FJL£D ~;F<5 Le Q
SL§?'5H§GR QQUQT SUPt:mOR COURT . 53?
OFGUAM
=;'"UAM .
z§zss£p~~iao~ 2: s·e Z025,S£P--30 · PH ~2=;58
€¥.§E%*€ CLERt\ OFQFCOURT
CGURT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
ATTORNEY MICHAEL PHILLIPS, CIVIL CASE NO.
no. CV0218-25
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE ESTATEOF OFLUKE
LUKEIMAIZUMI
IMAIZUMI
ATOIGUE, DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, (Motion (Motion to
to Dismiss, Motion
Motion for a
More More Definite
Definite Statement,
Statement, and
vs. Motion to Strike)
Strike)
GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, GUAM GUAM POLICE
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAND ANDDOES
DOES1-10,
1-10,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This matter came came before
before the
the Honorable
Honorable John
JohnC.
C. Terlaje
Terlaje on July 22, 2025, July 22, 2025, for
for a Motion
Hearing on Defendants' Motion Motion to Dismiss, Motion Motion for
for aa More
More Definite
DefiniteStatement,
Statement, and Motion to
and Motion
Strike. Assistant Assistant Attorney General J. Matthew Strider General J. Straderrepresented represented Defendants
Defendants Government
Government of
Guam (hereinafter Guam Police "GovGuam") and Guam
(hereinafter "GovGuam") Police Department (hereinafter"GPD").
Department (hereinafter "GPD"). Attorney Attorney
Michael Michael Phillips Phillips appeared on behalf appeared on behalf of
of the Estate
Estate of
of Luke
Luke Imaizumi
Imaizumi Atoigue
Atoigue (hereinailer
(hereinafter
"Plaintiff').However, "Plaintiff"). However,the Court the does
Court doesnot
notbelieve
believeargument necessaryand argumentisisnecessary matter under thismatter
tookthis
andtook under
advisement the filings. advisement on the filings. After After reviewing
reviewingthe
therecord,
record,the
therelevant
relevantlaw,
law,and
and the
the arguments
arguments from
the parties, parties, the the Court
Courtfinds
finds that
thatPlaintiff
Plaintiff has
hassufficiently
sufficiently pled a set of facts that could entitle it to
relief reliefon on two two of
ofthe
the five
fiveclaims
claimsagainst
against GovGuam
GovGuam and
and GPD. Therefore, the
the Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss is
2
DENIED DENIED in in part part and GRANTED in
and GRANTED in part. The Court DENIES Defendants'
Defendants' Motion for a More
Definite Statement. Additionally, the Court Statement. Additionally, Court DENIES in in part
part and
and GRANTS in
in part
part the
Motion to
Defendants' Motion to Stn'ke.
Strike.
BACKGROUND
This matter matter stems
stems from
from a police shooting
shooting incident
incident which resulted
resulted in the
the death
death of
of Luke
Atoigue. Both Both parries parties assert
assertthat
thataapolice
policeofficer shot and
officer shot and killed
killed Luke
Luke Imaizumi
Imaizumi Atoigue
Atoigue on or
about about April 8, 8, 2022.
2022. Mr. Atoigue
Atoigue was
was in
in psychological
psychological distress
distress at the time and
and Plaintiff alleges
that police that police were made aware of this distress made aware distresswhen whenthey
theywere
were called
called to
to the
the scene.
scene. Mr.
Mr. Atoigue at
at
the time of of the shooting was surrounded bypolice surrounded by police officers officers who were flashing flashing lights,
lights, honking,
honking, and
and
using sirens.
sirens. Defendants allege that that Mr. Atoigue
Atoiguehad
hadan
anobi act in
object in his
his hand,
hand, which
which appeared
appeared to be
a gun to to police officers officers on
on the
the scene. One of the officers scene. One officers on on scene,
scene, Police
Police Officer
Officer#1,
# 1, shot
shot and
and
killed Mr. Atoigue.
Atoigue. No
No other
other officer
officeron
onthe
the scene
scene is
is alleged
alleged to
to have
have shot at
atMr.
Mr. Atoigue.
Atoigue.
Plaintiff alleged alleged live
five (5)
(5)causes
causes ofofaction
actionagainst
against all
allDefendants
Defendants in
in the
the Complaint,
Complaint,
including: 1) negligence including: 1) negligence by by Police
Police Officer #1 who
who shot
shot and killed Mr.
and killed Mr. Atoigue,
Atoigue; 2)
2) negligent
negligent
conduct by all conduct by all police officers officers on
on the
the scene
scene in
in their use of lights
lights and sound, 3)
and sound; 3) negligence
negligence by all
police police officers officers on on the
the scene
scene inintheir
theirpre-shooting
pre-shooting conduct,
conduct; 4)
4) negligent
negligent formation
formation or
or
implementation of police operating implementation of procedure, and operating procedure; and 5)
5) failure
failure to
to train.
train. GovGuam
GovGuam and
and GPO
GPD filed
filed
their Motion to to Dismiss
Dismiss on
on May
May 30,
30, 2025,
2025, arguing
arguing that
that 1)
1) the
the Government
Government is shielded
shielded from
litigation litigation in this this matter becausethe
matter because theofficer officerwho
who shot
shot Mr.
Mr. Atoigue could
could not have
have done
done so
so
negligently, 2) even even ififthe
the actions
actions of the
the police officer
officer were
were negligent,
negligent, the
the Plaintiff
Plaintiffisis precluded
precluded
from relief reliefbecause because the Plaintiff
Plaintiff is
is more
more than fifty percent
than fifty percent at
at fault for their death, 3) GPO death, 3) GPD owes no
special duty to anyone duty to anyone prior priorto
to disarming
disarmingthem,
them,4)
4) GovGuam and
andGPO
GPD cannot
cannotbe
beliable
liablefor
forPolice
Police
Officer Officer#1 #1 's actions by the the means
meansof
ofnegligent
negligent policy,
policy, and 5) the
and 5) the Americans
Americans with
with Disabilities
Disabilities Act
Act
3
(hereinafter "ADA") does not "ADA") does not apply
apply before
before police
police officers
officers secure
secure a scene. Defendants also argued
motion that
in the same motion that Plaintiff'
Plaintiffs Fifth Cause of Action, failure to train, train, is
is not
not sufficiently
sufficiently definite
definite
to allow Defendants to answer answer the claim
claim and,
and, therefore,
therefore, moved for a more definite definite statement.
statement.
