Judge finds race-based arguments groundless, offensive

Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho has found groundless and offensive the race-based arguments raised by former associate judge Juan T. Lizama in a lawsuit filed against him by a dentist.

In an order on Wednesday, Camacho denied Lizama’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered that the lawsuit filed by Dr. Alan Stuart Markoff of Toothworks shall proceed to trial.

Camacho ruled that Lizama’s race-based arguments hold no weight and are offensive to the court, to Markoff and his lawyer, Michael A. White, and the laws, including customary laws.

During oral arguments last Aug. 27, Lizama argued, among other things, that as a Chamorro, he had been “finagled” by Markoff. Lizama alleged that the dentist took advantage of cultural norms to force a conversation with him (Lizama) about his brother’s dental care.

In his ruling, Camacho noted that Lizama’s argument did not cite or explain any relevant customary law applicable in a breach of contract case. Instead, Camacho said, Lizama asked the court to ignore basic legal principles and implicitly appealed to their shared Chamorro heritage.

Camacho said Lizama characterized Markoff as a person who deals dishonestly with Chamorro people.

According to court records, Markoff alleges in his lawsuit that Lizama failed to pay for dental services rendered on his brother. The dentist claimed that the defendant owes him and the clinic $5,381.

On Aug. 5, 2014, Lizama filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, citing discovery material and arguing that Markoff’s claim fails as a matter of law because the dental services were provided to his brother, so there was no consideration.

In Markoff’s opposition, White cited the well-established legal principle that consideration can consist of a performance given to a third party.

Camacho said he denies the motion because the parties agree that there is a genuine issue of material fact, and that it is an elementary principle of contract law that consideration can consist of a performance to a third party.

The judge said a personal benefit to a party who makes a promise is simply not required for valid consideration.

“Thus, Lizama’s argument that he prevails as a matter of law because the dental services were rendered to his brother and not to him is incorrect,” Camacho said.