Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood
How Judge Tydingco-Gatewood rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tydingco-Gatewood
Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood became a judge of the District Court of Guam in October 2006 and serves as its chief judge. Raised on Guam, she graduated from Marquette University and the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. Before joining the federal court, she worked as an Assistant Attorney General of Guam and in prosecution.
Judge Tydingco-Gatewood's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Tydingco-Gatewood's own (checked October 10, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 10, 2026).
How Judge Tydingco-Gatewood decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Allen v. P.H.R. Micronesia, Tydingco-Gatewood rejected a challenge to the pleaded amount in controversy because the defendants identified no legal cap on the plaintiff's recoverable damages.
“Defendants do not contest that Plaintiff, in fact, suffered an injury to his hand, nor point to any Guam law that caps Plaintiff's recoverable damages as a matter of law.”
In the vessel forfeiture case, Tydingco-Gatewood found a genuine factual dispute over the owner's innocent-owner defense and denied its summary-judgment motion.
“The issues presented by the United States in its Opposition Motion and during the hearing create genuine issues as to whether the Defendant was an Innocent Owner as defined under CAFRA.”
Procedural preferences
In R.C. v. Zermeno, she noted that the defendant had missed an ordered reply deadline before denying his motion to dismiss.
“The court ordered Defendant Zermeno to file a Reply no later than August 4, 2022. ECF No. 38. As of the date of this Order, August 5, 2022, the court has not received any Reply from Defendant Zermeno.”
In Masen v. Consolidated Transportation Services, she dismissed the settling defendants but directed the nonsettling insurer, Chubb, to file its own motion if it sought dismissal.
“As to Chubb Insurance's argument that it should also be dismissed from this case, Chubb Insurance shall file the appropriate motion to dismiss.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The issues raised in the Summary Judgment Motion and Opposition are questions of fact for the jury to determine and are material to the outcome of the case. The Defendant has not met the burden of Rule 56, and as such the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“As of the date of this Order, August 5, 2022, the court has not received any Reply from Defendant Zermeno. In light of this and after having reviewed Plaintiff's Response, the court DENIES Defendant Zermeno's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 31.”
“The court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Settling Defendants. The dismissal shall be with prejudice.”
“As the court cannot conclude with ‘legal certainty that the claim is really less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal,’ Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. at 288-89, Defendants' motion to dismiss is HEREBY DENIED.”
“The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation in full. ECF No. 25. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. ECF No. 4.”
“Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is MOOT. ECF No. 15.”
“Therefore, Defendants' Application for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the court DISMISSES the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.”
“Unfortunately, Quintanilla's position is not contemplated by § 2244(d). Therefore, the court DENIES the Petition.”
“Based upon the foregoing, the court DENIES Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel and GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.”
“As nothing has occurred which would alter the court's previous analysis with respect to this issue, the court DENIES Petitioner's request.”
“Because the Petitioner failed to exhaust his local post-conviction remedies as to all claims in his Petition, the court must dismiss the Petition.”
“Duenas' Motion to Suppress is hereby GRANTED, because probable cause was lacking in this case.”
“Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- As the sole district judge, Tydingco-Gatewood is assigned essentially all civil and criminal filings in the district, with the single magistrate judge (Bordallo) handling referred pretrial matters, felony proceedings, and consent-jurisdiction civil cases.
- The sampled case (Allen v. P.H.R.
- Micronesia) was a diversity personal-injury suit, a minor injured on a hotel waterslide, that settled after the jurisdictional motion to dismiss was denied.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 18 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 29 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 18 | 29 |
| Sep 2025 | 5 | 30 |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | 16 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 16 |
| Mar 2024 | 25 | 166 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 167 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of District Court of Guam, not for Judge Tydingco-Gatewood: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 137 | 77.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 8 | not reported |
| Closed before pretrial | 121 | 77.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 137 | 77.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 41 | 34.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 27 | 8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 25 | 13.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 53 | 10 months |
| Sep 2020 | 32 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 26 | 12.5 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Tydingco-Gatewood with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tydingco-Gatewood, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tydingco-Gatewood's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace