RSA-Tumon, LLC v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. & Sherif Philips, M.D.

Opinion

FILED

sopEmoR COURT

GF GUAM

21122 HBV 29 PH 2: '58

CLERK OF CGURT

Q

ay=

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

RSA-TUMON, LLC, Civil Case No. CV0453-20

plainufg

I

v. DECISION AND ORDER REINFORCING DENIAL OF

10 I PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DEFENDANT'S MOTION .

I INC. & SHERIF ANTOUN PHILIPS, IVLD. OF RECUSAL & DISQUALIFICATION

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

This Court sits .as the court designated to review and determine the Motion f or

15 !Reconsideration of Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion of Recusal & Disqualiiiication 16 lot Jud g e Elyz e M . I ria rt e ("M ot ion for Re c ons id e ra t ion") file d b y De fe nd a nt S he riff A nt on I Phillipe, M.D. ("Defendant"). Having again found no grounds to disqualify Judge Iriarte, the Court 18 ; DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

On March 28, 2022, Defendant Sharif Autoun Phillips, M.D. ("Defendant") filed his Motion 21- of Recusal & Disqualification. Defendant claims he will not receive a fair trial under Judge Iriarte, 22 . as she has a demonstrated history of malting errant rulings favoring the Plaintiff See Motion of 23 :Recusal & Disqualification at 3 Mar. 28, 2022). Defendant further contends these rulings were 24 5 made despite Judge Iria.rte's court having no jurisdiction over Defendant. QL at 1-3 .

On April 1, 2022, Judge Iriarte filed her Answer to Motion of Recusal & Disqualification.

26 'Judge Iriarte argued that Def endant f ailed to meet the burden of proof required f or a 27 ldisquadification, and that none of her decisions in this case demonstrate bias for or against a 28 ,particular party. Qee Answer to Motion of Recusal & Disqualification at 119 (Apr. 1, 2022).

Decision and Order Reinforcing Denial of Defendant's Motion of Recusal & Disqualification CV04S3-20, RSA-Tumon, LLC v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. & SherzjlAntoun Phillis Page1 o f f 1 The undersigned Judge Lamorena, III was assigned to review the Defendant's Motion of 2 Recusal & Disqualification. See Notice of Assignment of Recusal Judge (May 23, 2022). Judge 3 Lamorena, HI subsequently denied Defendant's Motion of Recusal & Disqualification, due to 4 Deflendant's lack of specificity in alleging the existence of bias, and because the jurisdictional 5 determination should be reviewed by an appellate judge (rather than a Superior Court judge). See 6 Decision and Order (Jul. it, 2022). 7 On August 22, 2022, Defendant filed his Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant once again 8 argued that the Guam Superior Court lacks jurisdiction over the case due to lack of personal 9 jurisdiction. See Motion for Reconsideration at 1123 (Aug. 22, 2022). Specifically, Defendant 10 claims he is neither domiciled in Guam nor does he have sufficient minimum contacts to Guam. Li. ll at 11 23-24. Defendant also continues to allege general bias from Judge 1riarte's courtroom, 12 supposedly demonstrated by rulings going against him. See Motion for Reconsideration at 11 9 13 (Aug. 22, 2022). 14 On August 31, 2022, Judge lriarte filed her Answer to Second Motion for Recusal & 15 Disqualification. Judge Iriarte claimed that Defendant failed to flesh out any claims of her 16 courtroom engaging in retaliation, fraud, or favoritism. See Answer to Second Motion at 3 (Aug, 17 31, 2022). Judge lriarte insisted that her rulings were consistent with the law and based only on the 18 facts presented. at 3. 19 On September 13, 2022, Defendant filed his Reply to the Court ("Reply"). Defendant again 20 challenged the Court's jurisdiction over his case, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction. See Reply at 21 3-4 (Sep. 13, 2022). 22 The undersigned Judge Lamorena, Ill was assigned to review the Defendant's Motion for 23 Reconsideration. SeeNotice of Assignment ofRecusal Judge (Sep. 14, 2022). 24 DISCUSSION 25 I. Defendant Provides No Reason Why Judge Iriarte's Impartiality May Reasonably Be 26 Questioned. 27 A judge is disqualified from presiding over a matter in which her impartiality may 28 reasonably be questioned or where she possesses a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