Additionally, Defendants Additionally, Defendants moved strike from moved to strike record any from the record any mention mention by
by Plaintiff
Plaintiff regarding
regarding
against Chamorros, Chuukese and alleged instances of police violence against and the the mentally
mentally ill.
ill. Plaintiff
Plaintiff
on Jame
filed its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on June 27, 2025.
2025. Defendants
Defendants filed their Reply on
July 11, 2025.
2025.
DISCUSSION
The Court will follow the structure structure of
of Defendants' Motion to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Dismiss. First,
First, the Court will
address Defendants' Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss under
under Rule
Rule 12(b)(6)
12(b)(6) and
and address
address each
each of
ofPlaintiff'
Plaintiffs five
causes of action.
action. Then
Then the
the Court will
will address
address Defendants'
Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement
in regards to to the Plaintiffs
Plaintiff's Fifth Cause
Cause of Action under Rule 12(e).
12(e). And finally,
finally, the Court
Court will
address Defendants' Motion Motion to
to Strike.
Plaintiff'sFirst 1. Plaintiffs Firstand andFifth
FifthCauses
CausesofofAction
Actionare
aresufficient
sufficientto
to prove
prove aa set
set of
of facts
facts that
would support a claim upon which relief relief could could be granted
granted in accordance
accordance with Rule
)(6), but
12(b)(6), but Plaintiff failed failed to
to prove
prove such
such facts
facts for the Second, Third, and Fourth of Action.
Causes of "A Rule 12(b)(6) "A 12(b)(6) motion of a claim." Navarro v, motion tests the sufficiency of v. Block, 250 F.3d 729,
Cir. 2001).
732 (9th Cir. 2001). When reviewing a Rule l2(b)(6)
When reviewing 12(b)(6) motion, motion, the
the Court
Court must
must "construe
"construe the
the
favorable to the non-moving party pleading in the light most favorable party and resolve all doubts in the non-
moving party's favor." First Hawaiian party's favor." v. Manley, Hawaiian Bank v. Manley, 2007 2007 Guam ,r 9 (citation omitted).
Guam2211
appropriate only when the non-moving Dismissal is appropriate party "can non-moving party "can prove prove no
no set offacts
set of facts in
in support
support of
of
entitle him to relief."
his claim which would entitle Taitano v.
relief." Taitano v. Calve Fin.
Fin. Corp., 2008
2008 Guam
Guam12 ,r 9
1211
v. Los Angeles,
(quoting Vasquez v. 1249 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Angeles, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249
a. Plaintiff
Plaintiff sufficiently
sufficiently pled
pied the First Cause of
of Action, a negligence claim, against Police Officer #1#1 because it is possible Police Officer #1 #1 breached his or her
4
duty of ordinary care owedowed to to Mr. Atoigue which resulted Mr. Atoigue resulted in in Mr.
Mr. Atoigue's
death.
Plaintiff Plaintiff alleges alleges that Officer #1 that Police Officer #1 negligently shot shot Mr. Atoigue
Atoigue on
on or
or about
about April 8,
2022. 2022. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants assert dismiss, Defendants assertthat thatPlaintiff
Plaintiff cannot
cannotallege
allege negligence on
on the
part of Police Police Officer Officer#1
#1when
whenthe
theshooting
shootingwas
wasintentional.
intentional.Defendants
Defendantsstate
state that
that a fatal shooting
by Police Police Officer Officer#1
#1could
couldnot
notbe
be negligent
negligentand
and would
would be an intentional
intentionaluse
useof
offorce
force in
inself-defense.
self-defense.
Thus, Defendants Thus, Defendants argue argue that
thatGovGuam,
GovGuam, GPD,
GPD, and the
the other defendants would be immune defendants would immune from
litigation in this this case
case because
because the
the Guam
Guam legislature has not
legislature has not waived sovereign sovereign immunity
immunity in
intentional intentional tort tort cases. Wood v.
cases. Wood v. Guam
Guam Power
Power Auth.,
Auth., 2000
2000 Guam
Guam 18 ,r 4.4. InIn the
18 1] the alternative, alternative,
Defendants argue arguethat
thateven
evenififPolice
Police Officer
Officer #1 acted negligently, Mr. Atoigue Atoiguewould
wouldbe
bemore
more than
than
50 percent at 50 percent at fault fault for
for his own death
his own dueto
death due to having
having aa gun-like object in gun-like object his hand.
in his 18G
hand. 18 G.C.A.
.C.A. §§ 90108
90108
(establishing establishing that contributory contributory negligence
negligence greater than 50 percent than 50 percentbars
barsaanegligence
negligence claim).
claim). The
Court disagrees with with both
both assertions.
assertions.
Plaintiff is not barred by i. Plaintiff by sovereign sovereign immunity
immunity from bringing the First Cause Action against of Action against Police Police Officer #1 because because Plaintiff's allegation that Plaintiffs allegation that Police Police
Officer #1 acted Officer #1 acted negligently negligently is a possible fact pattern.
Whether an act is negligent or or intentional
intentional is
is determined
determined by
by aa multifactor
multifactor test
test based
based on
on the
facts facts of the the case. Corp. v.
case. Nissan Motor Corp. v. Sea Sea Star
Star Gap.
Grp. Inc., 2002
2002 Guam ,r 11.
Guam 55 1] 11. These factors
include thefollowing: include the following:
[T]he [T]heforeseeability
foreseeabilityofofharm
harmtotothe
the plaintiff,
plaintiff,the
the degree
degree ofofcertainty
certainty that the plaintiff that the plaintiff
suffered injury,
injury, the
the closeness
closeness of
ofthe
the connection
connection between
between thethe defendant's defendant's conduct
conduct
and the
the injury suffered, the the moral moral blame
blame attached
attached to
to the
the defendant's
defendant's conduct,
conduct, the
policy ofofpreventing
preventingfuture
future harm,
harm, the
the extent
extent of
ofthe
theburden
burden to to the
the defendant
defendant and
and
consequences to to the
the community
community of of imposing a duty duty to
to exercise care with
with resulting
liability liability for
forbreach,
breach, and
and the availability,
availability, cost,
cost, and
and prevalence of ofinsurance insurance for the
risk involved.
Id;see Id, see also also Rowland Rowlandv. Christian, 443
443 P.2d 561,564
564 (Cal. 1968).
Although there does seem there does seem to
to be
be a possibility
possibility that the shooting that the shooting of
of Mr.
