i i i
3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 4
5 CIVIL CASE NO.: CV0652-21 DIANA A. NAPUTI, Personally and as Guardian for HILDEGARD ASUNCION, 6 Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 7 Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default; v. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and 8 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
10 Defendant.
13 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on April 12, 2022, for a
hearing on the Motion to Set Aside Default and Motion to Dismiss. Present at the hearing 14 were: Plaintiffs Counsel Gary F. Gumataotao and Defense Counsel Mark Williams. Having 15 considered the arguments, briefs, and the applicable law, the Court hereby SETS ASIDE THE 16 ENTRY OF DEFAULT, GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and GRANTS
17 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.
Page 1 of7
Diana Naputi ("Plaintiff') filed a Verified Complaint on August 27, 2021. Then about 2 two months later, on November 1, 2021, the Clerk of Court filed an Entry of Default in favor 3 of Plaintiff. 4 A little over two and a half months after the Verified Complaint was filed, on
5 November 18, 2021, Defendant filed two motions: (1) Motion to Set Aside Default, and (2)
6 Motion to Dismiss. On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to each motion, and on
December 12, 2021, Defendant filed a Reply to each opposition. A Default Hearing was 7 scheduled for January 25, 2022; however, it was later rescheduled as a hearing on the motions 8 for April 12, 2022. 9 Then on February 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Verified Complaint. Less 10 than a month later, on March 9, 2022, the following events occurred. First, the Clerk's office
11 received Plaintiffs proposed Entry of Default. Second, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
12 Plaintiffs First Amended Verified Complaint. Third, Defendant filed an Opposition to Entry of
Default and Motion to Set Aside Default, and a Declaration in support thereof. A few days 13 later, on March 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Set Aside 14 Default. 15 A hearing on the motions was held on April 12, 2022, where the parties submitted on
16 their briefs and the Court took the matters under advisement.
I. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 18 Generally, the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure ("GRCP") Rule 55(c) establishes the 19 standard for entry of default, which is that "for good cause shown, the court may set aside an 20 entry of default." See Guam R. Civ. P. 55( c) (emphasis added). However, the Court in this
Page 2 of7 1 instance does not reach the "for good cause" analysis. Instead, the Court's analysis for the
Entry of Default starts and ends at Plaintiff's service of process. 2 a. The Clerk's Entry of Default is Set Aside due to Plaintiff's Insufficient 3 Service of Process.
4 The GRCP Rule 4(e) governs service upon individuals within Guam, and it states in
relevant part: 5 Unless otherwise provided by law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has 6 not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in ... : 7 (1) in any manner prescribed or authorized by any law of Guam, or as prescribed by the law of the place where ·the person is served; or 8 (2) by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to the individual 9 personally or by leaving copies thereon at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an 10 agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
11 See Guam R. Civ. P. 4(e) (emphasis added). The Guam Supreme Court has held that it is the
12 responsibility of the plaintiff and her lawyer to ensure that service of process was
constitutionally effective and proper under the rules. Pineda v. Pineda, 2005 Guam 10 ,-r 11. 13 The Supreme Court has also held that "a default judgment entered without proper service is 14 void since the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction if the service is defective." Mariano v. 15 Surla, 2010 Guam 2 ,-r 13; citing Pineda, 2005 Guam 10 ,-r 10. Therefore, this logic follows that
16 an entry of default entered without proper service is void since the trial court lacks personal
17 jurisdiction if the service of process is defective.
Here, the Declaration of Service filed by Plaintiff's process server reflects that the 18 Summons and Complaint in the instant case were served upon "Alissa Asuncion." See Decl. 19 Serv. (Sept. 28, 2021). Defendant further confirms that Alissa Asuncion is his 12-year old 20 sister by attaching her birth certificate to his Declaration. Asuncion's Decl. in Support of Reply
Page 3 of7 1 p. 1 and Ex. A (Dec. 30, 2021 ). As such, the Court finds that service of process upon a 12-year
old, is not service of process upon one who is of suitable age and discretion as required by the 2 GRCP. It is unlikely that a 12-year old would understand the importance and effect legal 3 documents left in their possession in attempt to serve another within their residence. Therefore, 4 Plaintiff failed to effect sufficient service of process on Defendant. As a result of the defective
5 service of process, the Entry of Default is void and set aside. See Surla, 2010 Guam 2 ~ 13. The
6 Court now turns to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as it relates to Plaintiffs initial Verified
Complaint. 7 II. MOTION TO DISMISS 8 a. Plaintiff's initial Verified Complaint is dismissed for Lack of Subject 9 Matter Jurisdiction.
Defendant argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has 10 no standing to challenge Hildegard Asuncion's will. Defs Mot. to Dismiss p. 4 (Nov. 18, 11 2021). 12 GRCP Rule12(b)(l) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter
13 jurisdiction. See Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l). The Superior Court's subject matter jurisdiction is
14 set forth in title 7 GCA section 3105, and it states:
15 The Superior Court shall have original jurisdiction over all causes of action, and, except for those causes exclusively vested in the Supreme Court, may have appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by the Legislature. 16 7 GCA § 3105 (emphasis added). Case law further provides that standing is a component of 17 subject matter jurisdiction. Taitano v. Lujan, 2005 Guam 26 ~ 15; citing Guam Imagining 18 Consultants, Inc. v. Guam Mem 'l Hasp. Auth., 2004 Guam 15 ~ 17. When a party lacks
19 standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim. Guam Memorial
20 Hospital Authority v. Superior Court, 2012 Guam 17 ~ 8; citing Benavente v. Taitano, 2006
Page 4 of7 1 Guam 15 ~ 14. The question of standing to sue goes to the existence of a cause of action
against the defendant. Lujan, 2005 Guam 26 ~ 15.; citing Parker v. Bowron, 254 P.2d 6, 9 (Cal. 2 1953). 3 Here, Plaintiff fails to assert a claim in her Verified Complaint. The Verified Complaint 4 seemingly sets forth factual allegations, and then it immediately jumps to a prayer for relief.
5 While the factual allegations seem to suggest a claim for fraud, at best, there is no cause of
6 action asserted in the Verified Complaint. The incompleteness of the Verified Complaint only
serves to leave opposing counsel and the Court to guess what the cause of action might be. As 7 such, while the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over "all causes of action," it cannot and it 8 does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a Verified Complaint where no cause of action 9 indicated therein.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
i i i
3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 4
5 CIVIL CASE NO.: CV0652-21 DIANA A. NAPUTI, Personally and as Guardian for HILDEGARD ASUNCION, 6 Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 7 Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default; v. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and 8 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
10 Defendant.
13 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on April 12, 2022, for a
hearing on the Motion to Set Aside Default and Motion to Dismiss. Present at the hearing 14 were: Plaintiffs Counsel Gary F. Gumataotao and Defense Counsel Mark Williams. Having 15 considered the arguments, briefs, and the applicable law, the Court hereby SETS ASIDE THE 16 ENTRY OF DEFAULT, GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and GRANTS
17 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.
Page 1 of7
Diana Naputi ("Plaintiff') filed a Verified Complaint on August 27, 2021. Then about 2 two months later, on November 1, 2021, the Clerk of Court filed an Entry of Default in favor 3 of Plaintiff. 4 A little over two and a half months after the Verified Complaint was filed, on
5 November 18, 2021, Defendant filed two motions: (1) Motion to Set Aside Default, and (2)
6 Motion to Dismiss. On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to each motion, and on
December 12, 2021, Defendant filed a Reply to each opposition. A Default Hearing was 7 scheduled for January 25, 2022; however, it was later rescheduled as a hearing on the motions 8 for April 12, 2022. 9 Then on February 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Verified Complaint. Less 10 than a month later, on March 9, 2022, the following events occurred. First, the Clerk's office
11 received Plaintiffs proposed Entry of Default. Second, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
12 Plaintiffs First Amended Verified Complaint. Third, Defendant filed an Opposition to Entry of
Default and Motion to Set Aside Default, and a Declaration in support thereof. A few days 13 later, on March 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Set Aside 14 Default. 15 A hearing on the motions was held on April 12, 2022, where the parties submitted on
16 their briefs and the Court took the matters under advisement.
I. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 18 Generally, the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure ("GRCP") Rule 55(c) establishes the 19 standard for entry of default, which is that "for good cause shown, the court may set aside an 20 entry of default." See Guam R. Civ. P. 55( c) (emphasis added). However, the Court in this
Page 2 of7 1 instance does not reach the "for good cause" analysis. Instead, the Court's analysis for the
Entry of Default starts and ends at Plaintiff's service of process. 2 a. The Clerk's Entry of Default is Set Aside due to Plaintiff's Insufficient 3 Service of Process.
4 The GRCP Rule 4(e) governs service upon individuals within Guam, and it states in
relevant part: 5 Unless otherwise provided by law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has 6 not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be effected in ... : 7 (1) in any manner prescribed or authorized by any law of Guam, or as prescribed by the law of the place where ·the person is served; or 8 (2) by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint to the individual 9 personally or by leaving copies thereon at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an 10 agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
11 See Guam R. Civ. P. 4(e) (emphasis added). The Guam Supreme Court has held that it is the
12 responsibility of the plaintiff and her lawyer to ensure that service of process was
constitutionally effective and proper under the rules. Pineda v. Pineda, 2005 Guam 10 ,-r 11. 13 The Supreme Court has also held that "a default judgment entered without proper service is 14 void since the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction if the service is defective." Mariano v. 15 Surla, 2010 Guam 2 ,-r 13; citing Pineda, 2005 Guam 10 ,-r 10. Therefore, this logic follows that
16 an entry of default entered without proper service is void since the trial court lacks personal
17 jurisdiction if the service of process is defective.
Here, the Declaration of Service filed by Plaintiff's process server reflects that the 18 Summons and Complaint in the instant case were served upon "Alissa Asuncion." See Decl. 19 Serv. (Sept. 28, 2021). Defendant further confirms that Alissa Asuncion is his 12-year old 20 sister by attaching her birth certificate to his Declaration. Asuncion's Decl. in Support of Reply
Page 3 of7 1 p. 1 and Ex. A (Dec. 30, 2021 ). As such, the Court finds that service of process upon a 12-year
old, is not service of process upon one who is of suitable age and discretion as required by the 2 GRCP. It is unlikely that a 12-year old would understand the importance and effect legal 3 documents left in their possession in attempt to serve another within their residence. Therefore, 4 Plaintiff failed to effect sufficient service of process on Defendant. As a result of the defective
5 service of process, the Entry of Default is void and set aside. See Surla, 2010 Guam 2 ~ 13. The
6 Court now turns to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as it relates to Plaintiffs initial Verified
Complaint. 7 II. MOTION TO DISMISS 8 a. Plaintiff's initial Verified Complaint is dismissed for Lack of Subject 9 Matter Jurisdiction.
Defendant argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has 10 no standing to challenge Hildegard Asuncion's will. Defs Mot. to Dismiss p. 4 (Nov. 18, 11 2021). 12 GRCP Rule12(b)(l) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter
13 jurisdiction. See Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l). The Superior Court's subject matter jurisdiction is
14 set forth in title 7 GCA section 3105, and it states:
15 The Superior Court shall have original jurisdiction over all causes of action, and, except for those causes exclusively vested in the Supreme Court, may have appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by the Legislature. 16 7 GCA § 3105 (emphasis added). Case law further provides that standing is a component of 17 subject matter jurisdiction. Taitano v. Lujan, 2005 Guam 26 ~ 15; citing Guam Imagining 18 Consultants, Inc. v. Guam Mem 'l Hasp. Auth., 2004 Guam 15 ~ 17. When a party lacks
19 standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim. Guam Memorial
20 Hospital Authority v. Superior Court, 2012 Guam 17 ~ 8; citing Benavente v. Taitano, 2006
Page 4 of7 1 Guam 15 ~ 14. The question of standing to sue goes to the existence of a cause of action
against the defendant. Lujan, 2005 Guam 26 ~ 15.; citing Parker v. Bowron, 254 P.2d 6, 9 (Cal. 2 1953). 3 Here, Plaintiff fails to assert a claim in her Verified Complaint. The Verified Complaint 4 seemingly sets forth factual allegations, and then it immediately jumps to a prayer for relief.
5 While the factual allegations seem to suggest a claim for fraud, at best, there is no cause of
6 action asserted in the Verified Complaint. The incompleteness of the Verified Complaint only
serves to leave opposing counsel and the Court to guess what the cause of action might be. As 7 such, while the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over "all causes of action," it cannot and it 8 does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a Verified Complaint where no cause of action 9 indicated therein. While the lack of subject matter jurisdiction is dispositive of the issues in 10 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court still addresses Defendant's second argument.
11 b. Plaintiff's initial Verified Complaint is dismissed for Failure to State a Claim for which Relief can be granted. 12 Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Complaint does not identify a cause of action that
13 exists under Guam law. Def's Mot. to Dismiss p. 2 (Nov. 18, 2021).
14 GRCP Rule 12(b)( 6) allows a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim
15 upon which relief can be granted. See Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint should not be
dismissed under Rule 12(b)( 6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiffs can prove no 16 set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle them to relief." Guam Police Dep 'tv. 17 Guam Civ. Serv. Comm 'n, 2020 Guam 12 ~ 8. "[A] court must accept all the well-pleaded facts 18 as true, 'construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and resolve
19 all doubts in the non-moving party's favor."' I d.; quoting First Hawaiian Bank v. Manley, 2007
20 Guam 2 ~ 9. A court generally may not consider material outside the pleadings in ruling on a
Page 5 of7 1 Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Core Tech Int'l Corp. v. Hanil Eng'g & Canst. Co., 2010 Guam 13 ,-r
29. 2 Here, Plaintiffliterally fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. As discussed 3 above, Plaintiff's Verified Complaint sets forth factual allegations, and then jumps to a prayer 4 for relief without indicating any claim or cause of action. Further, Plaintiff points the Court's
5 attention "Exhibit A" in paragraph 10 of her Verified Complaint; however, Plaintiff fails to
6 attach such Exhibit. See V. Compl. p. 3 (Aug. 27, 2021). As such, the Court hereby GRANTS
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure 7 to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In effect, this decision is dispositive of 8 Plaintiff's initial Verified Complaint. The Court turns to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 9 Plaintiff's First Amended Verified Complaint. 10 III. MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT
11 a. Plaintiff's First Amended Verified Complaint is Dismissed for lack of subject Matter Jurisdiction, and for Failure to State a Claim for which 12 Relief can be granted.
Here, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Verified Complaint on February 21, 2022, while 13 the two motions discussed above were still pending. Further, the First Amended Verified 14 Complaint is virtually identical to the initial Verified Complaint filed on August 27, 2021. After 15 a thorough review of both the initial Verified Complaint and the First Amended Verified
16 Complaint, the Court found that the only difference that exists is the property description in
17 paragraph 7. Everything else in the First Amended Complaint was seemingly copied and pasted.
This observation is further supported by Plaintiff's identical failure to do the following: (1) to 18
attach "Exhibit A" as mention in paragraph 10; (2) to indicate a cause of action such that would 19 establish this Court's subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) to state a claim for which relief can be 20 granted. It is also worthy of noting that by filing the Prist Amended Verified Complaint during
Page6of7 1 the pendency of Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
Plaintiff effectively made the Clerk's Entry of Default and the two pending motions moot. 2 Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First 3 Amended Verified Complaint. In effect, this decision is dispositive of Plaintiffs First Amended 4 Verified Complaint, and the Court does not entertain Defendant's objection to Plaintiffs
5 proposed Entry of Default received by the clerk's office on March 9, 2022.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby SETS THE ENTRY OF DEFAULT 7 ASIDE; GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to 8 Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. 9
10 IT IS SO ORDERED
12 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 13 Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Page 7 of7