, Fl SUPER! H C0URl OF GUA~ 2011 APR I 9 P 2: 09 2
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6
7 DARIUS ABDUL RICHARDSON, 8 Superior Court Case No. DM0361-0l 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 11 (Objection Re: Judge Maraman 12 JEAN LORRAINE RICHARDSON, Assignment)
13 Defendant. 14
17 INTRODUCTION 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jean Richardson's Objection to the 19 Assignment of Judge Maraman filed October 4, 2017. Attorney Daniel J. Berman represents 20 Plaintiff Darius Richardson. Defendant Jean Richardson appears pro se. Upon review of the 21 evidence, written arguments, and legal authorities presented by both parties, the Court hereby 22 issues this Decision and Order DENYING Defendant's motion. _, 24 This case involves an ongoing dispute between Jean and Darius stemming from their ~~;_ ~~-·~
25 2001 divorce. In the interest of brevity, the Court will recount only those facts pertinent to U) Jean's present motion. On September 8, 2017, Judge Maraman filed a notice of a potential 26 conflict of interest ("the Notice"). The potential conflict stems from an unrelated case 27 (CVO 179-16) in which Darius's attorney Daniel J. Berman filed suit, on behalf of a client, 28
Richardson v. Richardson (DM0361-01) Decision and Order (Objection Re: Judge Maraman Assignment) Page 1 of5 against a Board of Directors on which Judge Maraman serves in her personal capacity. Notice, at 1 (Sep. 8, 2017). Judge Maraman is not a named defendant in the lawsuit. !d. In the Notice, 2 Judge Maraman asserts that she does not believe that the facts disqualify her from sitting as a 3 judge in this matter. !d. The Notice states that a party wishing to pursue disqualification based 4 on the facts of the Notice must make such objection within twenty-one days of the filing of the 5 Notice. !d. 6 The Notice was served on Darius via the court box of Darius's attorney Daniel Berman 7 on September 8, 2017. !d. at 2. On September 13, 2017, Darius served Jean with his Notice of
8 Waiver and Statement of No Objection via e-mail and also via U.S. Mail, First Class to her
9 residence in New York. Notice of Waiver (Sep. 13, 2017). On September 20, 2017, the Court filed a Declaration of Mailing which states that a copy of the Notice was mailed to Jean's New IO York address. Decl. of Mailing (Sep. 20, 20 17). II On October 4, 2017, Jean filed a motion titled "Objection and First Request for I2 Information Re: September 8, 2017 Assignment; Grounds of Disqualification 7 GCA Sections 13 6105; and Duty to Disclose Disqualification 7 GCA Section 6106." I4
I5 DISCUSSION I6 a. Procedural defects in Jean's Objection. I7
I8 The Supreme Court of Guam has held that a Superior Court judge may strike a statement of objection that is procedurally defective without referring the matter to another I9 judge. People v. Johnny, 2006 Guam 10 ~ 1. "A statement is formally defective if it is 20 improperly served, not verified, or untimely." !d. ~~ 11-14 (citing 7 G.C.A. § 6107); see also 2I Krebs v. L.A. Ry. Corp., 61 P.2d 931,933-34 (Cal.1936) (affirming judge's striking ofuntimely 22 request for disqualification). Jean's motion was defective in that it was improperly served and 23 unverified. 24 Pursuant to 7 G.C.A. § 6107, an objection to judicial competency must be made in the 25 form of a written statement filed with the clerk of court and "[ c]opies of such written statement 26 shall forthwith be served by the presenting party on each party, or his or her attorney, who has 27 appeared in the action or proceeding and on the Justice or Judge alleged in such statement to
28 be disqualified." 7 G.C.A. § 6107 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Guam has held that
Richardson v. Richardson (DM036I-OI) Decision and Order (Objection Re: Judge Maraman Assignment) Page 2 of5 a party objecting to competency must provide personal service of its statement of objection upon the challenged judge or justice. Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, 2003 Guam 10 ~ 37. 2 Jean's Objection was never served on Judge Maraman, and it is therefore procedurally 3 defective. 4 Additionally, Section 6107 requires that statements of objection "be verified in the 5 manner prescribed for the verification of pleadings." 7 G.C.A. § 6107. The Supreme Court of 6 Guam has clarified that statements of objection must be verified in the manner set forth in 6 7 G.C.A. § 4308. Term Credit Bank ofJapan at~ 42. For a document to be verified, Section 4308
8 requires the document to contain a statement declaring under the penalty of perjury that the
9 facts alleged are true. Jean's Objection contains no such verification. Because of the procedural defects in her Objection, this Court may strike the Objection without referring the matter to 10 another judge. 11
12 b. The facts do not give rise to an inference that this Court has acted with bias.