Mr. Atoigue was
was an
an
intentional act of intentional act of self-defense, self-defense, there
there is
is also
also aapossibility
possibility that
thatPolice
Police Officer
Officer #1 negligently pulled
5
the trigger on his or her gun and shot Mr. Atoigue.
Atoigue. The Court can only dismiss this cause of action
if Plaintiff "can "can prove
prove no set of facts
facts in
in support
support of
of his
his claim
claim which
which would entitle him to relief."
Taitano, 2008 Guam Taitano, Guam 12 12 at
at~ 9. Construing
119. Construing the
the pleading
pleading in the
the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the
finds that Plaintiff has Court finds has shown shown there
there is a set of facts
set of facts that would entitle entitle itit to relief. First to relief.
Hawaiian Bank, 2007 Guam 2 at ~119.
9. There
Thereisisno
no evidence
evidence in
in the
the pleadings
pleadings to
to conclusively
conclusively show
that Police Officer #1 #1 pulled
pulled the
the trigger
trigger on
on his
his gun
gun intentionally.
intentionally. Discovery
Discovery is needed
needed to understand
understand
Mr. Atoigue's shooting
what led to Mr. shooting to determine determine whether Police Officer #1 whether Police #1 pulled the trigger the tagger
intentionally. Thus, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion motion to
to dismiss
dismiss the
the first
first cause
cause of
of action
action
based on this theory.
Plaintiffisis not
ii. Plaintiff not barred barred from
from bringing
bringing the
the First
First Cause
Cause of
of Action
Action against
against Police
Officer #1
#1 based on Mr. Atoigue being more than 50 50 percent at fault for his because it
own death because it is possible possible Mr. Atoigue was not not 50 percent at fault for his own death based on the pleadings.
To recover under a theory of of negligence
negligence under
under Guam
Guam law,
law, Plaintiff
Plaintiff must
must establish
establish "the
existence existence of of a duty, the breach
breach of such
such duty,
duty, causation
causation and
and damages." Guerrero v.
damages." Guerrero v. McDonalds McDonalds Inf
Int 'l
Prop. Co., 2006 Guam 2 ~119. Prop. Guam has 9. Guam has waived
waived sovereign
sovereign immunity for negligent negligent torts,
torts; thus, the
negligent negligent actions actions of
of its
its officers are not
officers are not shielded shielded by
by sovereign
sovereign immunity.
immunity. 55 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6105(b).
6105(b). To
To
establish that a duty establish that duty existed, existed, plaintiffs
plaintiffs must
must show
show that
that there
there was
was a duty recognized by law that that
required "the required "the person person to
to conform
conformto
to aa certain standard
standard of
of conduct, for the protection protection of
of others against
unreasonable risks of harm." Merchant v.
v. Nanyo Realty,
Really, Inc.,
Inc., 1998 ~ 14;
1998 Guam 26 1] 14, see
seeFenwickv.
Fenwick v.
Watabe Guam, Watabe Inc., 2009 Guam 11 ~ 12.
Guam, Inc., 12. In general, while individuals individuals do not owe each each other a
special duty, individuals do owe each each other
other aa duty
duty of
of ordinary
ordinary care not
not to cause unreasonable risk
of harm. See Fenwick, Fenwick, 2009 Guam 11 atat~ ft 53-55
53-55 (discussing,
(discussing, with
with approval,
approval, Jury
Jury instructions
instructions
defining a duty of of ordinary care as
as whether one's
one's actions
actions caused
caused unreasonable risk). A breach of of
duty occurs when an actor does not conform conform to
to that standard. Merchant, that standard. Merchant, 1998 1998 Guam 26atat'H~ 14.
Guam26 14.
6
That breach breach of duty duty must
must have
have been shown to be
be both
both the
the proximate
proximate and
and actual
actual cause
cause of the
the
plaintiff' plaintiffs injuries. Id And injuries. Id. Andthe
the plaintiff
plaintiffmust
must show
show that they suffered "actual that they "actual loss loss or
or damage."
damage." Id.
Id
A plaintiff plaintiffisis barred barred from
from recovery
recovery in
in aa negligence
negligenceclaim
claimififthat
thatplaintiff
plaintiffcontributed
contributed to
to the
the cause
cause
oftheir of their injuries injuries and
and is
is more
more than 50 percent
than 50 atfault
percentat faultfor
for their
their injuries.
injuries. 18
18 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §90108
§90108
At At issue issue here is whether
whether Police
Police Officer
Officer #1
# 1owed
owed aa duty
duty to
to Mr.
Mr. Atoigue
Atoiguebecause
because the
the bullet
wound from the shooting clearly caused caused Plaintiff
Plaintiffproximate
proximateand
and actual
actual harm,
harm, namely the death of of
Mr. Atoigue.
Atoigue.Police Policeofficers
officershave
havenonospecial
specialduty
dutytotothe
thepublic,
public,but
butthey
they do
do have
have aa duty of ordinary
care care to others others not to to cause
cause unreasonable risk of harm.
unreasonable risk harm. Fenwick, 2009 2009 Guam
Guam 11 at ,r 53-55.
at 1]
Complying with a duty duty of ordinary care may ordinary care may have
have different
different sets
setsof
of facts
factsfor
for aa police
police officer in
comparison to a pedestrian comparison to pedestrianbecause becauseof
ofthe
theobligations
obligationspolice
police officers hold to
to protect
protect the
the public
public
from danger. But, regardless, danger. But, regardless,police policeofficers
officers are
are still
still subject to a duty
subject to duty of ordinary ordinary care.
care. Police
Officer #l Officer # 1owed owedsuch
suchaaduty
duty to
to Mr. Atoigue.Plaintiff
Mr.Atoigue. Plaintiffalleges allegessome
somefacts
factsthat
thatcould
couldsuggest
suggest that
that
Police Officer Police Officer#1 #1 breached
breached that duty.Plaintiff that duty. Plaintiff alleged thatPolice alleged that Police Officer Officer #1 was the
#1 was the only
only officer
officer
to pull the trigger of of their
their gun.
gun. Plaintiff
Plaintiff alleged
alleged that
that the call preceding
preceding police contact
contact with Mr.
Atoigue described Atoigue described Mr. Atoigue Atoigueas
as being
beingmentally
mentallydistressed.
distressed. These facts
facts suggest
suggest that
that police did
not intend to harm intend to harm Mr.
Mr. Atoigue
Atoigue and that itit is
and that is possible possible Police
Police Officer
Officer #1
#1 acted
acted with negligence.
