On July 11, 2006 the Judicial Efficiency Act became law through Public Law 28-137:1. Subsequently, on September 15, 2006, the Supreme Court of Guam adopted Administrative Rule 06-001 regarding Case Management & Disposition establishing time standards for the efficient and prompt disposition of matters pending before the Superior Court of Guam. To review AR 06-001, click through this link:

Administrative Rule 06-001. 

The Judicial Efficiency Act and Administrative Rule 06-001 are vital components of the Unified Judiciary's commitment to transparency, accountability and efficiency. The information provided below continues the Judiciary’s commitment to provide timely and meaningful information regarding the functioning of the Judiciary.

TRIAL COURT TIME STANDARDS

The time standards adopted by Administrative Rule 06-001 contemplate two distinct time lines that are intended to keep pending matters moving towards conclusion. Most important are the “case age” time standards. In short, they require that criminal cases be concluded within 12 months and non-criminal cases be concluded within 18 months. Additionally, time standards were also adopted requiring that motions taken under advisement be decided within 90 days and non-motions within 120 days.

The Case Age Time Standards
As stated above, criminal cases must be concluded within 12 months and non-criminal cases within 18 months. It is important to note that there are many different avenues a case might take as it works its way through the justice system. In tracking case ages, our goal is to keep open and active cases moving towards resolution. Some might legitimately take longer than the case age time standards contemplate. If reasonable cause exists for a case being delayed, such delay is excused. In addition, some open cases are not active. Such cases are similarly excused. Examples of open cases that are inactive include those involving criminal defendants that have been adjudged guilty and are on probation, criminal defendants whose cases involve deferred plea agreements, criminal defendants participating in a therapeutic court program, matters involving an outstanding warrant of arrest, matters on interlocutory appeal during the case, and civil cases that have been referred to alternative dispute resolution.

Before reporting data identifying the cases that remain open longer than the case age time standards allow, absent cause, it is important to assess the progress of our trial court judges in successfully concluding cases in a timely manner. In order to make such an assessment, we considered cases that were assigned to judges during a two year period, from mid-2005 to mid-2007. Our study took place in October 2008, thus providing at least 12 months for the criminal cases assigned during the sample time period to be concluded as well as 18 months for the non-criminal cases to be concluded. In early 2009 a closure rate report was prepared regarding the two-year sample period. The results were very promising, indicating high closure rates for all of our judges, especially considering the average number of cases assigned each year. An average closure rate of 97% for all of our judges within the case age time standard target closure deadlines indicates that significant progress is being made by all of our judges in there efforts to efficiently resolve cases. The results of our October 2008 assessment were as follows (because Judge Perez had not yet joined the bench during the test period he is not included in this report):

As directed by both the Judicial Efficiency Act and AR 06-001, we have continued to monitor the progress of each judge with regard to the case age time standards. In addition, we also track the caseload of each judge from year-to-year. We recently compiled data regarding the total number of cases assigned to each judge during the three-year period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010. Those numbers are as follows:

In September 2010 we again assessed the progress of our judges regarding the case age time standards. On September 1, 2010 a Master Listing was created. That listing identified all open and active cases whose ages were beyond the 12 or 18-month case age time standard target closure dates. (Therapeutic court cases were omitted from the listing.) On March 1, 2011 the September 1, 2010 Master Listing was updated to remove cases concluded between September 1, 2010 and February 28, 2011, although no additional cases that aged past their target closure dates between 9-1-10 and 2-28-11 were added. Such cases will be reported separately. The resulting data was as follows:

Detailed listings for each judge regarding the data immediately above may be reviewed by following these links:

Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III; 3-1-11
Judge Stephen S. Unpingco; 3-1-11
Judge Michael J. Bordallo; 3-1-11
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson; 3-1-11
Judge Anita A. Sukola; 3-1-11
Judge Arthur R. Barcinas; 3-1-11
Judge Vernon P. Perez; 3-1-11

On May 1, 2011, we again updated the September 1, 2010 Master Listings to remove cases concluded between February 28, 2011 and April 30, 2011.  Again no additional cases that aged past their target closure dates between 9-1-10 and 4-30-11 were added. Such cases will be reported separately. The resulting data is as follows:

Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III; 5-1-11
Judge Stephen S. Unpingco; 5-1-11
Judge Michael J. Bordallo; 5-1-11
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson; 5-1-11
Judge Anita A. Sukola; 5-1-11
Judge Arthur R. Barcinas; 5-1-11
Judge Vernon P. Perez; 5-1-11

“On  June 1, 2011, we created an updated Master Case Age Listing for each judge. The new Master Listings identify all of the open and active cases assigned to each judge that were beyond their case age time standard target closure age as of 6-1-11. The new Master Listings, which also provide current status information for the cases, can be viewed by following these links:”

Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III; 6-1-11
Judge Stephen S. Unpingco; 6-1-11
Judge Michael J. Bordallo; 6-1-11
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson; 6-1-11
Judge Anita A. Sukola; 6-1-11
Judge Arthur R. Barcinas; 6-1-11
Judge Vernon P. Perez; 6-1-11

On September 1, 2011, we assessed each judge's progress regarding the June1, 2011 Case Age listings. We have created new/updated Master Listings identifying the open and active cases assigned to each judge that were beyond their case age time standard target closure age as of 6-1-11 and that still remained open and active as of 9-1-11. The new Master Listings, which also provide current status information for each case as well as each case number, can be viewed by following these links:

Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III; 6-1-11 updated 9-1-11
Judge Michael J. Bordallo; 6-1-11 updated 9-1-11
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson; 6-1-11 updated 9-1-11
Judge Anita A. Sukola; 6-1-11 updated 9-1-11
Judge Arthur R. Barcinas; 6-1-11 updated 9-1-11
Judge Vernon P. Perez; 6-1-11 updated 9-1-11

On October 1, 2011, we again assessed each judge's progress regarding the June1, 2011 Case Age listings and created updated Master Listings identifying the open and active cases assigned to each judge that were beyond their case age time standard target closure age as of 6-1-11 that were still open and active as of 10-1-11. The updated Master Listings, which also provide current status information for each case, can be viewed by following these links:

Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III; 6-1-11 report, updated 10-1-11
Judge Michael J. Bordallo; 6-1-11 report, updated 10-1-11
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson; 6-1-11 report, updated 10-1-11
Judge Anita A. Sukola; 6-1-11 report, updated 10-1-11
Judge Arthur R. Barcinas; 6-1-11 report, updated 10-1-11
Judge Vernon P. Perez; 6-1-11 report, updated 10-1-11

On November 1, 2011, we again created a newly updated Master Case Age Listing for each of the six senior judges. (Because Judge Canto had only been on the bench a short time, no report was created for him.) The 11-1-11 Master Listings identify all of the open and active cases assigned to each of the six senior judges that were beyond their case age time standard limit as of 11-1-11. The new 11-1-11 Master Listings, reviewed and updated through December 22, 2011, can be viewed by following these links:

Presiding Judge Alberto C. Lamorena III; 11-1-11 data; updated 12-22-11
Judge Michael J. Bordallo; 11-1-11 data; updated 12-22-11
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson; 11-1-11 data; updated 12-22-11
Judge Anita A. Sukola; 11-1-11 data; updated 12-22-11
Judge Arthur R. Barcinas; 11-1-11 data; updated 12-22-11
Judge Vernon P. Perez; 11-1-11 data; updated 12-22-11

The Under Advisement Time Standards                                                           
Also provided here is information about motions and other matters taken under advisement that have been pending before each judge at the end of each of the past several quarters. To view the information provided please follow these links: