SUPEO CflUPJ
rj94Y29 3:Qt
‘it J
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
JOSHUA F. PETER, ET AL., Superior Court Case No. CV0426-1$
Plaintiffs, DECISION AND ORDER VS. RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FRANCIS GILL, ET
Defendants.
The Court here addresses Plaintiffs’ request to hold Defendant Stephanie Mendiola and
her attorney, Curtis Van de veld, Esq., in contempt for failing to produce a quitclaim deed as
ordered by the Court. After holding an Order to Show Cause hearing on May 3, 2019, and
having considered the parties’ briefs and arguments, the Court finds that Mendiola and Attorney
Van de veld willingly violated a Court order to produce the deed. The Court holds them in
contempt and issues a fine of $100 per person.
Plaintiffs’ April 2, 2019 First Amended Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show
Cause Why Curtis Van de veld, Esq. and Stephanie Mendiola Should Not Be Found In Contempt
of Court and Sanctioned contends that Mendiola failed to appear for her scheduled April 1, 2019
deposition and produce a quitclaim deed. Plaintiffs expected Mendiola to provide the quitclaim
deed after the Court ordered her to produce it in its March 29, 2019 Order re Plaintiffs’ Request
for Expedited Discovery Assistance. Mendiola responds that the Court’s March 29 Order did not
ORIGINAL CV0426-18 n DETION AND ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW Page 2
require her to attend her deposition on April 1, 2019, or to produce the deed on a certain date or
time. Opp’n to Court’s Issuance of an Order to Show Cause at $ (Apr. 12, 2019).
Contrary to Mendiola’s arguments, the procedural history of this case demonstrates that
the parties awaited the Court’s decision on whether or not Mendiola must produce the quitclaim
deed and that such decision would be issued prior to her deposition. This issue originates from
the early termination of Mendiola’s original deposition on October 11, 2018. Mendiola claims
that at that deposition, Attorney Wayson Wong attempted to serve her with a subpoena for
documents in a separate case, which prompted Attorney Van de veld to terminate the deposition.
Deci. Stephanie Mendiola ¶ 2 (Apr. 12, 2019). Attorney Wong thereafter attempted to continue
the deposition, to which Attorney Van de veld agreed if limited to two hours. See Deci. Curtis
Van de Veld, Ex. C at 7-9 (Feb. 25, 2019). However, Attorney Van de Veld later withdrew his
offer. Tr. at 4:48 (Mar. 26, 2019).
Wong then issued a Notice for Mendiola’s continued deposition, which set the continued
date for three weeks later, on Apr11 1, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. Pls.’ Not. Taking Ctd. Depo. (Mar. 13,
2019). Plaintiffs also mentioned this date in their March 28, 2019 Expedited Discovery
Resolution Brief, which asked the Court to order that Mendiola produce the quitclaim deed.
Plaintiffs’ Brief noted that Mendiola was scheduled to be deposed on April 1, 2019, and
requested that the Court compel Mendiola to provide the deed before her April 1, 2019
deposition.
Mendiola agreed that her deposition had been set for April 1, 2019, and in an exparte
application, asked the Court to postpone her deposition pending a decision on her (third) Motion
to Disqualify Wong. Ex Parte AppI. Protective Order (Mar. 25, 2019). Mendiola’s ex parte
application made no mention that Mendiola was otherwise unavailable to attend her April 1
ORIGINAL CV0426-18 DECISION AND ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW USE Page 3
deposition. The Court heard the Ex Parte Application for a Protective Order on March 26, 2019,
and denied it, but also addressed the pending discovery issues--specifically, Plaintiffs’ then
pending request for an Order compelling Mendiola to produce a quitclaim deed. The Court
stated on the record that it knew the parties awaited the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ request for
expedited discovery assistance and was striving to issue that decision prior to the April 1
deposition. Tr. at 3:40 (Mar. 26, 2019). At that hearing, Attorney Van de veld argued that the
April 1 deposition could not proceed because the Court had not ruled that Mendiola could be
deposed. However, the Court then clarified that its March 11, 2019 Order intended to allow
Plaintiffs to depose Mendiola. The Court also stated that a decision on whether Mendiola must
produce the deed remained under advisement but would be determined prior to the scheduled
deposition. The parties then discussed how much time Plaintiffs had to complete Mendiola’s
deposition, and because the parties could not come to an agreement, the Court stated that the
Guam Rules of Civil Procedure dictated the time remaining. Tr. at 4:49 (Mar. 26, 2019). Finally,
at the close of the hearing, Attorney Van de veld indicated that Plaintiffs intended to bring an
interlocutory appeal of the Court’s decision denying the Ex Parte Application for Protective
Order.