Plaintiff has Thus, Plaintiff has met met its burden to
to show there
there is
is a set
setof
of facts
facts that
thatititcould
coulduse
usetotoallege
allege that
thatPolice
Police
Officer Officer#1 #1 negligently negligently shot
shot Mr.
Mr. Atoigue
Atoigueresulting
resultingin
inhis
his death.
death.
Considering the facts in the the pleadings
pleadings in
in the
the light
light most
most favorable
favorable to
to the
the Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, the
the Court
finds that Plaintiff Plaintiff showed
showed that
that Mr. Atoigue
Atoiguewas
wasless
lessthan
than 50
50 percent at fault for his injuries. First
Hawaiian Bank, Bank, 2007 Guam 22 at ,r 9.9. Defendants'
at 1] Defendants' reasoning that Mr.
reasoning that Mr. Atoigue is is more
more than
than 50
50
percent at fault for for his
his death
death rests on the idea that he he was holding a gun-like object object in
in his
his hand
hand at
the time of the shooting.
shooting. It
It is unclear
unclearto
tothe
theCourt
Courtwhat
whatobject
objectMr.
Mr.Atoigue
Atoigue was
was holding
holding or
orif
if Mr.
7
Atoigue was holding holding an
an object
object at
at all.
all. And,
And, even
even ififMr.
Mr. Atoigue
Atoigue was
was holding
holdingan
anobi act, even a gunobject ,
like object, it is possible possible that the
the object
object did
did not
not proximately
proximately or directly
directly cause
cause Mr.
Mr. Atoigue's
Atoigue's death.
Plaintiffs Plaintiffspleadings pleadingspoint
pointto
to facts
facts that
that show
show there
there could
could be
be other
other reasons for the shooting to have
occurred that have nothing to do with what what Mr. Atoigue had
had in his hands or his actions during the
time preceding the shooting. These facts facts include heightened tension due to the amount of of police
officers that surrounded Mr. Atoigue and the fact that only Police Officer Officer #1 discharged his or her
weapon. Thus, Plaintiffs have shown shown that
that there could
could be
be set
set of
of facts
facts to support their claim in this
cause of of action, which is sufficient to meet meet their
their burden
burden at
at this stage in the litigation.
Motion to Dismiss is DENIED concerning Plaintiffs Therefore, Defendants' Motion Plaintiffs First First Cause
offAction.
Action.
Plaintiffailed
b. Plaintiff failedtotostate statethe
theSecond
Second Cause
CauseofofAction,
Action,aanegligence
negligence claim
claim based
based
police officers' use on police use of light light and
and sound,
sound, because
because Plaintiff cannot show Plaintiff cannot show that is possible police possible police use
useofof light
light and
and sound
sound breaches
breachesaaduty
duty ofof care
care toward
toward Mr.
Mr.
Atoigue.
Plaintiff alleges in its its complaint that the
the police
police officers
officers involved
involved in the shooting resulting
in Mr. Atoigue'
Atoigue'ss death death had
had aa duty to operate their vehicles in a reasonable manner. Plaintiff Plaintiff alleges
that police officers officers failed
failed that duty by honking and that duty and flashing flashing lights
lights at Mr. Atoigue. Defendants Defendants
argue that the the police
police officers
officers had
had no
no duty to
to Mr.
Mr, Atoigue when securing the scene and ensuring
their own safety. In the alternative, Defendants argue that even if there was a duty to Mr. Atoigue ifthere
to operate their vehicle of lights and sound are not a violation of vehicle in a reasonable manner, the use of of
the officers' duty of of care under a common negligence theory.
common law negligence theory. The Court Court agrees.
Although, as Although, stated earlier, as stated earlier, police police officers
officers have
have aa duty
duty of ordinary
ordinary care
care not to
to cause
cause
unreasonable risk of of harm, whether officer breached whether a police officer breached that duty is still an element Plaintiff element Plaintiff
must prove. And even even construing
construing the
the pleadings
pleadings in
in favor
favor of
ofPlaintiff,
Plaintiff, the
the Court
Court finds
finds no
no facts
facts that
could establish that flashing flashing lights or use
use of
of sirens
sirens would
would be a breach of the
the police officers' duty
8
of of ordinary ordinary care to Mr. Atoigue.
Atoigue. Plaintiff
Plaintiffhas
has provided
provided no
no explanation
explanation as
as to why flashing
:flashing lights
lights
and sirenswould and sirens would be be foreseeably
foreseeable aggravating
aggravating to
to Mr. Atoigue
Atoigue or
orhow
howthese
these actions
actions would
would breach
breach
the police officers'
officers' duty
duty of
of care
care towards Mr. Atoigue.
towards Mr. Atoigue.
Therefore, Defendants'
Defendants' Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss is GRANTED concerning Plaintiffs Second concerning Plaintiffs Second
Cause of Action. Cause of Action.
c. Plaintiff
Plaintiffailed
failedtotostate
statethe
theThird
ThirdCause
CauseofofAction,
Action,aanegligence
negligence claim
claim based on
police police officers'
officers' pre-shooting conduct, because pre-shooting conduct, because police police officers
officers had
had no
no
affirmative duty
duty towards
towards Mr.
Mr. Atoigue.
Plaintiff Plaintiffalleges
allegesin
in its
its complaint
complaint that officers acted negligently that officers negligently towards Mr.
Mr. Atoigue
Atoigue leading
to his death by by not
not first
first talking
talking Mr. Atoigue
Atoigue down
down from
fromthe
the situation.
situation. Defendants
Defendants argue that
that police
police
officers officers had had no duty to Mr. Atoigue Atoiguewhen
whensecuring
securingthe
the scene
scene and
and ensuring their own
ensuring their own safety.
safety. And,
even even ififthere there was
was a duty to Mr. Atoigue, Atoigue, the
the officers'
officers'conduct
conductdid
didnot
notbreach
breach that
that duty.
duty. The Court
Court
agrees. agrees.
While While the
the officers
officersowed Mr.Atoigue
owedMr. Atoigueaaduty
dutyofofordinary
ordinarycare,
care,that
that duty
duty is not an affirmative affirmative
duty. Fenwick, 2009 duty. Fenwick, Guam 1 at 2009 Guam at ,r1[53-55.
53-55.Officers
Officers had no duty
had no duty to
to speak
speak with
with Mr.
Mr. Atoigue
Atoigue and
and
Plaintiff Plaintiff does does not
not assert
assert any special
special relationship that would relationship that would require require officers
officers to speak with Mr.
speak with
Atoigue. Thus, Atoigue. Thus, Plaintiff Plaintiffoffers
offers no
no evidence
evidence of
ofaa breach police officers'
breach of the police officers' duty duty of
ofordinary
ordinary care.
