Taitano v. Guam Waterworks Auth.

Opinion

1 2025NOV 12 PH 3: 36 2 CLERK Of COU~T 3 B'r •_ _VIX___._.___ 4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

6

7 KAYA TAITANO,

8 Plaintiff, Civil Case No. CV0365-25

9- vs.

DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 10 MOTION TO DISMISS GUAM WATERWORKS AUTHORITY, and 11 the GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, 12 Defendants. 13

14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable John C Terlaje on September 16, 2025, for a 16 Motion Hearing regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Matthew Holley appeared 17 18 on behalf of Plaintiff Kaya Taitano. Attorney R. Marsil Johnson appeared on behalf of the Guam

19 Waterworks Authority ("GWA"). After reviewing the record, relevant law, and arguments from 20 the parties, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff failed to meet the Quan 21 test for all the elements required to waive Sovereign Immunity under the Government Claims 22 Act.

23

24 BACKGROUND

25 ,.1, Taitano filed her Complaint on May 19, 2025. GWA filed its Motion to Dismiss on July 26 · 22, 2025. Taitano filed her Opposition to GWA's Motion to Dismiss on August 19, 2025. GWA 27 28 Page 1 of 9 filed their Reply Memorandum on September 2, 2025. The Court heard oral arguments for the 1

2 Motion to Dismiss on September 16, 2025.

3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 4 1. In her Complaint, Taitano alleged that on or about May 23, 2024, Taitano was lawfully 5 operating her vehicle on Route 10A in Tamuning, Guam. Comp1. for Personal Injury and 6 Property Damage at 2, May 19, 2025. Taitano alleged that at that time, Benny C.

7

8 Chargualaf, an employee of GWA, was operating a GWA vehicle within the course of his

9 employment. Id at 3. Taitano alleged that Chargualafrear-ended Taitano's vehicle after 10 the gas pedal of his vehicle became wedged beneath the brake pedal, causing unintended 11 acceleration and failure to stop in time. Id 12

13 2. Taitano alleged that Chargualaf admitted fault, and liability is undisputed. Id.

14 3. Taitano alleged that she suffered serious injuries to her neck, back, right shoulder, and 15 right foot. Id. Taitano alleged that she was transported to Guam Memorial Hospital 16 directly following the collision and has since undergone multiple medical evaluations, 17 diagnostic imaging, and treatment. Id Taitano alleged that she has experienced prolonged 18

19 pain, physical limitations, emotional distress, and loss of quality of life. Id.

20 4. Taitano alleged that she missed significant time from work and incurred economic losses, 21 including medical expenses, reduced work capacity, and the loss of her vehicle. Id.

22 Taitano alleged that her 2008 Toyota Rav4 was totaled in the collision. Id.

23 5. Taitano alleged that, on October 7, 2024, she submitted her Notice of Claim to the Office 24

25 of the Attorney General ("OAG"). Pls.' Opp'n to Def. Guam Waterworks Authority' s

26 Mot. to Dismiss at 2, Aug. 19, 2025. Taitano alleged that the Notice of claim submitted to 27

28 Page 2 of 9 the OAG included a Government Claim Form signed and certified by Taitano. Id. at 3.

1

2 Taitano alleged that on October 28, 2024, OAG informed Taitano that she needed to

3 submit her Notice of Claim directly to GWA. Id. 4 6. Taitano submitted her Notice of Claim directly to GWA on October 29, 2024. Id.; Mem.

5 in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 2, Jul. 22, 2025.

6 7. GWA alleged that the Notice of Claim consisted of a three-page letter summarizing 7

8 Taitano's claim and was signed only by her legal counsel. Mem. in Supp. Of Mot. to

9 Dismiss at 3; Pls.' Opp'n to Def. Guam Waterworks Authority's Mot. to Dismiss at 2. 10 Taitano alleged that her certified and signed Government Claim Form was submitted to 11 the OAG and inadvertently may not have been forwarded to GWA and she was never 12

13 informed that the Government Claim Form was never submitted. Pis.' Opp'n to Def.

14 Guam Waterworks Authority's Mot. to Dismiss at 3.

15 8. The Notice of Claim contained a four-page Guam Airport Police Traffic Accident report;

16 fifty-three pages of medical records, invoices, and receipts; four pages of photographs of 17 her vehicle; a screenshot of a Kelley Bluebook private party range estimate; and one page 18

19 of details relating to rental of a midsize SUV for thirty days. Mem. in Supp. Of Mot. to

20 Dismiss at 3; Deel. of Matthew J. Holley at 1, Aug. 19, 2025; Pis.' Opp'n to Def. Guam 21 Waterworks Authority's Mot. to Dismiss at 2.