A few days later, on March 29, 2019, the Court issued its Order re Plaintiffs Request for
Expedited Discovery Assistance and required Mendiola to disclose the quitclaim deed. The
Court issued its decision prior to the deposition date because, based on the Request for Expedited
Assistance and Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Protective Order, the parties knew that the
Court’s order was relevant for the purposes of the April 1 deposition.
Meanwhile, the parties themselves discussed preparations for the April 1 deposition.
Prior to April 1, Attorney Van de Veld asked Attorney Wong to confirm that he secured the use
ORIGINAL CV0426-18 n DE(TSION AND ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW (JSE Page 4
of the Guam Law Library conference room for the deposition of Francis Gill on March 28, 2019.
Attorney Wong responded that he secured it for Gill’s deposition and for Mendiola’s April 1,
2019 deposition. Opp’n to Court’s Issuance of OSC, aft. (April 12, 2019). Attorney Wong then
sent more than one message to Attorney Van de Veld regarding his expectation that Mendiola
would produce the quitclaim deed on April 1. Attorney Van de Veld responded that Mendiola
“rejected” Attorney Wong’s deadline. Opp’n to Court’s Issuance of OSC, aft.
It is undisputed that Mendiola failed to appear for her April 1 continued deposition,
without giving prior notice.’ Mendiola claims that she “was tending to prior commitments to my
professional obligations and did not attend my deposition.” Decl. Stephanie Mendiola ¶ 5. If
that is true, then she could have preemptively notified Attorney Wong and she could have
advised the Court at the March 26 hearing. The Court finds her decision to tend to prior
commitments to be disingenuous given that earlier in the week she asked the Court to postpone
her deposition for other reasons. In other words, Mendiola simply refused to be deposed.
Mendiola also claimed that the March 29 Order did not allow her time to consider
whether to file an interlocutory appeal on either her ex parte request for a protective order or on
the Court’s order compelling her to produce the quitclaim deed. However, no appeal has been
filed in the two months since the Court issued the March 29 Order. Suffice it to say, adequate
time passed after the Court issued the March 29 Order up until the Court ordered her to show
cause, and yet, Mendiola still withheld the quitclaim deed.
Upon request by Plaintiffs, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Mendiola and
Attorney Van de Veld, which required them to “show why they should not be found in contempt
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SUPEO CflUPJ
rj94Y29 3:Qt
‘it J
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
JOSHUA F. PETER, ET AL., Superior Court Case No. CV0426-1$
Plaintiffs, DECISION AND ORDER VS. RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FRANCIS GILL, ET
Defendants.
The Court here addresses Plaintiffs’ request to hold Defendant Stephanie Mendiola and
her attorney, Curtis Van de veld, Esq., in contempt for failing to produce a quitclaim deed as
ordered by the Court. After holding an Order to Show Cause hearing on May 3, 2019, and
having considered the parties’ briefs and arguments, the Court finds that Mendiola and Attorney
Van de veld willingly violated a Court order to produce the deed. The Court holds them in
contempt and issues a fine of $100 per person.
Plaintiffs’ April 2, 2019 First Amended Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show
Cause Why Curtis Van de veld, Esq. and Stephanie Mendiola Should Not Be Found In Contempt
of Court and Sanctioned contends that Mendiola failed to appear for her scheduled April 1, 2019
deposition and produce a quitclaim deed. Plaintiffs expected Mendiola to provide the quitclaim
deed after the Court ordered her to produce it in its March 29, 2019 Order re Plaintiffs’ Request
for Expedited Discovery Assistance. Mendiola responds that the Court’s March 29 Order did not
ORIGINAL CV0426-18 n DETION AND ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW Page 2
require her to attend her deposition on April 1, 2019, or to produce the deed on a certain date or
time. Opp’n to Court’s Issuance of an Order to Show Cause at $ (Apr. 12, 2019).
Contrary to Mendiola’s arguments, the procedural history of this case demonstrates that
the parties awaited the Court’s decision on whether or not Mendiola must produce the quitclaim
deed and that such decision would be issued prior to her deposition. This issue originates from
the early termination of Mendiola’s original deposition on October 11, 2018. Mendiola claims
that at that deposition, Attorney Wayson Wong attempted to serve her with a subpoena for
documents in a separate case, which prompted Attorney Van de veld to terminate the deposition.
