Full Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF GUAM 8 JOSE ARLINE DADIVAS DEVELLES, CIVIL CASE NO. 24-00019 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Jury trial for claims against the individual defendants in this matter is scheduled to 15 commence October 26, 2026. (See Dkt. No. 78.) A bench trial will follow immediately thereafter 16 for remaining claims (if any) against the Government of Guam. 17 In preparation, the Government submitted a trial brief pointing out this Court lacks 18 subject matter jurisdiction for territorial claims against the Government, namely Counts V, VI. 19 (See Dkt. No. 124 at 19–20.) This is because, says the Government, its sovereign immunity 20 waiver (for such claims) applies only to suits brought in its own courts. (See id.) (citing, e.g., 48 21 U.S.C. § 1421a; 5 G.C.A. §§ 6105, 6208; Marx v. Govt. of Guam, 866 F.2d 294, 299 (9th Cir. 22 1989)). Further, it says, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 23 would be inapt, as it does not comport with the express terms of Guam’s waiver. (See id.) (citing, 24 e.g., 5 G.C.A. § 6108. 25 The Court largely agreed with the Government’s contention, as its position is consistent 26 1 with the required narrow construction of such immunity waivers, along with a sister court’s 2 decision specific to Guam and its limited waiver. See Ramsey v. Muna, 849 F.3d 858, 860 (9th 3 Cir. 2017) (repeating the Supreme Court’s mandate that a “waiver of . . . sovereign immunity 4 must be unequivocal”); see also Lau v. Dept. of Educ. for Govt. of Guam, 2013 WL 1217764, 5 slip op. at 6 (D. Guam 2013) (declining to extend supplemental jurisdiction to claims subject to 6 Guam’s sovereign immunity waiver because, in part, such “claims made . . . must be brought . . . 7 in state court, not federal court”).1 8 Nevertheless, before issuing a ruling on the topic, the Court invited supplemental briefing 9 on this jurisdictional question. (See Dkt. No. 126.) That briefing has now been submitted. (See 10 generally Dkt. Nos. 133, 135.) In sum, it does not provide the Court with a basis to depart from 11 its prior understanding. 12 Plaintiff, in his supplemental brief, ostensibly admits that sovereign immunity applies to 13 Counts V and VI. (See generally Dkt. No. 133.) So he relies on a theory of forfeiture to maintain 14 the counts’ viability (before this Court). According to Plaintiff, because the Government failed to 15 timely invoke this particular jurisdictional deficiency until the eve of trial, as a matter of equity, 16 it can no longer do so. (See id. at 8–11) (citing, e.g., In re Bliemeister, 296 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 17 Cir. 2002)). But that is not quite right. 18 The Government repeatedly asserted sovereign immunity throughout its defense. (See, 19 e.g., Dkt. Nos. 63 at 1–2, 8; 114 at 3.) And while it only articulated the specific immunity theory 20 relied on in its trial brief recently (namely, that in accordance with § 6108, territorial claims 21 against the Government not otherwise precluded must be heard in Guam Superior Court), it did 22 so shortly after lodging its Answer, which it coincidentally filed weeks before trial is scheduled 23 to commence. (See Dkt. No. 124 at 19–20.) While this timing is far from ideal, it is not sufficient 24 25 1 But see Castro v. Govt. of Guam, 2026 WL 1728492, slip op. at 5 n.7 (D. Guam 2026) 26 (suggesting in dicta that supplemental jurisdiction could apply to such claims). 1 to constitute forfeiture.2 Nor would the Court’s recognition of Plaintiff’s position be in 2 accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which directs it to dismiss an action 3 “any time” it determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 4 This, for the reasons described above, the Court now FINDS that it lacks subject matter 5 jurisdiction for Counts V and VI and DISMISSES those claims without prejudice. This ruling 6 has no import on the remaining federal claim(s) against the Government. 7 8 So ORDERED 22nd day of October 2026. A 9 10 11 John C. Coughenour 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 This case is distinguishable from In re Bliemeister, for example, where the State failed to assert 26 any such immunity in its answer. See 296 F.3d at 860–62.