Therefore, Defendants' Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Dismiss is GRANTED concerning Plaintiffs Third concerning Plaintiffs Third
Cause of Action. Cause of Action.
d. Plaintiff
Plaintiff cannot
cannot state the
the Third
Third Cause
Cause ofof Action,
Action, aa negligence
negligence claim based on negligent formation or implementation of police operating operating procedure, because Defendants cannot be liable for policy policy under
under sovereign
sovereign immunity.
Plaintiff Plaintiff alleges
alleges that
that Defendants are liable for negligent Defendants are negligent formation formation or
or implementation
implementation of
police police standard standard operating procedure. Defendants Defendants argue that because becauseGovGuam
GovGuam cannot
cannotbe
beliable
liable for
for
claims arising from an exercise of of discretion
discretion in
in making
making policy,
policy, GovGuam
GovGuam cannot
cannot be liable
liable here.
here. 5
5
G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 6105 6105 (c).
(c). The
The Court
Court agrees.
agrees.
9
Plaintiff Plaintiff has provided no law that could indicate government liability for for police operating
procedures, nor could such law be provided.
provided. Guam law states, "the "the Government of Guam shall not
be liable for claims arising from from an exercise
exercise of
of discretion
discretion in
in making policy." Id.
making policy." Ill Policy includes
the formation formation of mies rules and
and regulations
regulations that
that government
government agencies
agencies and
and their
their officials
officials follow.
follow. See
See
Gen. v. Gutierrez, Att'y Gen. Gutierrez, 2011 2011 Guam 10 ,r,r 44-45.
10 'lm 44-45. Clearly,
Clearly, GPD's creation
creation of
of policy regarding
regarding
police operating procedures would fall procedures would fall under the formulation formulation of rules
rules for a government agency.
Thus, Defendants cannot be liable for this policy.
Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED concerning Therefore, Defendants' Plaintiffs Fourth concerning Plaintiffs Fourth
Cause of Action.
e. Plaintiff
Plaintiffsufficiently
sufficiently pled
pied the
the Fifth
Fifth Cause
Cause of
ofAction,
Action, aa negligence
negligence claim,
claim, for
for
failure to train failure to train police
police officers
officers based
based on
on a theory
theory that the ADA created created an
an
affirmative duty to modify policies and procedures affirmative duty procedures to to avoid
avoid discrimination.
discrimination.
i. Whether
Whether Plaintiff
Plaintiff met
met the
the requirements
requirements to bring
bring aa cause
cause of
of action
action
under the ADA is irrelevant to Plaintiff's Cause of of Action.
Plaintiff Plaintiffalleges alleges that
that the
the ADA
ADA and
and the federal regulations regulations created
created to enforce the ADA create
a governmental governmental duty to to "make
"make modifications
modifications in
in policies,
policies, practices,
practices, or
or procedures
procedures when the
the
modifications are necessary modifications are necessary to to avoid
avoid discrimination
discrimination on
on the
the basis
basis of
of disability." 28 C.F.R.
disability." 28 C.F.R. §§
35.l30(b)(7). 35.130(b)(7). Plaintiff Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not follow this affirmative affirmative duty because they
failed to train police officers to interact with individuals in mental distress such as Mr. Atoigue.
Defendants argue that to bring a claim under the ADA, Plaintiff Plaintiff must allege that Mr. Atoigue was
denied services because of services because of his his disability
disability and must allege allege that the
the GPD
GPD acted
acted with
with deliberate
deliberate
indifference to Mr. indifference to Mr. Atoigue's Atoigue's mental
mental disability.
disability. 42.
42. U.S.C.
U.S.C. §§ 12132,
12132; Lovell v.
v. Chandler,
Chandler, 303 F.3d
1039, 1056 (9th Cir. 2002).
2002). The
The Court disagrees.
10
Plaintiffstated Plaintiff stated in its reply that the the Fifth Cause
Cause of
of Action is not
Action is not brought under underthe
theADA,
ADA,
but rather rather that thatthe
theADA created a statutory duty.
ADA created duty. Thus, Thus, whether the
the requirements
requirements under
underthe
theADA
ADA
followed is were followed is irrelevant to to Plaintiff's
Plaintiffs cause
cause of
ofaction.
action.
Plaintiffsufficiently
ii. Plaintiff sufficiently alleges alleges that
that the ADA creates an ADA creates an affirmative affirmative duty
by GPD
GPD to to train
trainpolice
police officers
officers on
on discrimination
discrimination based
based on
on disability
disability
and that failure
failure to
to train
train could
could result
result in
in aa negligence
negligence claim.
Plaintiffalleges Plaintiff alleges that that the ADA
ADAand
and the
the federal
federal regulations
regulations that
that enforce the
the ADA created a
ADA created
governmental duty to governmental duty to "make modifications modifications in
in policies,
policies, practices,
practices, or
or procedures
procedures when the
the
modifications are necessary modifications are necessarytoto avoid avoid discrimination
discriminationon
onthe
thebasis
basisof
of disability."
disability." 28
28 C.F.R.
C.F.R. §§
35.l30(b)(7). 35.130(b)(7). Plaintiff Plaintiffalleges
allegesthat
thatDefendants
Defendants did
did not
not follow
followthis
this affirmative
affirmativeduty
dutybecause
because they
failed to to train train police officers
officersto
tointeract
interactwith
withindividuals
individuals in
in mental
mental distress
distress such asMr.
such as Mr. Atoigue.
Atoigue.
Defendants Defendants in the the alternative
alternative argue that the argue that the plaintiff cannot cannot bring this
this cause
cause of
of action
action because
because
GovGuam cannot be liable cannot be liable for claims arising arising from an exercise of of discretion
discretion in making
making policy. 55
G.C.A. G.C.A. §§6105(c).
6105(c). The The Court
Court disagrees.
disagrees.
Although GovGuam Although GovGuam is is not liable for
for claims
claims arising
arising from
from an
an exercise of
ofdiscretion
discretion in
in making
policy, policy, the the ADA ADApreempts
preempts Guam
Guam law as a federal
federal statute.
statute.U.S.
U.S.Const.