Decision and Order Reinforcing Denial of Defendant's Motion of Recusal & Disqualification CV0453-20,RSA-Tumon, LLC v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. & SherQ'Anzoun Phillipe Page 2 of 4 1 party. See 7 G.C.A. § 6l05(a)-(b)(1). In interpreting the substantive grounds for 2 disqualification, "what matters is the appearance of bias, not actual bias." See People v. 3 Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 'H 74 (internal quotation marks omitted)(citing Van Dox v. Superior 4 Court, 2008 Guam 71132). Thus, a judge who is in fact unbiased, must still disqualify 5 themselves if the public can reasonably question the fairness of the legal proceedings. See 6 Dizon v. Superior Court of Guam, 1998 Guam 3 1115 ("[t]he standard is whether a 7 reasonable person could doubt [the judge's] ability to be impartial"). 8 If a party believes a judge is disqualified based on earlier rulings, the party must 9 demonstrate the judge's behavior "was so extreme as to display clear inability to render a fair 10 judgment." See People of Guam v. Tennessee, 2010 Guam 12 1134 (citing Bayliss v. 11 Barnhart, 427 F.3d 121 l, 1214-15 (9111 Cir. 2005)). "On the other hand, 'expressions of 12 impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of what 13 imperfect men and women sometimes display' do not establish bias." Ld. (citing Lite/qv v. 14 US., 510 U.S. 540, 555-556 (1990)). 15 Here, the Defendant generally alleges that Judge Iriarte has demonstrated bias by 16 issuing "all of her rulings... against the defendant after the defendant asked to transfer his 17 case to the Federal Court." See Motion for Reconsideration at 119 (Aug. 22, 2022). 18 However, Defendant fails to point to language in any of Judge Iriarte's rulings that 19 demonstrates bias. An issue being decided adversely against a party does not alone prove the 20 existence of bias. Defendant fails to specify any particular language conveying bias, even 21 after his failure to do so led to the Court denying his original Motion of Recusal & 22 Disqualification. Absent any particular language conveying bias, the Court accepts Judge 23 Iriartes' explanation that deep-seated favoritism for or antagonism against the Defendant 24 have not influenced her decisions. 25 1. Defendant Can Appeal Any Jurisdictional Determinations Judge Iriarte Has Made To 26 The Guam Supreme Court. 27 Defendant also tries to prove the existence of bias by challenging the Coue"t's personal 28 jurisdiction over himself. Ld- at 1123.

Decision and Order Reinforcing Denial of Defendant's Motion of Recusal & Disqualification CV0453-20,RSA-Tumon, LLC v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. & S/zery'"Antoun Phillipe Page 3 of 4 1 Personal jurisdiction can be obtained in a number of ways. While state' of domicile is 2 one way to establish personal jurisdiction, personal service in the forum state (also known as 3 transient jurisdiction or tag jurisdiction) also establishes personal jurisdiction. See Burnham v. 4 Superior Court ofCalornia, 495 U.S. 604, 606 (1990). Here, Defendant was served 5 personally in Guam, so the Superior Court of Guam and Judge Irialte's courtroom did 6 originally have jurisdiction over this case. See Declaration of Personal Service (Jul. 8, 2020). 7 The Court retains the ability to exercise transient jurisdiction, regardless of whether the 8 Defendant's state of domicile is in Guam or in Florida. 9 Additionally, jurisdictional determinations, if appealed, are legal issues for the Guam 10 Supreme Court to consider. Superior Court of Guam Judges are not appellate judges 11 authorized to alter jurisdictional determinations made by their peers. If Defendant truly 12 believes the Court does not have jurisdiction over him, then he should appeal that issue to the 13 Guam Supreme Court rather than trying to shoehorn the issue into a Motion for Recusal. The 14 fact that Defendant disagrees with whether personal jurisdiction exists does not itself prove the 15 existence of bias. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion. This Court returns 18 this matter to Judge Iriarte for further disposition. 19

2 / .J 20 1 T 1 s s o O R D E R E D t hi s N O V. 2 9 , 2 ,¢' J

1 .--"'

21

22

23 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL HONORABLE ALBERTO c. LAMORENA, III I acknowledge that an electronic Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 24 copy of the original was e-mailed to:

l y N n J i m »

25 SAM! }W»*/` 26 Date: ll]*¢7l4iTIMeZ 'FMF/Il

27 Deputy Clerk, Superior Court Rf Guam

28

Decision and Order Reinforcing Denial of Defendant's Motion of Recusal & Disqualification CV0453-20, RSA-Tumon, LLC v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc. & SherrfA nz'oun Phi'/lips Page 4 off