IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAk r: 2
3 CHRISTOPHER STAHL, ) ) 4 Plaintiff, ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0735-11 5 ) vs. ) 6 ) DECISION AND ORDER 7 CARLA G. STAHL, ) ) 8 Defendant. )
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable Judge James L. Canto II on the Defendant' II motion to consolidate, filed December 15,2012. Oral arguments were heard on March 29, 2012. 12 Attorney Ronald P. Moroni appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff and Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola 13 Jr. represented the Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and th 14 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On December 28, 2010, Defendant Carla G. Stahl ("Carla") filed a complaint for divorc 17 and child custody against Plaintiff Christopher Stahl ("Christopher") in Domestic Case No. 18 DM0842-10. On October 24, 2011, Christopher filed the present action for child custody. 19 Christopher alleges that he filed a motion to dismiss Case No. DM0842-1O for a lack of persona 20 jurisdiction and that he seeks child custody in this separate action under the jurisdictiona 21 immunity of 7 GCA § 39109. (Complaint, 2-3, Oct. 24, 2011.) The motion to dismiss i 22 allegedly under advisement in Case No. DM0842-10 and both actions are contemporaneousI 23 pending before separate judges of the Superior CoQrt. !d. 24 On December 15, 2011, Carla filed the present motion to consolidate her prior actio 25 with this action on the basis that both suits pray for child custody and support of the sam 26 children between the same parties. At oral argument, the parties confirmed that the child custod 2] . . claims and issues are identical in both cases and that the prior divorce action contains additiona 28 claims over the marriage and property of the parties. (Record Log at 9:05 et seq., Mar. 29
OR\GlNA Page 1 of4 2012.) Plaintiff's counsel also explained that child custody could be pursued under the immunit 2 of7 GCA § 39109 in the prior divorce actio~ and that absent dismissal of the divorce action, thi 3 second action is duplicative and unnecessary. Id. 4 On December 23,2012 the Court entered temporary child visitation orders for the winte 5 school holiday under the authority of7 GCA § 39201(a)(I). 6 DISCUSSION 7 Under Guam law, separate civil actions may be consolidated where they involve comrno 8 questions of law and fact. See Guam R. Civ. P. 42(a). In general, a trial court, "may exercise it 9 discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of th 10 previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate bo II actions." Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F. 3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007 12 (citing Curtis v. Cittbank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138-139 (2d Cir. 2000); Walton v. Eaton Corp. 13 563 F.2d 66, 70-71 (3d Cir. 1977». 14 In this case, Carla moves to consolidate her divorce and child custody action wi 15 Christopher's later-filed child custody action. The Court agrees with the parties that both actio 16 are identical on the issues of child custody and support. For this reason, the Court may exercis 17 its discretion to dismiss, stay, enjoin or consolidate this duplicative later-filed action. The Co 18 shall weigh the merits of an appropriate response in this case. 19 I. Consolidation 20 In general, the consolidation of separate actions is not appropriate, "if it leads t 21 inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party." EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543 22 551 (8th Cir. 1998). The consolidation of separate actions, "is permitted as a matter 0 23 convenience and economy in adrninistratio~ but (it] does not merge the suits into a singl 24 cause." Krqft, Inc. v. Local Union 327, Teamsters, Chauffours, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers 25 683 F.2d 131, 133 (6th Cir. 1982) (quoting Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479,496-97 26 53 S.Ct. 721, 727-28, 77 L.Ed. 1331 (1933». A duplicative later-filed actio~ "will generall 27 (be] amenable to dismissal, because when two separate suits are virtually alike, the second suit i 28 deemed unnecessary, oppressive and vexatious." Yokeno v. Sekiguchi, Case No. CVA 10-006
ORiGiNPage 2 of4 Order, 1:28-2:3 (Sup. Ct. Guam, Oct. 27, 2010, Torres, C.J.) (internal quotation marks omitted 2 (quoting Gaudio v. Gaudio, 580 A.2d 1212, 1218 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)). 3 In this case, the consolidation of a later-filed action with its identical pending predecesso 4 is not appropriate because it leads to inefficiency and inconvenience. A consolidation will no 5 merge the actions, and the duplicative actions shall unnecessarily require separate or copie 6 filings. Child custody relief is readily available in the prior pending divorce action without th 7 surrender of personal jurisdiction pursuant to 7 GCA § 39109. It is significant that the parties d 8 not offer a specific reason why consolidation promotes an economy beyond the identical relie 9 available in the prior pending action. At oral argument, the movant noted delays in the prior cas 10 and requested that, "this court take over the other case." (Record Log at 9:16-18, Mar. 29 11 2012.) The Court must note that it shall not permit any action which may constitute a 12 impermissible form of judge-shopping. See Dixon v. Larosa, No. 2:1O-cv-1441, 2011 W 13 109143, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2011) (citing Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393 14 398-99 (9th Cir. 1998)). Based upon the foregoing, the Court shall decline to consolidate Carla' 15 prior pending divorce action and the motion is denied. 16 II. Stay or Enjoinment of Proceedings 17 A stay is a temporary suspension of procedure in a case until the happening of a define 18 contingency. People v. Santana, 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 190 (Ct.App. 1986). In the decision t 19 stay a case, a court must weigh the competing interests of: 1) the possible damage from grantin 20 a stay; 2) the hardship or inequity that would result from denying a stay; and 3) the simplificatio 21 or complication of issues, proof and legal questions that would result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. 22 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir 23 2005). 24 In the present case, the interests weigh against a stay of proceedings. With or without 25 stay, this duplicative later-filed case shall unnecessarily complicate and confuse the issue of chil 26 custody before separate judges of the Superior Court. Furthermore, possible damage can resul 27 from the stay of a duplicativ.e action that allows the parties to wait and decide when to presen 28
OR\G\N Page 3 of4 and litigate child custody issues before separate judges. For these reasons, the Court shal 2 decline to stay these proceedings pending resolution of Domestic Case No. DM0842-10.
