FILED 1819 JAN 23.-r 2: 50
SUffERIO~ COURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM OF GUAM
PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Superior Court Case No. CV0478-18 -.- .. INC., DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, re MOTION FOR JUDICIAL vs. NOTICE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHERIF ANTOUN PHILIPS, M.D.,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. ("PCMH") asks the Court to apply the
full faith and credit clause and allow enforcement of a North Carolina Judgment against
Defendant Sherif A. Philips, M.D. 1 Finding that the North Carolina Judgment is final and
properly certified and therefore entitled to full faith and credit, the Court GRANTS summary
judgment on PCMH's claims.
I. UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. In SherifA. Philips, MD. v. Pitt County Mem 'I Hasp., Inc., et al., No.
09-CVS-2652, the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division of County of Pitt, North
Carolina, issued a Judgment in PCMH's favor for $457,335.70 plus post-judgment interest from
July 17, 2014 until satisfied. See Pl.'s Decl. Atty. Jay C. Salsman, Ex. A (July 25, 2018)
(certified copy of Judgment).
1 Daniel Berman, Esq., of Berman O'Connor & Mann represents PCMH. Dr. Philips appears prose.
ORIGINAL CV0478-18 DECISION AND ORDER REMOTION Page2 JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2. Philips subsequently appealed but the North Carolina Supreme Court dismissed
his appeal. Pl.'s Req. Jud. Notice of Order to Dismiss Philips' Pet. Discretionary Review, Ex. A
(Oct. 16, 2018). 2
3. Philips also filed claims against PCMH in federal court, however, those claims
have been dismissed with prejudice. See Dec. and Order re Mot. Dismiss (Sept. 7, 2018).
4. PCMH seeks to enforce the North Carolina Judgment in Guam. 3
II. LAW AND DISCUSSION
A court may grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law." GRCP 56(c). A genuine issue of fact exists when "there is 'sufficient evidence'
which establishes a factual dispute requiring resolution by a fact-finder." Iizuka Corp. v.
Kawasho Int 'I (Guam), Inc., 1997 Guam 10 ~ 7 (citing T. W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec.
Contractors Ass 'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987)). A material fact is "one that is relevant to
an element of a claim or defense and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit. ...
Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment."
Iizuka Corp., 1997 Guam 10 ~ 7. "If the movant can demonstrate that there are no genuine
issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on allegations contained in the
complaint, but must produce at least some significant probative evidence tending to support the
complaint." Id. at~ 8 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). However,
2 The dismissal order is also available at www.nccourts.org under Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem '/ Hosp., Inc., eta/., No. 368P12-5. 3 Philips apparently seeks to "transfer" this case to the District Court of Guam. Transfer to Guam District Ct. (Dec. 28, 20 18). The Court is unaware of any applicable legal mechanism that divests it of jurisdiction or prevents it from issuing this Decision and Order.
RIGINAL CV0478-18 DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION Page 3 JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
"the Court must view the evidence and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the
non-movant." Edwards v. Pacific Fin. Corp., 2000 Guam 27 ~ 7 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at
249).
The central question here concerns whether Philips has demonstrated any genuine issue
of material fact to undermine the fmality or authenticity of the North Carolina Judgment so as to
preclude application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under this
clause, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceeding of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the
Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
U.S. Const. art. IV,§ 1. Under federal law and Guam law, 28 USC§ 1738 and 6 GCA § 4214,
judgments from other state courts must be given the same credit and effect on Guam as they
would have in the place where they were made. To be given the same credit and effect, the
decision must be properly authenticated and deemed a final judgment under the local law of the
state of rendition. See Stahl v. Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ~ 18-19.
The Court must therefore first determine whether the North Carolina Judgment was a
fmaljudgment under North Carolina law. According to the Court of Appeals ofNorth Carolina,
for appeal purposes, "a 'final judgment' is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties,
leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court." Harris & Hilton,
P.A. v. Rassette, 798 S.E.2d 154, 156 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017); see also N.C.G.S. 1A-1, 54.
Judgments are enforceable in North Carolina absent an appeal or order of stay. See N.C.G.S.
1A-l, 62.