22 9. GWA alleged that the Notice of Claim did not contain a statement of whether Taitano 23 received any payment from anyone on account of her claim or any amount received;

24

25 whether any third person has any interest in Taitano's claim; whether Taitano had any

26 insurance covering the damage she alleged to have suffered; whether she received 27

28 Page 3 of9 payments from any insurance carrier; and without Taitano's verification. Mem. in Supp.

1

2 Of Mot. to Dismiss at 3.

3 10. On January 28. 2025, Taitano alleged that her attorney received correspondence from 4 Attorney Theresa G. Rojas, counsel for GWA, acknowledging receipt ofTaitano's claim.

5 Pls.' Opp'n to Def. Guam Waterworks Authority's Mot. to Dismiss at 2. Taitano also 6 7 alleged that in that correspondence Rojas confirmed that the claim had been forwarded to

8 GWA's insurer, AM Insurance, on October 30, 2024, and that acknowledgment from the

9 underwriter, DB Insurance/Moylan's, was received on November 1, 2024. Id. Taitano 10 alleged that her counsel responded to this email that same day and asked if GWA needed 11 any more information. Id. Taitano and her attorney alleged that they never received a 12

13 response from Rojas. Id.

14 11. Taitano alleged that, on February 4, 2025, Attorney R. Marsil Johnson, retained counsel 15 for GWA, confirmed receipt of the claim and requested an extension until February 20, 16 2025 to review the matter and issue a recommendation to GWA and its insurer. Id 17 Taitano's counsel replied the same day and agreed to the extension and offered to provide 18

19 any additional information or discuss the claim further. Id.

20 12. Taitano alleged that, on March 25, 2025, her counsel followed up with Johnson and 21 inquired about the status of the claim. Id Taitano alleged that, on April 21, 2025, her 22 counsel followed up again with Johnson and noted that absent a response Taitano would 23 proceed with filing her suit. Id.

24

25

26 27

28 Page 4 of9

DISCUSSION 1 2 In its Motion to Dismissb uWA argued that Taitano's Complaint should be dismissed

3 because the Court lacks subject '.matter jurisdiction. Mem. in Supp. Of Mot. to Dismiss at 4-5. 4 GWA explained that while thel Government of Guam ("GovGuam") has waived sovereign 5 immunity in Tort cases, Taitanols Complaint failed to comply with statutory requirements that 6 7 allow a plaintiff to bring such a case against GovGuam. Id. at 4-10. Taitano argued that while her

8 Notice of Claim did not completely comply with the statutory requirements, Guam case law does

9 not dictate complete compliance, rather it dictates a plaintiff must have tried to comply in good

1

10 faith. Pls.' Opp'n to Def. Guam Waterworks Authority's Mot. to Dismiss at 7-13.

11 The Court will discuss, fm;t, whether GWA 's Motion to Dismiss is appropriate under Rule 12

13 12(b)(l), and second, whether Taitano's claim complied with the statutory requirements.

14 I. GWA's Sovereign Immqnity 15 A party may move to disnuss an action if it believes the Court lacks subject Matter 16 Jurisdiction over the claims raise~ in the complaint. Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l). "Whenever it 17 appears by suggestion of the pardes or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject 18

19 matter, the court shall dismiss the action." Guam R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "Because sovereign

20 immunity implicates a court's suqJect matter jurisdiction, it 'can be raised at any time, either by a 21 party or by the court."' Story-Berr,ardo v. Gov 't of Guam, 2023 Guam 27 ,i 13 (citing Sumitomo 22 Constr., Co. v. Gov 't of Guam, 2001 Guam 23 ,r 22.

23 24 GovGuam enjoys broad s~vereign immunity. See Marx v. Gov't.ofGuam, 866 F.2d 294,

25 298 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Woqdv. Guam Power Auth., 2000 Guam 18 ,i 10. While sovereign

26 immunity is inherent, Congress hc;i:s provided a specific mechanism by which GovGuam may 27 28 Page 5 of9 waive sovereign immunity. 48 U.S.C. § 1421a (1987); see Marx, 866 F.2d at 298. Under the 1 2 Organic Act, GovGuam may be sued only with the consent of the Guam legislature. 48 U.S.C. §

3 1421a. 4 Therefore, GWA's Motion to Dismiss is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1 ). GWA, as an 5 autonomous agency of GovGuam, enjoys broad sovereign immunity that can only be waived by 6

7 consent of the Guam legislature. Claims of sovereign immunity implicate whether the Court has

8 subject matter jurisdiction over the case. And, here, GWA claimed that the Court has no subject

9 matter jurisdiction because the Guam legislature has not waived sovereign immunity for torts 10 cases that do not comply with all statutory requirements. Thus, it is appropriate to bring a Motion 11 to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 12

13 II. Taitano's Compliance with 5 GCA § 6201.

14 The legislature of Guam has waived sovereign immunity for GovGuam in specific cases 15 as defined by the Government Claims Act. 5 G.C.A. § 6105. In relevant part, the Government 16 Claims Act includes that cases "for claims in tort, arising from the negligent acts of its 17 employees acting for and at the direction of the government of Guam." 5 G.C.A. § 6105(b).

