In Re Request of Lourdes A. Leon Guerrero, I Maga 'Hagan Guahan, Relative to the Authority of the Attorney General of Guam to Approve Autonomous Agency Contracts

ORDER
CIVIL CASE NO. 25-00041
PAGE - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF GUAM
IN RE
REQUEST OF LOURDES A. LEON
GUERRERO, I MAGA’HÅGAN GUÅHAN,
RELATIVE TO THE AUTHORITY OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GUAM
TO APPROVE AUTONOMOUS
AGENCY CONTRACTS
CIVIL CASE NO. 25-00041
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Governor of Guam’s motion to remand (Dkt.
No. 2), which the Court GRANTS in part for the reasons described herein. This necessarily
moots all remaining motions in this matter (Dkt. Nos. 9, 15).
The procedural history here is similar to a companion case, which the Court recently
remanded: Guam District Court Case No. 1:26-cv-00006. In each, the Governor filed a petition
seeking the Guam Supreme Court’s advice pursuant to 7 GCA § 4104 on the boundaries of
authority provided by the Organic Act, specifically 48 U.S.C. § 1421g(a), in light of seemingly
countervailing authority provided by 5 GCA § 5150. The Attorney General removed each to this
Court, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1442. From there, the cases diverged.
For the companion, 1:26-cv-00006, the Guam Supreme Court found the removal “facially
defective” and retained jurisdiction (despite its removal) because, inter alia, the Attorney
Case 1:25-cv-00041 Document 28 Filed 07/31/26 Page 1 of 4

ORDER
CIVIL CASE NO. 25-00041
PAGE - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
General was not a party to the Governor’s petition. See In re Request of Lourdes A. Leon
Guerrero, I MAGA’HÅGAN GUÅHAN, Relative to Organic Acts Limits on Legislative
Conditions Affecting the Governor’s Authority to Establish Hospitals, Guam Supreme Court
Case No. CRQ26-001, Order Retaining Jurisdiction (March 25, 2026).
This Court later endorsed the Guam Supreme Court’s determination and remanded the
matter back to that court. See 1:26-cv-00006, Dkt. No. 57. It did so after also concluding that the
Attorney General was not a named party in the petition (or a real party in interest), nor was the
petition a “civil action” within the purview of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) or 1442(a). Id. (citing
Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1 by Deutsche Bank Natl. Tr. Co., 23 F.4th 1167,
1173 (9th Cir. 2022); Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210, 1215 (9th Cir. 2002); Shamrock Oil &
Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)).
The same is true here. The Attorney General was not a named party in the instant
petition. (See Dkt. No. 1-2 at 3–23.) Granted, in the companion case, the Guam Supreme Court
named the Guam Legislature as the respondent for purposes of briefing the matter. See Guam
Supreme Court Case No. CRQ26-001, Scheduling Order (March 5, 2026). Whereas here, that
same court designated the Attorney General as a respondent (for the same purpose). See Guam
Supreme Court Case No. CRQ25-001, Scheduling Order (October 30, 2025). But a briefing
respondent is not a named party (with a tangible adverse interest). Only those named in the
pleading have removal authority. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson,
587 U.S. 435, 442 (2019). Thus, the removal considerations for each of the § 4104 petitions are
the same and the same logic applies, thus requiring remand of this petition too. Nor is this the
only barrier to this Court’s jurisdiction as to the instant petition.
First, despite the Attorney General’s arguments otherwise, (see Dkt. Nos. 1 at 3, 6; 8 at
16–19), he is a territorial officer—not a federal officer. See Hueter v. Kruse, 576 F. Supp. 3d
743, 777–78 (D. Haw. 2021). He does not possess 28 U.S.C. § 1442 removal authority. Second,
this debate does not present a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Indeed, this Court
Case 1:25-cv-00041 Document 28 Filed 07/31/26 Page 2 of 4

ORDER
CIVIL CASE NO. 25-00041
PAGE - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
held as much only recently—it need not retread that analysis here. See Govt. of Guam v. Leon
Guerrero, 2026 WL 931039, slip op. at 9 (D. Guam April 7, 2026) (quoting L. Offices of Phillips
and Bordallo, P.C. v. Guerrero, 2023 WL 5075374, slip op. at 4 (D. Guam Aug. 9, 2023))
adopted at 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168885, slip op. at 4 (D. Guam July 29, 2026) (finding that
even though 48 U.S.C. § 1421g(a) is a federal law, it “concern[s] local policy” and thus is not a
“law[] ‘of the United States’” for jurisdictional purposes as to the instant dispute).1 Third, the
Governor’s petition, while labeled a declaratory judgment action, in substance seeks an advisory
opinion from Guam’s Supreme Court pursuant to sui generis territorial law. (See generally Dkt.
No. 1-2 at 3–23.) This cannot be a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). See Flast v.
Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968) (discussing Article III requirements, which apply equally to
Article IV courts).
For all these reasons, the Court FINDS that this matter fails to satisfy 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1441, or 1442. As such, remand is required for this ineffective removal. Nevertheless, the Court
DECLINES the Governor’s request for sanctions or for attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). Unlike in the companion case (where the Court did impose attorney fees), because
here the Guam Supreme Court designated the Attorney General as a respondent (and also did not
find the removal facially defective), the Attorney General had perhaps a debatable basis for
removal in this instance (whether it rises to a level beyond that, the Court will not address).
For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS in part the Governor’s motion to
remand (Dkt. No. 2), DIRECTS the Clerk to remand this case to the Guam Supreme Court, and
declines to impose attorney fees or other sanctions against the Attorney General. Further, the
Court DENIES as moot all remaining motions (Dkt. Nos. 9, 15).
//
//
//
1 For the same reason(s), Rule 5.1 Notice, (see Dkt. No. 11), is unnecessary.
Case 1:25-cv-00041 Document 28 Filed 07/31/26 Page 3 of 4

ORDER
CIVIL CASE NO. 25-00041
PAGE - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
It is so ORDERED this 31st day of July 2026.
AJohn C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00041 Document 28 Filed 07/31/26 Page 4 of 4