IG1NAL CV0478-18 DECISION AND ORDER REMOTION Page4 JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Philips appealed the North Carolina Judgment but the Supreme Court of North Carolina
has dismissed his appellate efforts. With no appeal or order of stay pending, the North Carolina
Judgment is enforceable in North Carolina. See generally N.C.G.S. 1A-1, 62 ("no execution shall
issue upon a judgment nor shall proceedings be taken for its enforcement until the expiration of
the time provided in the controlling statute or rule of appellate procedure for giving notice of
appeal from the judgment. ... " ). Accordingly, this Court finds the North Carolina Judgment to be
fmal for purposes of execution in the state of rendition and therefore considers it to be fmal in
Guam.
Before giving the North Carolina Judgment full credit and effect, however, the judgment
must be authenticated: "records and judicial proceedings of any such State ... shall be proved or
admitted in other courts ...by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal
exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that said attestation is in proper form."
28 USC§ 1738. PCMH meets these requirements in submitting a certified copy of the North
Carolina Judgment. The submitted judgment includes the clerk's attestation and the judge's
certification on the second page of the decision. Id. This Court is satisfied that the North Carolina
Judgment satisfies the authentication requirements of 28 USC § 1738.
Despite finding the North Carolina Judgment to be final and authenticated, this Court
must still grapple with Philips' continued assertions that it is invalid. See Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ~
27 (burden on challenger to show invalidity of judgment). His reasons vary but include a fraud
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED 1819 JAN 23.-r 2: 50
SUffERIO~ COURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM OF GUAM
PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Superior Court Case No. CV0478-18 -.- .. INC., DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, re MOTION FOR JUDICIAL vs. NOTICE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHERIF ANTOUN PHILIPS, M.D.,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. ("PCMH") asks the Court to apply the
full faith and credit clause and allow enforcement of a North Carolina Judgment against
Defendant Sherif A. Philips, M.D. 1 Finding that the North Carolina Judgment is final and
properly certified and therefore entitled to full faith and credit, the Court GRANTS summary
judgment on PCMH's claims.
I. UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. In SherifA. Philips, MD. v. Pitt County Mem 'I Hasp., Inc., et al., No.
09-CVS-2652, the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division of County of Pitt, North
Carolina, issued a Judgment in PCMH's favor for $457,335.70 plus post-judgment interest from
July 17, 2014 until satisfied. See Pl.'s Decl. Atty. Jay C. Salsman, Ex. A (July 25, 2018)
(certified copy of Judgment).
1 Daniel Berman, Esq., of Berman O'Connor & Mann represents PCMH. Dr. Philips appears prose.
ORIGINAL CV0478-18 DECISION AND ORDER REMOTION Page2 JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2. Philips subsequently appealed but the North Carolina Supreme Court dismissed
his appeal. Pl.'s Req. Jud. Notice of Order to Dismiss Philips' Pet. Discretionary Review, Ex. A
(Oct. 16, 2018). 2
3. Philips also filed claims against PCMH in federal court, however, those claims
have been dismissed with prejudice. See Dec. and Order re Mot. Dismiss (Sept. 7, 2018).
4. PCMH seeks to enforce the North Carolina Judgment in Guam. 3
II. LAW AND DISCUSSION
A court may grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law." GRCP 56(c). A genuine issue of fact exists when "there is 'sufficient evidence'
which establishes a factual dispute requiring resolution by a fact-finder." Iizuka Corp. v.
Kawasho Int 'I (Guam), Inc., 1997 Guam 10 ~ 7 (citing T. W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec.
Contractors Ass 'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987)). A material fact is "one that is relevant to
an element of a claim or defense and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit. ...
Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment."
Iizuka Corp., 1997 Guam 10 ~ 7. "If the movant can demonstrate that there are no genuine
issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on allegations contained in the
complaint, but must produce at least some significant probative evidence tending to support the
complaint." Id. at~ 8 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). However,
2 The dismissal order is also available at www.nccourts.org under Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem '/ Hosp., Inc., eta/., No. 368P12-5. 3 Philips apparently seeks to "transfer" this case to the District Court of Guam. Transfer to Guam District Ct. (Dec. 28, 20 18). The Court is unaware of any applicable legal mechanism that divests it of jurisdiction or prevents it from issuing this Decision and Order.