13 Having decided that procedural defects warrant denial of Jean's Objection, the Court 14 will nonetheless address the substantive arguments presented. 15 A judge has the duty to determine if any facts exist which would subject him or her to 16 disqualification pursuant to 7 G.C.A. § 6105 and to provide a memorandum of these facts. 7 17 G.C.A. § 6106. This memorandum is to be entered into the minutes and transmitted to each
18 party. !d.
19 The Notice was filed on September 7, 2017. The Court filed a Declaration of Mailing on September 20, 2017, in which Deputy Clerk Barbara G. Leon Guerrero signed and declared 20 under penalty of perjury that she mailed via U.S. Mail a copy of the Notice to Jean's address in 21 New York. Decl. of Mailing (Sep. 20, 2017). Jean asserts that she did not learn of the Notice 22 until September 21, 2017, when she received service via U.S. Mail of Darius's Waiver and 23 Statement ofNo Objection. Objection, at 2 (Oct. 4, 2017). Jean further points out that the Court 24 has consistently mailed all other Superior Court generated documents to her. !d. After mailing 25 her Objection to Judge Maraman's assignment on September 29, 2017, Plaintiff claims that she 26 subsequently received the Notice from the Court via U.S. Mail on September 30, 2017. 27 Objection Re: Mot. for Child Supp., at 12 (Oct. 20, 2017). September 30 was after the twenty-
28 one day period allowed for the filing of a motion to disqualify pursuant to the Notice. Jean now
Richardson v. Richardson (DM0361-01) Decision and Order (Objection Re: Judge Maraman Assignment) Page 3 of5 argues that the Court deliberately delayed the mailing of the Notice and that this is evidence of judicial bias. 2 Absent an agreement by all parties that a jurist continue to preside over a matter, the 3 Guam Code mandates that a judge disqualify herself in the following circumstances: 4 (a) Any Judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which his 5 or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, but if, following complete 6 disclosure to all parties in the proceeding of the reasons for disqualification, all parties agree to having the Judge continue to sit in the proceedings, he or 7 she need not disqualify himself or herself. 7 G.C.A. § 6105(a). 8 (b) A Judge shall also disqualify himself or herself in the following 9 circumstances, but if, following complete disclosure to all parties in the proceeding of the reasons for his or her disqualification, all parties agree to 10 having the Judge continue to sit in the proceedings, he or she need not disqualify himself or herself: 11
12 ( 1) Where he or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 13 proceeding; 7 G.C.A. § 6105{b)(1). 14 Under section 6105, "what matters is the appearance ofbias, not "actual bias." People v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
, Fl SUPER! H C0URl OF GUA~ 2011 APR I 9 P 2: 09 2
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6
7 DARIUS ABDUL RICHARDSON, 8 Superior Court Case No. DM0361-0l 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 11 (Objection Re: Judge Maraman 12 JEAN LORRAINE RICHARDSON, Assignment)
13 Defendant. 14
17 INTRODUCTION 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Jean Richardson's Objection to the 19 Assignment of Judge Maraman filed October 4, 2017. Attorney Daniel J. Berman represents 20 Plaintiff Darius Richardson. Defendant Jean Richardson appears pro se. Upon review of the 21 evidence, written arguments, and legal authorities presented by both parties, the Court hereby 22 issues this Decision and Order DENYING Defendant's motion. _, 24 This case involves an ongoing dispute between Jean and Darius stemming from their ~~;_ ~~-·~
25 2001 divorce. In the interest of brevity, the Court will recount only those facts pertinent to U) Jean's present motion. On September 8, 2017, Judge Maraman filed a notice of a potential 26 conflict of interest ("the Notice"). The potential conflict stems from an unrelated case 27 (CVO 179-16) in which Darius's attorney Daniel J. Berman filed suit, on behalf of a client, 28
Richardson v. Richardson (DM0361-01) Decision and Order (Objection Re: Judge Maraman Assignment) Page 1 of5 against a Board of Directors on which Judge Maraman serves in her personal capacity. Notice, at 1 (Sep. 8, 2017). Judge Maraman is not a named defendant in the lawsuit. !d. In the Notice, 2 Judge Maraman asserts that she does not believe that the facts disqualify her from sitting as a 3 judge in this matter. !d. The Notice states that a party wishing to pursue disqualification based 4 on the facts of the Notice must make such objection within twenty-one days of the filing of the 5 Notice. !d. 6 The Notice was served on Darius via the court box of Darius's attorney Daniel Berman 7 on September 8, 2017. !d. at 2. On September 13, 2017, Darius served Jean with his Notice of
8 Waiver and Statement of No Objection via e-mail and also via U.S. Mail, First Class to her
9 residence in New York. Notice of Waiver (Sep. 13, 2017). On September 20, 2017, the Court filed a Declaration of Mailing which states that a copy of the Notice was mailed to Jean's New IO York address. Decl. of Mailing (Sep. 20, 20 17). II On October 4, 2017, Jean filed a motion titled "Objection and First Request for I2 Information Re: September 8, 2017 Assignment; Grounds of Disqualification 7 GCA Sections 13 6105; and Duty to Disclose Disqualification 7 GCA Section 6106." I4
I5 DISCUSSION I6 a. Procedural defects in Jean's Objection. I7
I8 The Supreme Court of Guam has held that a Superior Court judge may strike a statement of objection that is procedurally defective without referring the matter to another I9 judge. People v. Johnny, 2006 Guam 10 ~ 1. "A statement is formally defective if it is 20 improperly served, not verified, or untimely." !d. ~~ 11-14 (citing 7 G.C.A. § 6107); see also 2I Krebs v. L.A. Ry. Corp., 61 P.2d 931,933-34 (Cal.1936) (affirming judge's striking ofuntimely 22 request for disqualification). Jean's motion was defective in that it was improperly served and 23 unverified. 24 Pursuant to 7 G.C.A. § 6107, an objection to judicial competency must be made in the 25 form of a written statement filed with the clerk of court and "[ c]opies of such written statement 26 shall forthwith be served by the presenting party on each party, or his or her attorney, who has 27 appeared in the action or proceeding and on the Justice or Judge alleged in such statement to
28 be disqualified." 7 G.C.A. § 6107 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Guam has held that
Richardson v. Richardson (DM036I-OI) Decision and Order (Objection Re: Judge Maraman Assignment) Page 2 of5 a party objecting to competency must provide personal service of its statement of objection upon the challenged judge or justice. Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, 2003 Guam 10 ~ 37. 2 Jean's Objection was never served on Judge Maraman, and it is therefore procedurally 3 defective. 4 Additionally, Section 6107 requires that statements of objection "be verified in the 5 manner prescribed for the verification of pleadings." 7 G.C.A. § 6107. The Supreme Court of 6 Guam has clarified that statements of objection must be verified in the manner set forth in 6 7 G.C.A. § 4308. Term Credit Bank ofJapan at~ 42. For a document to be verified, Section 4308
8 requires the document to contain a statement declaring under the penalty of perjury that the
9 facts alleged are true. Jean's Objection contains no such verification. Because of the procedural defects in her Objection, this Court may strike the Objection without referring the matter to 10 another judge. 11
12 b. The facts do not give rise to an inference that this Court has acted with bias.
13 Having decided that procedural defects warrant denial of Jean's Objection, the Court 14 will nonetheless address the substantive arguments presented. 15 A judge has the duty to determine if any facts exist which would subject him or her to 16 disqualification pursuant to 7 G.C.A. § 6105 and to provide a memorandum of these facts. 7 17 G.C.A. § 6106. This memorandum is to be entered into the minutes and transmitted to each
18 party. !d.
