United States of America v. 4,352 Acres of land, more or less, in the Island of Guam, Mariana Islands, and Pedro Martinez Ada, et al.

Filing 2978

Order denying without prejudice 2971 Motion for Leasehold Condemnation Compensation; denying without prejudice 2974 Motion for Leasehold Condemnation Compensation; adopting 2975 Report and Recommendations; denying 2977 Objection to Report and Recommendation;. Signed by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona on 2/22/2018. (fad, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

1
2
3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No.: 50-cv-00038

Plaintiff,

4
5
6

ORDER
DENYING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMMENDATION,
AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR
CONDEMNATION COMPENSATION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.
4,352 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS,
IN THE ISLAND OF GUAM, MARIANAS
ISLANDS AND PEDRO MARTINEZ ADA,
et al.,

7
8
9

Defendants.

10

I.

INTRODUCTION

11

Before the Court are Jesus S.N. Quintanilla’s motions for condemnation compensation (ECF
12
13

Nos. 2971, 2974), and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that recommends denying

14

the motions without prejudice. (ECF No. 2975.) Also before the Court is Quintanilla’s objection to

15

the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 2977.)

16
17
18
19

II.

BACKGROUND

On August 15, 2017, Quintanilla filed a motion for condemnation compensation. (First Mot.
for Compensation, ECF No. 2971.) In this motion, Quintanilla claims that he is an heir of Juan Perez
Quintanilla, and that Juan Perez Quintanilla owned Lot No. 5235, property subject to a leasehold

20

condemnation by the U.S. Government. (Id. at 2; ECF No. 2971-1 at 8.) As the heir, Quintanilla
21

argues that he is entitled to compensation that Juan Perez Quintanilla was entitled to as owner of Lot
22
23
24

No. 5235, but did not receive. (First Mot. for Compensation 2; Ex. to Mot. for Compensation 17-24,
1

ECF No. 2971-2; Ex. to Mot. for Compensation (cont’d), ECF No. 2971-3.)
1
2

On August 24, 2017, Quintanilla filed a substantially similar motion with the Court, again

3

requesting compensation owed due to the leasehold condemnation of Lot No. 5235. (ECF No. 2974.)

4

On August 31, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that

5

recommended the motions be denied without prejudice on the ground that Quintanilla had not

6

sufficiently demonstrated he was the “executor, administrator or personal representative of the estate

7

of Juan Perez Quintanilla under Guam law,” and therefore was not legally permitted to bring the claim.

8

(R&R 3, ECF No. 2975.) The R&R notified the parties, including Quintanilla, that they had fourteen

9

days from the date of service of the R&R to file objections. (Id.) The United States filed a response
10

concurring in the recommendation of the R&R. (ECF No. 2976.) Quintanilla acknowledged receipt
11
12

of service on September 1, 2017. Objections were due September 15, 2017. See 28 U.S.C. §

13

626(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Quintanilla belatedly filed a response on September 19, 2017, in

14

which he requests additional time for the Superior Court of Guam to decide his petition to serve as

15

administrator of the estate. (ECF No. 2977.)

16
17
18

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court
judge ‘shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to

19

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge “may accept, reject, or modify,
20

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id. She need not
21
22
23
24

review any parts that are not objected to. United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th
Cir.2003) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).
2

IV.

DISCUSSION

1

The Court has reviewed the record and agrees with the recommendation from the Magistrate

2
3

Judge. Fed. R. Civ. P 17(b)(3) requires that a party suing in a representative capacity, as Quintanilla

4

is here, be permitted to bring the claim under the law “where the court is located,” which is Guam in

5

this case. Guam law, as set forth in the R&R, states who acquires the property interests of a deceased,

6

and these conditions must be met for an individual to file a claim in federal court under Fed. R. Civ.

7

P. 17.

8

Quintanilla appears to acknowledge that he has not satisfied these conditions, and has therefore

9

petitioned the Superior Court of Guam for a letter of administrator to pursue this claim. His objection
10

to the R&R on the ground that he needs more time for his petition for a letter of administrator is
11
12
13

therefore denied. Adopting the R&R in this case permits Quintanilla to refile his claims provided he
is granted the appropriate legal status under Guam law.
V.

14
15
16
17
18

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Quintanilla’s objection (ECF No. 2977) to the Report and
Recommendation is DENIED, and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 2975) is ADOPTED.
It is ORDERED that the motions for condemnation compensation (ECF Nos. 2971, 2974) be
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
February 22, 2018.

19
20
21
22
23
24

3