-Gets (Guam) lnt'l Trading Corp., 2016 Guam 35 ~ 40. DM0435-18 AND ORDER REMOTION FOR "'-'-'-'''-'U-''''-'" Page4 TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
law defines extreme cruelty as wrongful infliction of grievous mental suffering, which Wang
originally pleaded as a counterclaim, the Court finds Meredith had notice of the claim and is not
prejudiced by its clarification. Similarly, because Meredith had notice of Wang pleading adultery
as part of her other counterclaims even if it was not its own counterclaim, the Court finds that the
clarification as a separate counterclaim does not prejudice Meredith.
As to Meredith's claim that the amendment is futile because Wang's claims are
time-barred and fail to state a claim, the Court disagrees. "[A] proposed amendment is futile only
if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a
valid and sufficient claim or defense." Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir.
1988). Guam law recognizes adultery and extreme cruelty as claims, and the applicability or
tolling of their statutes of limitations remains a triable issue of fact. The Court therefore
GRANTS Wang's request to amend her Answer to include the counterclaims of adultery and
extreme cruelty.
B. Counterclaim for Dissolution of Marriage
Wang admits that she did not originally counterclaim for dissolution of marriage because
she did not want to divorce Meredith and believed she could still save her 25 year long marriage.
Reply at 8 (Jan. 23, 2020). Wang claims that Meredith's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
made her realize there was no chance for reconciliation, which is why she also seeks to remove
her original affirmative defense that the parties do not have irreconcilable differences that cannot
be remedied through mediation and counseling. !d.
The Court does not see how this amendment prejudices Meredith since he is also seeking
the dissolution of the parties' marriage. The Court therefore GRANTS Wang's request to DM0435-18 AND ORDER REMOTION FOR Page 5 TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
counterclaim for divorce and remove her affirmative defense that the parties do not have
irreconcilable differences.
C. Changing the Date of Separation
Finally, Wang seeks to remove her originally pleaded separation date of May 14, 2016.
Wang contends that the parties' separation date is ambiguous: "the parties' date of separation is
a disputed question of fact and law". Berman Decl., Ex. 1 at 2, ~ 3; Reply at 8-9. Meredith
disagrees and claims Wang is attempting to make the parties' separation date a "moving target"
to ambush him at trial, causing Meredith undue prejudice. Opp'n at 13-14.
However, Meredith conceded during the Motion Hearing that the Court could choose a
different separation date than one that either of the parties originally pleaded based on whatever
evidence is presented at trial. Accordingly, Meredith's claim that he cannot fully investigate the
parties' separation date is baseless. The Court fmds that the amendment does not cause Meredith
prejudice and GRANTS Wang's request.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the above mentioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Wang's Motion for Leave to
File Amended Counterclaims. Wang must file the amended pleading within three business days
of this Decision and Order, and Meredith must file an Answer within 14 days thereafter. Once
Meredith files an Answer, the parties will have 14 days to file a statement regarding whether any
of the remaining motions remain ripe for consideration. The Court will consider the statements
and then issue a hearing date to discuss trial dates. DM0435-18 ._...._.,'-'~'u'"''"' AND ORDER REMOTION FOR Page6 TO FILE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
SO ORDERED this 21st day ofFebruary 2020.
H!u:~IRIARTE Judge, Superior Court of Guam
W?~ f~l.-..,,
·~~~~All/}:lJrl s ~t:-~..
""·41!~ Sup1i]'J"r;.~ ?ij Deputy G!erk,
Appearing Attorneys: Vanessa Williams, Esq., for Plaintiff David Meredith Daniel J. Berman, Esq., Berman, O'Connor & Mann, for Defendant Yuchen Jessica Wang