Const.art.
art.VI
VIcl.
cl.2.2.The
TheADA
ADA does
create a duty for for state
state and
and territorial governments governments and
and their agencies
agencies to
to not
not discriminate
discriminate against
against
individuals on the basis basisof
of disability
disability and to
to modify
modify procedures to
to avoid discrimination, "unless the
public entity entity can can demonstrate that making demonstrate that making the the modifications would
would fundamentally
fundamentally alter
alter the
the nature
nature
of of the the service, service, program, or activity."
program, or activity." 42.
42. U.S.C.
U.S.C. §§ 12132, see also 28 12132; see C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(7)(i).
28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7)(i).
Disability is is broadly
broadly construed
construed to include
include any
any physical
physical or
or mental
mental state
state that
that "substantially limits
one one or or more more major major life
life activities"
activities" ofofan
anindividual
individual with
with such
such an
an impairment. 28 C.F.R.
impairment. 28 C.F.R. §§
35.108(a)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii). 35.108(a)(l)(i), (b)(l)(ii).
11
Construing the pleadings Construing pleadings in in favor
favor of
ofPlaintiff,
Plaintiff, the
the Court
Court finds that Plaintiff Plaintiff has shown a set
of facts that could allow allow this
this cause
cause of
of action
action to
to proceed.
proceed. See First Hawaiian Bank, 2007 Guam See First Guam 2
at ,-i119.
9. Plaintiff Plaintiffhas
hasalleged
allegedthat
thatthere
therewas
was aa possibility
possibility of
of discrimination
discrimination based
based on
on Mr.
Mr. Atoigue'
Atoigue's
depressive state state because
because police
police were
were aware
aware of
of Mr.
Mr. Atoigue's mental distress distress and Mr.
Mr. Atoigue's
distress could mental distress have been the reason Police Officer #1 pulled the trigger could have trigger on his or her
weapon. It is possible that Mr.
Mr. Atoigue's state qualifies as a disability Atoigue's depressive state disability under under the
the ADA
beca use the because t he definit ion of definition of disability disa bilit y isis defined defined broadly
br oa dly under
under the
t he ADA.
ADA. See
S ee 28
28 CC.F
. ..R.. §§
35.108(a)(l)(i), (b)(l)(ii). 35.l08(a)(l)(i), (b)(l)(ii). Plaintiff alleges alleges that
that because
because police
police officers
officers on
on the
the scene
scene were not
trained trained to interact with to interact individuals in mental with individuals mental distress, distress, police officers officers potentially
potentially engaged in
discrimination against Mr.
Mr. Atoigue based on his mental distress, distress, which resulted in Mr.
Mr. Atoigue's
Atoiglle's
death. The lack of training could be a failure failure of
of the
the affirmative
affirmative duty
duty to
to modify
modify procedures to avoid
discrimination. 28 C.F.R. discrimination. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(7)(i).
35.130(b)(7)(i). And
And Defendants
Defendants do
do not
not sufficiently
sufficiently demonstrate
demonstrate in
in
this motion that such training training would
would "fundamentally alter the nature" of "fundamentally alter of the services GPD provides.
provides.
Id. The Thetheory theory that that aa failure
failure to train police officers negligently caused Mr.
to train Mr. Atoigue's death is a
factually possible factually possible scenario scenario and
and meets
meets Plaintiffs burden in the pleading stage.
Plaintiffs burden
Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED concerning Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Fifth
Fifth Cause
of Action. of
2. Defendants' Motion Motion for
for a More Definite Statement under Rule 12(e) 12(e) of the the Guam
of Civil
Rules of Civil Procedure fails because Plaintiff sufficiently sufficiently pied
pled its
its Fifth
Fifth Cause ofof
Action Defendants have Action and Defendants have already already substantially
substantially responded
responded to Plaintiff's
Plaintiff's Fifth
Fifth
of Action.
Cause of
Rule l2(e) ofthe 12(e) of the Guam
Guam Rules
Rules of
ofCivil
Civil Procedure
Procedure provides
provides that
that "[it]
"[if] a pleading to which a
responsive pleading responsive pleading is permitted permitted is vague or
is so vague or ambiguous
ambiguous that
that aa party
party cannot
cannot reasonably
reasonably be
required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before
12
interposing interposing aa responsive responsive pleading."
pleading." Guam
GuamR.
R. Civ.
Civ. P. 12(e).
12(e). Such
Such aa motion
motion must
must point
point out
out the
the
defects complained complained of ofand
and the details desired.
desired. Id.
Rule 8 8 of
ofthe Guam Rules
Rules of
of Civil
Civil Procedure
Procedure further
further provides that "[a]
"[a] pleading
pleading which
which sets
sets
forth a claim for relief relief ...
...shall
shallcontain
contain......
a short
a shortand
andplain
plainstatement
statement of
ofthe
the claim
claim showing
showing that
that
the pleader isis entitled the pleader entitledtotorelief."
relief." Guam
Guam R.
R. Civ.
Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(a)
8(a) "mean[s]
"mean[s] aacomplaint
complaint need only
provide 'fair 'fair notice notice ofofwhat
whatplaintiff'
plaintiffss claim
claim isis and
and the
the grounds upon which
grounds upon which itit rests."' Ukase Ukau v.
Wang, Wang, 2016 Guam Guam 26 ,i 22.
26 'H 22.
"When "When interpreting the plain language interpreting the of Rule language of Rule 8(a),
8(a), [the
[the Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme Court]
Court] has
has
historically that 'Guam historically held that 'Guam law law requires
requiresonly
only notice
notice pleading,
pleading,not
notfact
factpleading."'
pleading." Ukase,
Ukau, 2016
,i 21 (citing
Guam 26 at 1121 (citing Joseph Joseph v.v. Guam Bd.
Ba OfAIIiea'
Of AlliedHealth
HealthExam
Exam'is,
'rs,2015 Guam441],i 9),
2015Guam 9); see
see
also Guam Election Comm 'n 'n v.v. Responsible
ResponsibleChoices
Choicesfor
forAll
All Adults Coal., 2007 Guam Guam 20 ,i 94;
20 1] 94,
Taitano Taitano v.
v. Calvo Finance Finance Corp., 2008 12 ,i1]13 Guam 12
2008 Guam 13("Rule ("Rule 8 requires
requires only aa short
short and
and plain
statement of the statement of the claim.").
claim."). Historically, Guam Guam has required "notice has only required "notice pleading' of ofaa short
short and
and
plain plain statement of the claim,"
claim,"and
and the
the Supreme
Supreme Court of
ofGuam
Guam has declined to adopt adopt a heightened
standard. standard. Ukase,2016 Ukau, Guam
Guam 26
26 at ,i 29.
at 1129.