18

19 Autonomous agencies, such as GWA, are considered part of GovGuam under the same statute. 5

20 G.C.A. § 6102. 21 However, to file a tort claim against GovGuam or its autonomous agencies, a plaintiff 22 must follow specific statutory requirements to give GovGuam the opportunity to respond. 5 23 24 G.C.A. § 6201. The requirements, in relevant parts, include:

25 e) A statement of whether or not the claimant has received any payment on account of such claim, and if so, the amount received.

26 27

28 Page 6 of 9

(f) A statement whether or not any third person has any interest in the claim, and if so, 1 the name and address of such person having such interest and the nature of such interest. .

2 (h) A statement as to whether or not the claimant has any insurance covering the damage 3 alleged to have been suffered by him or her, and of any payments, if any, he or she has received from such insurance carrier 4

5 5 G.C.A. § 6201.

6 Whether these requirements have been met is a two-part test. Quan v. Gov't of Guam, 7 2009 Guam 20 ,r 35. " ... [I]n order to maintain a suit against the government, there must be 8 some compliance with all of the requirements under the Claims Act, and the compliance must be 9 sufficient to constitute substantial compliance." Id. The purpose of this test is to assess whether 10

11 GovGuam would have enough information to investigate the claim as is their duty under the

12 Government Claims Act. Id. at ,r 38; 5 G.C.A. § 6203. 13 Here, although Taitano provided some compliance with these requirements she failed to 14 provide substantial compliance. In her reply brief, Taitano stated that she had not received any 15 16 payment, there were no other parties who had interest in the claim, and she had no insurance at

17 the time of the accident. Pls.' Opp'n to Def. Guam Waterworks Authority's Mot. to Dismiss at

18 10-11. However, in her claim to GWA, she did not state any of these alleged facts explicitly. She 19 did provide several documents showing that she paid for her medical bills herself and she did not 20 provide any documents to suggest that there was a third party involved, she had insurance, or she 21

22 received a payment. Id. However, some compliance is not enough to pass the Quan test. Instead,

23 Taitano's compliance "must [have been] sufficient to constitute substantial compliance" in 24 addition to some compliance for Taitano's claim to satisfy Quan. 2009 Guam 20 ,r 35.

25 Taitano did not substantially comply with the Quan test such that GWA could investigate 26 the claim. It is true that from the information given to GWA it seems as if she did not have 27

28 Page 7 of9 insurance, but GWA could not have known that Taitano gave all the information available. GWA 1

2 has an obligation to investigate, but it can only investigate the information available to it. The

3 obligation to investigate is an obligation to investigate information that would only be available 4 to the government. In Quan, GovGuam failed to give Quan police reports that were essential to 5 Quan's claims, which made Quan's claim insufficient to meet the Government Claims Act 6 requirements. Quan, 2009 Guam 201139-41. Taitano's claim did not rely on information only 7

8 available to GWA and GWA did not interfere in Taitano's ability to make her claim. Taitano

9 simply omitted information she should have explicitly stated to GWA. Therefore, Taitano did not 10 substantially comply with the Government Claims Act, and her claim should be dismissed.

11 III. Taitano's Compliance with 5 G.C.A. § 6202 12

13 As stated earlier, the Legislature of Guam has waived sovereign immunity for certain

14 claims under the Government Claims Act. 5 G.C.A. § 6105. However, these claims must meet

15 specific criteria. In addition to the specific criteria listed above, another section of the 16 Government Claims Act states that "[a]ll claims filed ... shall be signed by the claimant, his 17 agent or his legal guardian, and verified by him ... " 5 G.C.A. § 6202.

18

19 In this case, Taitano did not verify her claim when it was submitted to GWA. Taitano

20 failed to sign the claim sent to GWA. Taitano's signature was found on Taitano's Government 21 Claim Form, but the Government Claim Form was not forwarded to GWA. Instead, the claim 22 forwarded to GWA only included Taitano's attorney's signature. Although Taitano's attorney 23 likely acted as her agent during their attorney-client relationship, the attorney's signature did not 24

25 accompany any indication that Taitano verified the complaint. Her signature was not found on

26 the complaint nor was there any indication that she had given her attorney the authority to file 27 28 Page 8 of9 the claim. Therefore, Taitano failed to follow the requirement to both sign and verify her claim 1

2 when it was submitted to GWA.

3 CONCLUSION 4 Therefore, the Court GRANTS GWA's Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismisses the 5 case without prejudice.

6

7 SO ORDERED, this J t /, ~ J25 --------+-(- - , - - - - -

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 18 19

20 21

22 23

24

25

26 27

28 Page 9 of 9