Deci. Stephanie Mendiola ¶ 2 (Apr. 12, 2019). Attorney Wong thereafter attempted to continue
the deposition, to which Attorney Van de veld agreed if limited to two hours. See Deci. Curtis
Van de Veld, Ex. C at 7-9 (Feb. 25, 2019). However, Attorney Van de Veld later withdrew his
offer. Tr. at 4:48 (Mar. 26, 2019).
Wong then issued a Notice for Mendiola’s continued deposition, which set the continued
date for three weeks later, on Apr11 1, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. Pls.’ Not. Taking Ctd. Depo. (Mar. 13,
2019). Plaintiffs also mentioned this date in their March 28, 2019 Expedited Discovery
Resolution Brief, which asked the Court to order that Mendiola produce the quitclaim deed.
Plaintiffs’ Brief noted that Mendiola was scheduled to be deposed on April 1, 2019, and
requested that the Court compel Mendiola to provide the deed before her April 1, 2019
deposition.
Mendiola agreed that her deposition had been set for April 1, 2019, and in an exparte
application, asked the Court to postpone her deposition pending a decision on her (third) Motion
to Disqualify Wong. Ex Parte AppI. Protective Order (Mar. 25, 2019). Mendiola’s ex parte
application made no mention that Mendiola was otherwise unavailable to attend her April 1
ORIGINAL CV0426-18 DECISION AND ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW USE Page 3
deposition. The Court heard the Ex Parte Application for a Protective Order on March 26, 2019,
and denied it, but also addressed the pending discovery issues--specifically, Plaintiffs’ then
pending request for an Order compelling Mendiola to produce a quitclaim deed. The Court
stated on the record that it knew the parties awaited the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ request for
expedited discovery assistance and was striving to issue that decision prior to the April 1
deposition. Tr. at 3:40 (Mar. 26, 2019). At that hearing, Attorney Van de veld argued that the
April 1 deposition could not proceed because the Court had not ruled that Mendiola could be
deposed. However, the Court then clarified that its March 11, 2019 Order intended to allow
Plaintiffs to depose Mendiola. The Court also stated that a decision on whether Mendiola must
produce the deed remained under advisement but would be determined prior to the scheduled
deposition. The parties then discussed how much time Plaintiffs had to complete Mendiola’s
deposition, and because the parties could not come to an agreement, the Court stated that the
Guam Rules of Civil Procedure dictated the time remaining. Tr. at 4:49 (Mar. 26, 2019). Finally,
at the close of the hearing, Attorney Van de veld indicated that Plaintiffs intended to bring an
interlocutory appeal of the Court’s decision denying the Ex Parte Application for Protective
Order.
A few days later, on March 29, 2019, the Court issued its Order re Plaintiffs Request for
Expedited Discovery Assistance and required Mendiola to disclose the quitclaim deed. The
Court issued its decision prior to the deposition date because, based on the Request for Expedited
Assistance and Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Protective Order, the parties knew that the
Court’s order was relevant for the purposes of the April 1 deposition.
Meanwhile, the parties themselves discussed preparations for the April 1 deposition.
Prior to April 1, Attorney Van de Veld asked Attorney Wong to confirm that he secured the use
ORIGINAL CV0426-18 n DE(TSION AND ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW (JSE Page 4
of the Guam Law Library conference room for the deposition of Francis Gill on March 28, 2019.
Attorney Wong responded that he secured it for Gill’s deposition and for Mendiola’s April 1,
2019 deposition. Opp’n to Court’s Issuance of OSC, aft. (April 12, 2019). Attorney Wong then
sent more than one message to Attorney Van de Veld regarding his expectation that Mendiola
would produce the quitclaim deed on April 1. Attorney Van de Veld responded that Mendiola
“rejected” Attorney Wong’s deadline. Opp’n to Court’s Issuance of OSC, aft.
It is undisputed that Mendiola failed to appear for her April 1 continued deposition,
without giving prior notice.’ Mendiola claims that she “was tending to prior commitments to my
professional obligations and did not attend my deposition.” Decl. Stephanie Mendiola ¶ 5. If
that is true, then she could have preemptively notified Attorney Wong and she could have
advised the Court at the March 26 hearing. The Court finds her decision to tend to prior
commitments to be disingenuous given that earlier in the week she asked the Court to postpone
her deposition for other reasons. In other words, Mendiola simply refused to be deposed.
