Valencia v. Sapla

Opinion

e t r~:,c,'11~

rtl"!J f)

~ .~

'SUPER!Otr COURT

0 F {.i:tf M

ZHIB MAR -I

CtERK O;f

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 8~;:

-------

MARIA BERNADETTE VALENCIA, Superior Court Case No. CV0085-16 Plaintiff,

vs. DECISION AND ORDER re

PRIMITIVO R. SAPLA, JR., and SONIA G.

AMOUNT OF SANCTION

SAP LA,

Defendants.

The Court considers the amount of the sanction to be imposed upon Defendant Primitivo R. Sapia, Jr. for violation of the Court's Temporary Restraining Order granted to Plaintiff Maria Bernadette Valencia. Finding that it serves the interests of justice and promotes deterrence, the Court sanctions Mr. Sapia a total of$14,496.00, the amount of Ms. Valencia's reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

I. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND In its Decision and Order re Motion for Contempt and Sanctions, the Court found that Mr. Sapia willingly violated the Court's March 4, 2016 Temporary Restraining Order. Dec. and Order (Dec. 12, 2017). The Court found that Mr. Sapia "acted unreasonably and in bad faith in calling the police, omitting key details of the dispute and TRO in a manner that can only be construed to seek to harass Ms. Valencia." Dec. and Order at 6. In assessing the amount of the sanction, the Decision and Order looked to the civil contempt statute, 7 GCA Chapter 34. That law equates contempt remedies to petty misdemeanor penalties. The Court reasoned that instead

ORIGINAL

CV0085-16 AND ORDER re AMOUNT OF CTION Page 2

of imprisonment, the Court would impose an amount of double Ms. Valencia's loss in bringing and litigating the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions. The Court determined that doubling the attorney's fees incurred would deter Mr. Sapla from further willful disobedience of court orders. Dec. and Order at 8.

Subsequent to the Court's Decision, the Saplas 1 filed a "Response to Monetary Amount ofthe Sanction." The Saplas contended that the Court's imposition of attorney's fees as a sanction violated the American Rule. Based on this argument, the Court allowed the parties to submit further briefing on the limited issue of the applicability of the American Rule. Order Further Briefing (Jan. 26, 2018).

Also, Ms. Valencia has submitted her calculation of fees and costs incurred in this contempt proceeding, calculated to be $14,496.00. Decl. Counsel re Attorney's Fees and Costs (Dec. 29, 2017).

II. LAW AND DISCUSSION

A. Attorney Fees as a Sanction The Guam Supreme Court has held the American Rule as applicable in Guam. Fleming

v. Quigley, 2003 Guam 4 ~ 13. "Under the American Rule, parties bear their own litigation expenses, including attorney's fees," unless authorized by statute, contract, or under other equitable circumstances. !d.~~ 7, 20. While a court may not award attorney's fees as part of a damages award, Guam and U.S. courts recognize "the inherent discretionary power to award attorney's fees in accordance with equitable principles in specified circumstances." !d.~ 32 (citingAlyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240,259 (1975)).

1 The Court determined that Defendant Sonia Sapia did not commit contempt of court. Dec. and Order at 6-7. However, she joined her husband in briefs submitted on the issue of the amount of the sanction.

OR1GINAL

CV0085-16 AND ORDER re AMOUNT OF Page 3

One ofthose specific circumstances includes assessing attorney's fees as a sanction for willful violations of court orders or for punishing bad faith conduct. Courts have broad discretion to design a remedy that brings about compliance from a "recalcitrant contemnor," and such a remedy can include attorney's fees. Telenor Mobile Comms. A S v. Storm LLC, 587 F. Supp. 2d 594, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Tranzact Technologies, Inc. v. I Source Worldsite, 406 F.3d 851, 856 (7th Cir. 2005); Local702 Intern. Broth. ofElec. Workers v. Illinois Consol. Tele. Co., 608 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1036 (S.D. Ill. 2008); Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., 276 F.3d 502, 507 (9th Cir. 2002).

Thus, the Court rejects Mr. Sapia's argument that the American Rule forbids this Court from assessing attorney's fees as a sanction. As the Court determined in its Decision and Order, 7 GCA § 3410 1(b) instructed the Court to reference the petty misdemeanor statute when issuing a sanction. For petty misdemeanor files, the Court may: (1) imprison Mr. Sapia for no more than 60 days; (2) impose a fine of $500.00; or (3) award an amount equal to double the loss to the victim caused by the conduct constituting the offense by the offender. 9 GCA §§ 80.34(b), 80.50(d) and (e). The Court elected not to imprison Mr. Sapia, but instead imposed a fine of twice ofMs. Valencia's loss.