3 III. Abatement and Dismissal 4 The Supreme Court of Guam recognizes that the, "Abatement of legal proceedings, ofte 5 referred to as the prior pending action doctrine, may occur when, 'a claim involves the sam 6 subject matter and parties as a previously-filed action so that the same facts and issues ar 7 presented.'" Yokeno, Case No. CVA10-006, Order at 1:24-26 (quoting Estate of Holtmeyer v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAk r: 2
3 CHRISTOPHER STAHL, ) ) 4 Plaintiff, ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0735-11 5 ) vs. ) 6 ) DECISION AND ORDER 7 CARLA G. STAHL, ) ) 8 Defendant. )
9 INTRODUCTION 10 This matter came before the Honorable Judge James L. Canto II on the Defendant' II motion to consolidate, filed December 15,2012. Oral arguments were heard on March 29, 2012. 12 Attorney Ronald P. Moroni appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff and Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola 13 Jr. represented the Defendant. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and th 14 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On December 28, 2010, Defendant Carla G. Stahl ("Carla") filed a complaint for divorc 17 and child custody against Plaintiff Christopher Stahl ("Christopher") in Domestic Case No. 18 DM0842-10. On October 24, 2011, Christopher filed the present action for child custody. 19 Christopher alleges that he filed a motion to dismiss Case No. DM0842-1O for a lack of persona 20 jurisdiction and that he seeks child custody in this separate action under the jurisdictiona 21 immunity of 7 GCA § 39109. (Complaint, 2-3, Oct. 24, 2011.) The motion to dismiss i 22 allegedly under advisement in Case No. DM0842-10 and both actions are contemporaneousI 23 pending before separate judges of the Superior CoQrt. !d. 24 On December 15, 2011, Carla filed the present motion to consolidate her prior actio 25 with this action on the basis that both suits pray for child custody and support of the sam 26 children between the same parties. At oral argument, the parties confirmed that the child custod 2] . . claims and issues are identical in both cases and that the prior divorce action contains additiona 28 claims over the marriage and property of the parties. (Record Log at 9:05 et seq., Mar. 29
OR\GlNA Page 1 of4 2012.) Plaintiff's counsel also explained that child custody could be pursued under the immunit 2 of7 GCA § 39109 in the prior divorce actio~ and that absent dismissal of the divorce action, thi 3 second action is duplicative and unnecessary. Id. 4 On December 23,2012 the Court entered temporary child visitation orders for the winte 5 school holiday under the authority of7 GCA § 39201(a)(I). 6 DISCUSSION 7 Under Guam law, separate civil actions may be consolidated where they involve comrno 8 questions of law and fact. See Guam R. Civ. P. 42(a). In general, a trial court, "may exercise it 9 discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of th 10 previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate bo II actions." Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487 F. 3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007 12 (citing Curtis v. Cittbank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138-139 (2d Cir. 2000); Walton v. Eaton Corp. 13 563 F.2d 66, 70-71 (3d Cir. 1977». 14 In this case, Carla moves to consolidate her divorce and child custody action wi 15 Christopher's later-filed child custody action. The Court agrees with the parties that both actio 16 are identical on the issues of child custody and support. For this reason, the Court may exercis 17 its discretion to dismiss, stay, enjoin or consolidate this duplicative later-filed action. The Co 18 shall weigh the merits of an appropriate response in this case. 19 I. Consolidation 20 In general, the consolidation of separate actions is not appropriate, "if it leads t 21 inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party." EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543 22 551 (8th Cir. 1998). The consolidation of separate actions, "is permitted as a matter 0 23 convenience and economy in adrninistratio~ but (it] does not merge the suits into a singl 24 cause." Krqft, Inc. v. Local Union 327, Teamsters, Chauffours, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers 25 683 F.2d 131, 133 (6th Cir. 1982) (quoting Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479,496-97 26 53 S.Ct. 721, 727-28, 77 L.Ed. 1331 (1933». A duplicative later-filed actio~ "will generall 27 (be] amenable to dismissal, because when two separate suits are virtually alike, the second suit i 28 deemed unnecessary, oppressive and vexatious." Yokeno v. Sekiguchi, Case No. CVA 10-006