Here, Defendants asserted assertedthat
thatPlaintiffs
Plaintiffs Fifth
FifthCause
Cause of
ofAction
Actionwas
wasso
soambiguous
ambiguous as
as to be
impossible impossible for Defendants Defendants to respond.
respond. However, Defendants Defendants did respond
respond to the
the allegations
allegations
Plaintiff Plaintiff asserted asserted in its Complaint Complaint in Defendants'
Defendants' Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss.
Dismiss. Defendants
Defendants clearly
clearly state
state
specific arguments thatonly arguments that onlyapply applytotoPlaintiffs
Plaintiff's Fifth Cause
Cause of
of Action. Plaintiff
Plaintiffhas
has also
also alleged
facts and law sufficient to show and law show the the law
law that
that the
the cause
cause of action
action is
is based
based on, the alleged facts facts
Plaintiff Plaintiffasserts, asserts, and the
the relief
relief sought. Plaintiff based sought. Plaintiff based this cause causeof
of action on
onaatheory
theoryof
ofnegligence
negligence
claiming that the the ADA
ADA created
created a statutory
statutory obligation
obligation that
that GovGuam
GovGuammust
mustfollow
follow by
by training
training police
police
officers officers to to interact
interact with
with individuals
individuals in
in mental
mental distress.
distress. Plaintiff
Plaintiffalleges
allegesfacts
facts that
that could
could make
make this
this
13
cause cause of action action possible.
possible. And Plaintiff
Plaintiffasks
asks for
for $100,000
$100,000 in
in damages as aa result
damages as result of
of the
the alleged
negligence.
Therefore, the the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion Motion for
for aa More
More Definite
Definite Statement.
Statement.
3. Defendants Defendants failed failed to
to sufficiently
sufficiently meet
meet the
the requirements
requirements under Rule
Rule 12(1)
12(f) to strike
strike
from from Plaintiff's Plaintiff'sComplaint
Complaintthe theallegations allegations of
ofpolice
policeviolence
violence against
against the
the mentally
mentally ill
this allegation
because this allegation isis likely relevant to this case.
case. However, Defendants do meetmeet such requirements requirements to to strike allegations allegations of police violence against Chamorros violence against Chamorros and Chuukese.
Rule l2(f)
12(f)ofofthe
theGuam
GuamRules
RulesofofCivil
CivilProcedure
Procedureprovides
provides that
that the
the Court
Court "may
"may order
order
stricken from any pleading any any insufficient
insufficient defense
defenseor
orany
anyredundant,
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter,""[B]ecause scandalous matter," "[B]ecause the the Guam
GuamRules
Rulesof
of Civil
Civil Procedure are generally Procedure are generally derived from,
although not not identical identical to,
to, the
the Federal
Federal Rules
Rules of
of Civil
CivilProcedure,
Procedure, federal
federaldecisions
decisionsthat
that construe
construe the
federal federal counterparts counterparts totothe the Guam
GuamRules
Rulesof
of Civil Procedure
Procedure are
are persuasive authority," Gov persuasive authority," Gov 't't of of
Guam v. O 'Keefe on 0 'Keefe onbehalf behalfofl-Ieirs
Heirs of
ofTorres
Torres Estate,
Estate, 2018 Guam ,i (citing Guam 441]9 citing People v.
v. Quitugua,
2009 10,i110).
Guam 10 2009 Guam 10). Similar Similar to to Rule12(
Rule 12(f)
f) ofofthe GuamRules
theGuam Procedure,Rule CivilProcedure,
RulesofofCivil Rule12( 12(f)
f) of
the Federal Rules of Civil CivilProcedure
Procedure states,
states, in
in relevant
relevant part, "[t]he
"[t]he court
court may
may strike
strike from
from a pleading
an insufficient insufficient defense defense or
orany
any redundant,
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or or scandalous matter." Thus, the
federal interpretationof federal interpretation ofthe theFederal
FederalRule
Rule12(f)
l2(f) is persuasive wheninterpreting persuasive when interpretingRule Rule12(f)
l2(f) of the
the
Guam Rules Rules of of Civil Procedure.
Procedure.
"Federal "Federal courts courts have
have established
established aa high
high standard for Rule 12(1)
standard for 12(f) motions and will will not grant
motions to strike 'unless 'unless itit is
is clear
clear that
that the
the matter to be stricken could have no no possible bearing on
the subject subjectmatter matterofofthe
thelitigation."'
litigation." Ukase
Ukau v.v. Wang,
Wang,No
No 1:11-CV-00030,
1: 11-CV-00030, 2012 WL 1503325, 2012 WL 1503325, at *2
(D. Guam Guam App. Div. Apr.
Apr. 24,
24, 2012)
2012) (citing
(citing Bassett
Bassett v.
v. Ruggles,
Ruggles, 2009
2009 WL 2982895, at *24).
2982895, at
"'Relevent '"Releventevidence'
evidence'means
meansevidence
evidencehaving
havingany
anytendency
tendencyto
tomake
make the
the existence
existence of
ofany
any fact
fact that
that
is of ofconsequence consequence to the the determination of
of the
the action
action more
more probable
probable or
or less
less probable
probable than it would
14
be without the theevidence."
evidence." Guam
GuamR.
R.Evid.
Evid.40 l. "'[M]otions
401. [to strike]
"'[M]otions [to strike] under under Rule
Rule 12(f) are
are viewed
viewed
with disfavor and are areinfrequently
infrequentlygranted,' evenwhen granted even when they
they are
are 'technically
'technicallyappropriate
appropriate and
and wellwell
-
founded,' because founded] because striking strikingisis 'a
'a drastic
drasticremedy."' LSM Techs remedy." LSM Techs Pty
Ply Ltd. v. So-Klone
Ltd v. Sy-Klone Co., LLC, No.
Co., LLC,
3:22-CV-1019_BJD-MCR, 2023 3:22-CV-1019_BJD-MCR, 2023 WL WL 5938803,
5938803, at
at *1
*1 (M.D. Fla.
Fla. Aug.
Aug. 15,
15, 2023)
2023) (quoting Harvey
Buena Vista v. Lake Buena Vista Resort, Resort, LLC, Supp. 2d LLC, 568 F. Supp. ad 1354, 1354, 1359
1359(M.D.
(M.D. Fla.
Fla. 2008));
2008)), see also Wynes
Wynes
v. Kaiser v. Kaiser Permanence Permanente Hasps., 2:10-CV-00702-MCE, 2013 Hosts., No. 2:10-CV-00702-MCE, 2013 WL2449498 2449498 (E.D.