RIGINAL CV0478-18 DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION Page 3 JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
"the Court must view the evidence and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the
non-movant." Edwards v. Pacific Fin. Corp., 2000 Guam 27 ~ 7 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at
249).
The central question here concerns whether Philips has demonstrated any genuine issue
of material fact to undermine the fmality or authenticity of the North Carolina Judgment so as to
preclude application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under this
clause, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceeding of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the
Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
U.S. Const. art. IV,§ 1. Under federal law and Guam law, 28 USC§ 1738 and 6 GCA § 4214,
judgments from other state courts must be given the same credit and effect on Guam as they
would have in the place where they were made. To be given the same credit and effect, the
decision must be properly authenticated and deemed a final judgment under the local law of the
state of rendition. See Stahl v. Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ~ 18-19.
The Court must therefore first determine whether the North Carolina Judgment was a
fmaljudgment under North Carolina law. According to the Court of Appeals ofNorth Carolina,
for appeal purposes, "a 'final judgment' is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties,
leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court." Harris & Hilton,
P.A. v. Rassette, 798 S.E.2d 154, 156 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017); see also N.C.G.S. 1A-1, 54.
Judgments are enforceable in North Carolina absent an appeal or order of stay. See N.C.G.S.
1A-l, 62.
IG1NAL CV0478-18 DECISION AND ORDER REMOTION Page4 JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Philips appealed the North Carolina Judgment but the Supreme Court of North Carolina
has dismissed his appellate efforts. With no appeal or order of stay pending, the North Carolina
Judgment is enforceable in North Carolina. See generally N.C.G.S. 1A-1, 62 ("no execution shall
issue upon a judgment nor shall proceedings be taken for its enforcement until the expiration of
the time provided in the controlling statute or rule of appellate procedure for giving notice of
appeal from the judgment. ... " ). Accordingly, this Court finds the North Carolina Judgment to be
fmal for purposes of execution in the state of rendition and therefore considers it to be fmal in
Guam.
Before giving the North Carolina Judgment full credit and effect, however, the judgment
must be authenticated: "records and judicial proceedings of any such State ... shall be proved or
admitted in other courts ...by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal
exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that said attestation is in proper form."
28 USC§ 1738. PCMH meets these requirements in submitting a certified copy of the North
Carolina Judgment. The submitted judgment includes the clerk's attestation and the judge's
certification on the second page of the decision. Id. This Court is satisfied that the North Carolina
Judgment satisfies the authentication requirements of 28 USC § 1738.
Despite finding the North Carolina Judgment to be final and authenticated, this Court
must still grapple with Philips' continued assertions that it is invalid. See Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ~
27 (burden on challenger to show invalidity of judgment). His reasons vary but include a fraud
on the court and equal protection and due process violations. See Mot. Clarification and Mot.
Recon. at 2 (Oct. 10, 2018). However, in reviewing the record, the North Carolina courts (and
federal courts) entertained these same arguments and still found in favor of PCMH, raising the
'' \G\NAL CV0478-18 DECISION AND ORDER REMOTION Page 5 JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
presumption that his arguments were without merit. Id. Because those arguments failed before
the courts with jurisdiction to review such claims, the Court finds that Philips' arguments do not
create genuine issues of material fact on the central question ofwhether a final and authenticated
judgment exists.
Finding the North Carolina Judgment to be final, valid, and authenticated, the Court gives
it full faith and credit. Moreover, because PCMH has requested the Court to take judicial notice
of the North Carolina Judgment and has provided the necessary information, the Court takes
judicial notice of the truth of the facts in the North Carolina Judgment. See Guam R. Evid.
201(d).
III. CONCLUSION
The Court takes judicial notice ofthe authenticated and final North Carolina Judgment
and GRANTS Pitt County Hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment.
SO ORDERED this 23d day of January 2019.
HON. ELYZE M. IRIARTE Judge, Superior Court of Guam
orknr,,!J!raoe that a copy of the
;•:7'"' '"" YJ1:!!f ~eputv Cl~rk, Superior Court of Guam
RIGINAL