ORiGiNPage 2 of4 Order, 1:28-2:3 (Sup. Ct. Guam, Oct. 27, 2010, Torres, C.J.) (internal quotation marks omitted 2 (quoting Gaudio v. Gaudio, 580 A.2d 1212, 1218 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)). 3 In this case, the consolidation of a later-filed action with its identical pending predecesso 4 is not appropriate because it leads to inefficiency and inconvenience. A consolidation will no 5 merge the actions, and the duplicative actions shall unnecessarily require separate or copie 6 filings. Child custody relief is readily available in the prior pending divorce action without th 7 surrender of personal jurisdiction pursuant to 7 GCA § 39109. It is significant that the parties d 8 not offer a specific reason why consolidation promotes an economy beyond the identical relie 9 available in the prior pending action. At oral argument, the movant noted delays in the prior cas 10 and requested that, "this court take over the other case." (Record Log at 9:16-18, Mar. 29 11 2012.) The Court must note that it shall not permit any action which may constitute a 12 impermissible form of judge-shopping. See Dixon v. Larosa, No. 2:1O-cv-1441, 2011 W 13 109143, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2011) (citing Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393 14 398-99 (9th Cir. 1998)). Based upon the foregoing, the Court shall decline to consolidate Carla' 15 prior pending divorce action and the motion is denied. 16 II. Stay or Enjoinment of Proceedings 17 A stay is a temporary suspension of procedure in a case until the happening of a define 18 contingency. People v. Santana, 182 Cal.App.3d 185, 190 (Ct.App. 1986). In the decision t 19 stay a case, a court must weigh the competing interests of: 1) the possible damage from grantin 20 a stay; 2) the hardship or inequity that would result from denying a stay; and 3) the simplificatio 21 or complication of issues, proof and legal questions that would result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. 22 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962); Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir 23 2005). 24 In the present case, the interests weigh against a stay of proceedings. With or without 25 stay, this duplicative later-filed case shall unnecessarily complicate and confuse the issue of chil 26 custody before separate judges of the Superior Court. Furthermore, possible damage can resul 27 from the stay of a duplicativ.e action that allows the parties to wait and decide when to presen 28
OR\G\N Page 3 of4 and litigate child custody issues before separate judges. For these reasons, the Court shal 2 decline to stay these proceedings pending resolution of Domestic Case No. DM0842-10.
3 III. Abatement and Dismissal 4 The Supreme Court of Guam recognizes that the, "Abatement of legal proceedings, ofte 5 referred to as the prior pending action doctrine, may occur when, 'a claim involves the sam 6 subject matter and parties as a previously-filed action so that the same facts and issues ar 7 presented.'" Yokeno, Case No. CVA10-006, Order at 1:24-26 (quoting Estate of Holtmeyer v. 8 Piontek, 913 S.W.2d 352, 357 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)). In other words, "the pendency of a prio 9 suit between the same parties brought to obtain the same end will generally render the latter sui 10 amenable to dismissal, because when two separate suits are virtually alike, the second suit i II deemed unnecessary, oppressive and vexatious." Id. at 1:28-2:3 (internal quotation mark
12 omitted) (quoting Gaudio, 580 A.2d at 1218). 13 Here, the parties allege and the Court agrees that that this action presents facts and issue 14 of child custody that are identical to the previously-filed action for divorce. The Court furthe 15 agrees with the assertion that either pending action may resolve child custody issues without th 16 surrender of personal jurisdiction pursuant to 7 GCA § 39109. Most importantly, a child custod 17 judgment in the prior action may be pled as a bar to this subsequent action. See Adams, 487 F.3 18 at 688-692. For these reasons, this later-filed duplicative action is unnecessary and it shall b
19 dismissed pursuant to the prior pending action doctrine. 20 CONCLUSION 21 Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's motion to consolidate is hereby DENIED an 22 these proceedings are further abated and DISMISSED due to the prior pending Domestic Cas
23 No. DM0842-10. 24
25 SO ORDERED this em day of June, 2012. 26
28 HONORABLEJAMESL.CANT Judge Superior Court of Guam