While the American Rule would not permit the Court to require Mr. Sapia to compensate Ms. Valencia as the prevailing party in this case, the American Rule does not restrict the Court from using its inherent powers to design an equitable sanction of attorney's fees incurred as a result of the established violation. This Court must enforce compliance with Court orders, and the Court can accomplish that by requiring an offender to pay for losses caused by contemptuous actions. See Tranzact Technologies, 406 F.3d at 856.

IGI

CV0085-16 AND ORDER re AMOUNT OF Page4

Therefore the Court did not err in ruling that Mr. Sapia must be sanctioned by compensating Ms. Valencia for the amount of her loss, calculated using attorney's fees and costs. The American Rule's equitable and bad faith exceptions apply here.

B. Ms. Valencia's Attorney Fees and Costs are Reasonable In reviewing Ms. Valencia's counsel's Declaration, the Court determines that her counsel's hourly rate of$260.00 and the time expended on the Motion for Contempt were both reasonable. An established standard for determining a reasonable hourly rate is the "rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). Guam Courts have previously held that "[t]here is evidence that $250.00 is the customary rate for attorneys on Guam with 20 or more years of civil litigation experience." Aguero eta!. v. Calvo eta!., D. Guam Civil Case No. CV15-00009 (Dec. & Order re: Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses at 6 (Mar. 16, 2016)); see also Port Auth. of Guam v. Arriola, SP0124-13 (Dec. & Order re Mitigation for Attorney's Fees at 6 (Mar. 9, 2017)) (finding counsel's rate of $250 per hour "reasonable based on her attorney's years in practice, the complexity of the case, and the services and results provided"). Thus, the Court finds that the rate of $260.00 is reasonable and falls within the standard rate of experienced Guam-based civil litigation attorneys.

Further, the Court finds that Ms. Valencia's counsel billed appropriately for all stages of the contempt proceeding, including filing the motion, meeting with witnesses, preparing for and attending the hearing, drafting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, reviewing the Court's decision, and communicating with her client. However, even though the Court previously determined that doubling Ms. Valencia's loss would punish Mr. Sapia and deter him

I l

CV0085-16 AND ORDER re AMOUNT OF Page 5

from further violations, now having reviewed the extent of the attorney's fees and costs incurred, the Court is not persuaded that a sanction of $28,992.00 is appropriate for a few reasons.

First, under the criminal code's provision for fines and restitution, the "restitution ordered paid to the victim shall not exceed his loss." 9 GCA § 80.50(f). In other words, in assessing the amount needed to punish and deter Mr. Sapia, the Court (and not Ms. Valencia) would receive as a fine any amount in excess ofMs. Valencia's $14,496.00 actual loss. The Court does not believe that an additional amount of $14,496.00, to be deposited into the Court's coffers, is needed to emphasize punishment and deterrence.

Second, the Court takes into account that this is a dispute between private individuals, as opposed to corporations or government entities, and that a private individual bears the burden of paying this amount. Although $14,496 was reasonably incurred to protect Ms. Valencia, the amount exceeds the Court's expectations. In addition, since Ms. Valencia's loss is covered by a sanction of $14,496, this amount need not be multiplied.

Third, the Court finds that the amount of$14,496, alone, serves to deter Mr. Sapla from committing further acts of contempt. The Court finds that a multiplier of this amount is not necessary to emphasize the level of seriousness this Court takes with any violation of its orders.

Finally, the Court again references the petty misdemeanor penalty statute for the appropriate penalty range. While the criminal restitution statute allows a court to award double a victim's loss, it also sets a fine of $500.00 for petty misdemeanor crimes. The Court does not fmd that $500 carries enough weight as a sanction, especially when viewed from Ms. Valencia's perspective. Ms. Valencia's loss of$14,496 due to Mr. Sapia's contempt of court must be matched by a sanction of similar weight. Nonetheless, this Court exercises its discretion to sanction Mr. Sapla for Ms. Valencia's loss, but not beyond her loss.

J I

CV0085-16 Page 6

Therefore, the Court finds that compensating Ms. Valencia for her attorney fees and costs of $14,496.00 serves as an appropriate sanction amount to deter Mr. Sapia from further violating the Court's orders.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER Since the Court found Mr. Sapia acted unreasonably by committing key details of the

TRO to the police, the Court finds that the appropriate sanction is Ms. Valencia's reasonable attorney fees and costs. Thus, the Court hereby sanctions Mr. Sapia in the amount of$14,496.00.

SO ORDERED this 1st day of March 2018.

f f