The District Court of Guam has ruled that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over certain claims against the Government of Guam in the case of Jose Arline Dadivas DeVelles v. Government of Guam, et al. This decision, issued on October 22, 2026, affects the ongoing legal proceedings and highlights the complexities of sovereign immunity in territorial claims.
The case centers around Jose Arline Dadivas DeVelles, who filed a civil suit against the Government of Guam and other defendants. The dispute involves multiple claims, with a jury trial set to begin on October 26, 2026, for claims against individual defendants. A bench trial will follow for remaining claims against the Government of Guam.
The Government of Guam challenged the court's jurisdiction over two specific claims, identified as Counts V and VI. They argued that the court does not have the authority to hear these claims due to sovereign immunity, which protects the government from being sued in federal court for certain actions. The Government asserted that its waiver of immunity applies only to cases brought in its own courts, citing various legal precedents and statutes.
The court agreed with the Government's position, stating that the interpretation of sovereign immunity requires a narrow construction of such waivers. The ruling referenced a prior case, Ramsey v. Muna, which reiterated that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal. The court noted that the Government's arguments were consistent with previous rulings regarding Guam's limited waiver of sovereign immunity.
In its ruling, the court invited supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional question. However, after reviewing the additional submissions, the court found no basis to alter its initial understanding. The plaintiff, DeVelles, acknowledged the applicability of sovereign immunity to Counts V and VI but argued that the Government had forfeited its right to assert this defense by not raising it earlier in the proceedings. He contended that the Government's late assertion of this jurisdictional issue, just before trial, should prevent it from being considered.
Despite the plaintiff's arguments, the court ruled that the Government had consistently maintained its sovereign immunity defense throughout the case. The court emphasized that while the timing of the Government's assertion was not ideal, it did not constitute forfeiture. The court referenced Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which mandates that a court must dismiss an action whenever it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
As a result, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction over Counts V and VI and dismissed those claims without prejudice. This means that the plaintiff may have the opportunity to refile those claims in the appropriate court. The ruling does not affect the remaining federal claims against the Government, which will proceed as scheduled.
This decision has significant implications for the parties involved. It underscores the importance of understanding the limits of sovereign immunity, particularly in cases involving territorial governments. The ruling also highlights the procedural complexities that can arise in legal disputes, especially when jurisdictional issues are at play.
Going forward, the dismissal of Counts V and VI may impact the overall strategy of the plaintiff and could influence the outcome of the remaining claims. It also serves as a reminder for litigants to be vigilant about jurisdictional defenses and the timing of their assertions in court.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the plaintiff will appeal the dismissal of the claims against the Government of Guam. There are no indications of any related cases pending at this time. The upcoming jury trial and bench trial will proceed as scheduled, focusing on the remaining claims against the individual defendants and the Government.