Mendiola also claimed that the March 29 Order did not allow her time to consider
whether to file an interlocutory appeal on either her ex parte request for a protective order or on
the Court’s order compelling her to produce the quitclaim deed. However, no appeal has been
filed in the two months since the Court issued the March 29 Order. Suffice it to say, adequate
time passed after the Court issued the March 29 Order up until the Court ordered her to show
cause, and yet, Mendiola still withheld the quitclaim deed.
Upon request by Plaintiffs, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Mendiola and
Attorney Van de Veld, which required them to “show why they should not be found in contempt
Since the OSC hearing, Mendiola agreed to sit for a second deposition on May 11, 2019. DecI. Stephanie Mendiola ¶6.
ORIGINAL CV0426- 18 DE!ION AND ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW USE Page 5
of court and sanctioned for violating this Court’s March 29, 2019 order that defendants disclose
to plaintiffs this quitclaim deed that Mendiola signed and notarized for the 14 lots involved in
this case and additionally, as to defendant Mendiola, for failing to give her continued deposition
on April 1, 2019.” As of the date of the hearing on the OSC--May 3, 2019--Mendiola had not
produced the quitclaim deed as ordered by the Court.
The Court finds that Mendiola’s disregard of the April 1 deposition and the Court’s
March 29 Order merits a finding of contempt. Guam law has four elements of contempt: (1) a
valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful
failure to comply with the order. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2003 Guam $ ¶ 15. In this case,
Mendiola had knowledge of a valid order, an ability to comply with the order, and willfully
failed to comply.
The March 29, 2019 Order re Plaintiff’s Request for Expedited Discovery Assistance
required Mendiola to produce the quitclaim deed, and she knew of the Order through her
attorney. Mendiola complains that the Court’s March 29, 2019 Order did not specify a time for
her to produce the document. However, that representation flies in the face of then-ongoing
motion work before the Court in which the parties litigated whether the April 1 deposition should
proceed and Plaintiffs’ anticipated line of questioning at that deposition. The Court also made
clear on March 26 that Plaintiffs may take Mendiola’s continued deposition and that it woul4
issue its decision on the quitclaim deed prior to April 1.
Because the Court made clear that Mendiola may be deposed, Mendiola was under an
obligation to appear for her continued deposition and produce the document. The Court does not
accept Mendiola’s excuse for non-appearance. Plaintiffs gave Mendiola more than three weeks’
notice of her continued deposition in compliance with the obligation to give reasonable notice.
ORIGINAL CV0426-18 DE ION AND ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW SE Page 6
In failing to give timely notice that she would not appear and in not producing the quitclaim
deed, Mendiola violated the Court’s order.
The Court notes that Mendiola also takes the position that she had turned the document
over to her attorney. See Opp. Pl.’s Req. Expedited Discovery Assistance at 3 (Mar. 19, 2019).
In that case, Attorney Van de veld had the obligation to produce the document pursuant to the
Court’s Order and willfully violated that order in failing to do so.
For an appropriate sanction, the Court looks to the contempt statute.2 In issuing a
contempt order, the Court may impose the same penalties for a person convicted of a petty
misdemeanor. 7 GCA § 34101(b). A petty misdemeanor crime may be punished by a maximum
term of 60 days of imprisonment andlor a $500 fine. 9 GCA § 80.34(b), 80.50. The Court
therefore sanctions Mendiola and Attorney Van de veld in the amount of $100.00 each for their
failure to produce the quitclaim deed as ordered by the date of April 1 deposition or even a
reasonable period of time after the Court issued its March 29 Decision and Order.
SO ORDERED this 29th day of May 2019.
A COURT !
H1.N ELYZE M IRIARTE Judge, Superior Court of Guam \%ii) / /jD
1(YY74 Cerk, Supertor Court of 6tm
Appearing Attorneys: Wayson W. S. Wong for Plaintiffs Curtis C. Van de veld for Cyfred, Ltd., and Leonard Francis Gill, and Stephanie Mendiola
2 Plaintiffs have also filed two requests for sanctions related to the failure to produce the deed and appear for the deposition. The first, filed on April 15, 2019, requests recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. The second, filed on May 7, 2019, requests relief under Rule 37. Briefing is still pending on the second motion. The Court will address those requests together upon review of the briefing.
nR1fD1NA1