19 The Notice was filed on September 7, 2017. The Court filed a Declaration of Mailing on September 20, 2017, in which Deputy Clerk Barbara G. Leon Guerrero signed and declared 20 under penalty of perjury that she mailed via U.S. Mail a copy of the Notice to Jean's address in 21 New York. Decl. of Mailing (Sep. 20, 2017). Jean asserts that she did not learn of the Notice 22 until September 21, 2017, when she received service via U.S. Mail of Darius's Waiver and 23 Statement ofNo Objection. Objection, at 2 (Oct. 4, 2017). Jean further points out that the Court 24 has consistently mailed all other Superior Court generated documents to her. !d. After mailing 25 her Objection to Judge Maraman's assignment on September 29, 2017, Plaintiff claims that she 26 subsequently received the Notice from the Court via U.S. Mail on September 30, 2017. 27 Objection Re: Mot. for Child Supp., at 12 (Oct. 20, 2017). September 30 was after the twenty-
28 one day period allowed for the filing of a motion to disqualify pursuant to the Notice. Jean now
Richardson v. Richardson (DM0361-01) Decision and Order (Objection Re: Judge Maraman Assignment) Page 3 of5 argues that the Court deliberately delayed the mailing of the Notice and that this is evidence of judicial bias. 2 Absent an agreement by all parties that a jurist continue to preside over a matter, the 3 Guam Code mandates that a judge disqualify herself in the following circumstances: 4 (a) Any Judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which his 5 or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, but if, following complete 6 disclosure to all parties in the proceeding of the reasons for disqualification, all parties agree to having the Judge continue to sit in the proceedings, he or 7 she need not disqualify himself or herself. 7 G.C.A. § 6105(a). 8 (b) A Judge shall also disqualify himself or herself in the following 9 circumstances, but if, following complete disclosure to all parties in the proceeding of the reasons for his or her disqualification, all parties agree to 10 having the Judge continue to sit in the proceedings, he or she need not disqualify himself or herself: 11
12 ( 1) Where he or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 13 proceeding; 7 G.C.A. § 6105{b)(1). 14 Under section 6105, "what matters is the appearance ofbias, not "actual bias." People v. 15 Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 ~ 74 (citing Van Dox v. Superior Court, 2008 Guam 7 ~ 32). The 16 appearance of bias is judged from an objective standard of a reasonable person "who knows all 17 the facts, and understands the contexts of jurisdictions, parties, and controversies involved,
18 including such realities of the Guam judicial system ... " Van Dox, 2008 Guam 7 ~ 32 (quoting
19 Ada v. Gutierrez, 2000 Guam 22 ~~ 12-13). Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Guam has stated that the "the recusal statutes should not be so broadly construed so as to become 20 presumptive. A judge's duty to hear a case and keep the wheels of justice rotating is just as 21 strong as his or her duty to remove himself or herself if a reasonable person would not believe 22 in his or her impartiality." Ada, 2000 Guam 22 ~ 15 (internal quotation marks and citations 23 removed). 24 Jean argues that Judge Maraman has intentionally withheld the Notice from Jean, and 25 that this is evidence that Judge Maraman is acting with bias and unable to rule impartially in 26 this case. The Court did not withhold the Notice from Jean, as the September 20, 2017 27 Declaration of Mailing signed by Deputy Clerk Guerrero shows that the Court made a
28 reasonable effort to provide Jean with service. The fact that there was a substantial delay period
Richardson v. Richardson (DM0361-01) Decision and Order (Objection Re: Judge Maraman Assignment) Page 4 of5 between the filing of the Notice and its mailing was due to a clerical error by the Court. This delay was not the result of malice or bias. The delay in Jean receiving the Notice is also due to 2 the logistical realities of the postal system being used to serve parties living in locations far 3 from Guam. The premise of Jean's argument, that Judge Maraman has exercised bias by 4 intentionally withholding the Notice from Jean, is factually inaccurate. Because the premise is 5 based upon inaccurate facts, the Court finds that Jean's argument is ungrounded. 6 While Jean has argued that disqualification is appropriate based on the perceived 7 procedural defects in service of the Notice, she has not argued that disqualification is necessary
8 based on the substance of the Notice. The Court further notes that CVO 179-16, the case which gave rise to the potential conflict, has been dismissed. The issue has therefore become moot. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that disqualification of Judge Maraman 11 is not required in this matter. 12
15 Y~,;t~~ 16 ~'\~ORABLE KATHERINE A. MARAMAN 17 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 18
Richardson v. Richardson (DM0361-01) Decision and Order (Objection Re: Judge Maraman Assignment) Page 5 ofS