Pacific Dining LLC v. Quality Distributors

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 PACIFIC DINING, LLC dba )

LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE, )

4 ) CIVIL CASE NO. CV0559-12 5 Plaintiff, )

)

6 vs. ) DETERMINATION RE ) DISQUALIFICATION QUESTION 7 QUALJTY DISTRIBUTORS, ) PER 7 GCA § 6107 8 )

Defendant. )

9

10

11 This matter was temporarily assigned to this Court on August 21, 2013 by the Presiding 12 Judge of the Superior Court of Guam in response to the Objection to Competency of Judge 13 Pursuant to 7 G.C.A. [sic]§ 6105(a) and§ 6107, filed February 11, 2013 by Defendant Quality 14 Distributors. (hereinafter "Objection"). Pursuant to 7 GCA § 6107, this Court issues the 15 following determination upon the question of whether Superior Court Judge Maria Cenzon 16 should be disqualified from presiding over the above-captioned case. 17

18 DISCUSSION 19 Defendant bases the Objection on Judge Cenzon's disclosure that Her Honor formerly 20 represented the plaintiff as an attorney, prior to becoming a judge. However, in Her Honor's 21 Response to Motion to Objection to Competency of Judge, filed February 21, 2013, Judge 22 Cenzon affirms her previous disclosure regarding prior representation, but states: "[I]t is my 23 recollection that I did personally meet with and communicate both in person and by email with 24 Mr. Artero, as the representative of [plaintiff], albeit on a matter wholly unrelated to the case at 25 bar." (emphasis added). Further, Judge Cenzon stated therein: "Nevertheless, the court submits 26 that it does not have a personal bias or prejudice concerning any of the parties in this matter, 27 notwithstanding my prior representation of the plaintiff in an unrelated matter over five years 28 ago.

Page I

This Court is guided by 7 GCA § 6105 is formulating its determination. That statute

2 holds in pertinent part: 3 (a) Any Judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which his or 4 her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, ...

5 (b) A Judge shall also disqualify himself or herself in the following circumstances

6 (1) Where he or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 7 proceeding;

8 (2) Where in private practice he or she served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he or she previously practiced law 9 served during such association as a lawyer or either has been a material witness concerning the matter;

10

II 7 GCA § 6105 (June 18, 2012).

I2 Applying the above law to the objections and the Judge's disclosures, this Court holds 13 that the prior representation of a party by a judge or his or her firm with regard to a matter 14 unrelated to the litigation before that judge does not by itself warrant recusal. Laird v. Tatum, I5 409 U.S. 824, 93 S.Ct. 7 (1972); Nat'/ Auto Brokers Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 572 F.2d I6 953, 958 (2d Cir. 1978); Darlington v. Studebaker-Packard Corp., 261 F.2d 903, 906-907 (7th I7 Cir. 1959), cert. denied 359 US 992, 79 S Ct 1121; School Dist. Of Kansas City, Missouri v.

I8 State of Mo., 438 F.Supp. 830, 833-34 (W.D. Mo. 1977); Black v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 503 I9 F. Supp. 172 (E.D. Ky. 1980); City ofCoeur d'Alene v. Simpson, 136 P.3d 310, 315 (Idaho 20 2006); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Travis, 259 P. 1068 (Kan. 1927), cert. denied 276 U.S. 628, 48 S.Ct.

2I 321; Lade v. Keller, 615 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981); Hathorne v. State, 459 22

1

S.W.2d 826,829 (Tex. Cr. App. 1970).

23 The Court notes that some jurisdictions have statutes requiring judicial recusal in this 24 context, even where representation occurred regarding unrelated matters, when the judge was a 25 party's attorney within two years prior to the litigation coming before the court. See, e.g., 26

27

28 1 See also Air Maroc v. Servair, Inc., 603 F.Supp. 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); Wm.

T. Burton Industries, Inc. v. Busby, 348 So.2d 1328 (La. Ct. App. 1977); People v. Scotts, 263 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977); Cain v. Hershewe, 760 S.W.2d 146 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Page2

Cal.C.C.P. § 170.l(a)(2)(A) & (B)(i); Alaska Statute 22.20.020. Regardless, Judge Cenzon 2 reports her representation of Plaintiff occurred five years ago, so the rationale of those statues is

3 not applicable to this case an)'\vay. 4 Finally, as noted above, Judge Cenzon also reports she holds no personal bias or 5 prejudice for any party to this action, so that factor does not compel recusal either, 6 notwithstanding that Defendant does not cite bias or prejudice as an issue here.

7 \\\

8 \\\

9 \\\

10

11

12 CONCLUSION 13 Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court finds and determines there are 14 insufficient grounds by which to disqualify Judge Maria Cenzon from presiding over the above-

15 captioned case per 7 GCA § 6105. 16

17 ISSUED this 23JI!.P day of August, 2013. 18

19

20

21 ~~ HON. JAMES L. CANTO II Judge, Superior Court of Guam 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 3