(E.D. Cal.
Cal. June
June 5,
2013).
Here, while Defendants Defendants do address the Rule address the Rule 12(f) standard, Plaintiff's claim standard, Plaintiffs claim regarding regarding
discrimination againstthe discrimination against thementally mentallyill
ill by
by GPD could be relevant in Plaintiff'
Plaintiffs causes
causes of action.
Defendants assert assert that
thatPlaintiffs
Plaintiff's claim
claim regarding
regarding widespread
widespread discrimination discrimination against
against the mentally
ill is is "amorphous"
"amorphous" and and irrelevant.
irrelevant. This
This assertion
assertion does
does address the Rule
address the Rule l2(i)
12(f)standard
standard because
because
Defendants essentially assert Defendants essentially assertthat thatPlaintiffs
Plaintiff's allegations
allegations are
are immaterial
immaterialto
to this
this case.
case. This is
incorrect. Discrimination against againstthe
thementally
mentallyill
ill is the
the basis
basisfor
formuch
muchof
ofPlaintiffs
Plaintiffs case,
case, thus
thus it is
a relevant allegation that that GPD may frequently engage in in discrimination
discrimination against the mentally against the mentally ill.
ill.
Plaintiff Plaintiffhas has no
no obligation
obligation to
to substantiate the claim at this stage substantiate the stage in the pleadings so so long as
as the
claim claim is factually factually possible possible and
and based on law.
However, However,PlaintifFs Plaintiffsassertion
assertionthat
thatGPD
GPDdiscriminates
discriminatesagainst
againstChamorros
Chamorrosand
and Chuukese
Chuukese is
not relevant to the case and, the case and,therefore,
therefore,isis struck
struckfrom
fromthe
therecord
recordper
perDefendants'
Defendants'Motion.
Motion.Plaintiff
Plaintiff
makes no assertions makes no assertionsthat thatrace,
race,color,
color,or
orethnicity
ethnicity are
arerelated
relatedto
to its
itstort
tort claims.
claims. The
The complaint relies
solely on on discrimination based on discrimination based on Mr.
Mr. Atoigue's
Atoigue's mental
mental illness.
illness. Whether
Whether GPD
GPD discriminates
discriminates on
the basis basis of of race,
race, color, or ethnicity ethnicity "could
"could have
have no
no possible
possible bearing
bearing on
on the
the subject
subject matter of the
litigation" because litigation" because it it will
willnot
notbe
beused to prove
used to proveor
ordisprove
disprovethe
theassertion
assertion that
that GPD
GPD discriminated
discriminated
against Mr. Atoigue Atoigueon
onthe
the basis
basis of
ofmental
mentalillness.
illness.Ukase, 2012 WL
Ukau, 2012 WL 1503325,
1503325, at *2. And, because because
15
of the of the irrelevance irrelevance of ofdiscrimination
discrimination on
on the
the basis ofrace,
basis of race, color,
color, or
or ethnicity
ethnicity in
inthis
this case,
case, and
and the
inflammatory natureof inflammatory nature of calling upon discrimination discrimination on
on this
this basis
basiswhen
when itit is not relevant to the
subject matter of of the case, it would
would not
not be aa drastic remedy in in this case.
Therefore, the Therefore, the CourtDENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motionto
to Strike
Strike as pertainsto
as it pertains toGPD's
GPD's alleged
discrimination discrimination against the the mentally ill
ill and
and the Court GRANTS Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Strike
Strike as
as it
pertains to to GPD's GPD's alleged
allegeddiscrimination
discriminationagainst
againstChamorros
Chamorros and
and Chuukese.
Chuukese.
CONCLUSION
Viewing the Viewing the disputed disputed facts in
in the light
light most
most favorable
favorable to
to the
the non-moving
non-moving party,
party, the
the Court
makes thefollowing makes the following findings findings::
The Court agrees agrees that
thatPlaintiff
Plaintiff failed
failed to
to allege a set of
of facts which
which would
would entitle
entitle itit to
to relief
relief
for the the Second, Second, Third, and Fourth Fourth Causes
Causesof
of Action
Action regarding
regarding negligence. Therefore, the the Court
Court
hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss with
with respect
respect to
to these
these claims.
The Court finds that that itit is possible
possible for
for the
the Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs to
to prove
prove aa set of
offacts
facts in
in support
support of their
claim which would entitle them them to
to relief
relief under
undertort
tortlaw
lawfor
for 1)
1) negligence
negligence by
by Police
Police Officer
Officer#1
#1 and
and
2) failure failure to to train.
train. Accordingly,
Accordingly, the
the Court
Court hereby
hereby DENIES
DENIES Defendants'
Defendants' Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss with
respect to the the First and
andFifth
Fifth Causes
Causesof
ofAction.
Action.
The Court Court finds that
that Plaintiffs sufficiently plead plead their Fifth Cause
Cause of
of Action
Actionsuch
such that
that
Defendants would be able to draft a responsive responsive pleading.
pleading. Accordingly,
Accordingly, the
the Court
Court nearby
hearby DENIES
Defendants' Motion for Defendants' Motion for aa More More Definite
Definite Statement.
Statement.
The Court Court finds that
that Defendants did not
Defendants did not provide sufficient reasoning reasoning to strike from the the
record Plaintiffs Plaintiffs statements statements regarding
regarding GPD's
GPD's alleged
alleged discrimination
discrimination against the mentally against the mentally ill.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion Motion to
to Strike
Strike with
with respect
respect to allegations
allegations that GPD
discriminates on the the basis
basis of
of mental
mental illness.
16
Finally, the Finally, the Court Court finds that Defendants Defendants did
did provide sufficient reasoning to strike from the
Plaintiffs statements record Plaintifi"s statements regarding regarding GPD's
GPD's alleged
allegeddiscrimination
discrimination against
against Chamorros
Chamorros and
and
Chuukese. Therefore, Chuukese. the Court Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants'
Defendants' Motion
Motion to Strike with
to Strike with respect
respect to
allegations that allegations that GPD GPD discriminates
discriminates against
against Chamorros
Chamorros and
and Chuukese.
Chuukese.
SO ORDERED, this _ _ ORDERED,this Q/w/L5
q--+-/_?_6 +--( ~_5________,_ 'I
I I
HON.T'™
a /\
Hon.Q91Itv C.
Q*
c. TERLAJE
AJE
Judge, Superior
u~ Coo,
f tt of Guam