Michael J. Bordallo

How Judge Bordallo rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
District Court of Guam
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2020-02-14
Education
University of Notre Dame (B.B.A., 1983); University of Notre Dame Law School (J.D., 1987)
Signed orders read
5

How Judge Bordallo decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On equitable tolling of a statutory deadline, the judge treats concrete, repeated warnings the plaintiff received about the correct forum and deadline (not just the plaintiff's subjective confusion or lack of legal training) as decisive against excusing a late filing.

“The Plaintiffs were cautioned twice about where they should bring their FTCA claim. ... The court finds that the Plaintiffs were not diligent in pursuing their claim of negligence or medical malpractice.”

In a hostile-work-environment analysis, the judge weighs how quickly and effectively the employer acted once notified, comparing it directly to how courts have treated employer delay in other cases, rather than resting solely on the offensiveness of the underlying conduct.

“The delayed action by the plaintiff's employer in Okonowsky is in stark contrast to the action taken by the Agency in the instant case.”

Procedural preferences

When a plaintiff's own sworn declaration resolves a genuine citizenship/diversity defect, the judge favors dismissal with leave to amend over dismissal that forecloses the case entirely, even where the original pleading was deficient.

“The court finds that amendment would not be futile, so the Plaintiff should be allowed to file an amended complaint that corrects the defective jurisdictional allegations.”

Cautions

For release pending sentencing, ordinary hardships of confinement such as lack of law-library access did not qualify as exceptional reasons, particularly where standby counsel could assist with legal research.

“Finally, the fact that the Defendant cannot access a law library is not an exceptional factor. Rather, it is a hardship that commonly results from imprisonment.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

A.A. v. Dial, et al.
1:21-cv-00029 · 2023-07-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Based on the above discussion, the court recommends that the District Judge (1) grant the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, (2) dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and (3) give the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to cure technical defects alleging complete diversity jurisdiction between the parties.”

H.P.D. and Dominguez v. U.S. Naval Hospital Guam
1:22-cv-00022 · 2025-07-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, the court recommends the Chief Judge grant the United States Motion to Dismiss this action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.”

LaPuebla v. Noem (Secretary, DHS / U.S. Customs and Border Protection)
1:19-cv-00097 · 2025-07-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the court concludes that no reasonable jury could find that the conduct at issue was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of the Plaintiff's employment and create a hostile work environment. Therefore, the court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Government of Guam v. Leon Guerrero
1:24-cv-00029 · 2026-04-07
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“the court recommends that the Chief Judge (1) grant the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiffs) Denied

“deny the Attorney General’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint”

Motion to consolidate (plaintiffs) Denied

“deny the Attorney General’s Motions to Consolidate”

Motion to consolidate (plaintiffs) Denied
Motions to strike (defendants) Moot / procedural

“deny the Defendants’ Motion to Strike as moot.”

United States v. Paulino
1:25-cr-00001 · 2026-03-20
Motion for release pending sentencing (defendant) Denied

“Based on the above analysis, the court hereby denies the Defendant’s request for release pending sentencing because he has failed to satisfy the requirements of Sections 3143(a)(2) and 3145(c).”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

  • As the district's sole magistrate judge, Bordallo's own docket is dominated by miscellaneous matters, search-warrant and surveillance applications, material-witness proceedings, and petty-offense/misdemeanor cases, alongside his referral role handling pretrial management, felony proceedings, and reports and recommendations across nearly all civil and criminal cases the Chief Judge is assigned.
  • Almost none of this ex parte investigative caseload produces adversarial, ruled-on civil motion practice; the one contested ruling grounded from his own docket is a twice-filed material-witness warrant application that was denied both times.

Draft for Judge Bordallo with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bordallo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Bordallo's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace