Bautista v. Torres

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: February 7, 2014
• Docket: CV0471-07
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 1

2 I ROSARIO S. BAUTISTA and ) Civil Case No. CV0471-07 3 MANUEL C. SHOLING, ) ) ~.J 4 Plaintiffs. ) ) .' () __ 5 vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER: Plahitiffs' ) Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended 6 FRANCISCO TORRES, Individually and ) Complaint as the Previous Special Administrator and ) 7 Now Executor of the Estate of Jesus U. ) Torres, Deceased and PETER F. PEREZ, ) 8 ) Defendants. ) 9 ) ) 10 DANIEL U. TORRES and BARBARA M. ) ) 11 DeMELLO, TRUSTEE UNDER THE ) ESTEBAN TORRES FAMILY TRUST ) 12 DATED MAY 12,1995 ) ) 13 Intervenor Plaintiffs. ) ) 14 vs. ) ROSARIO S. BAUTISTA and ) 15 ) MANUEL C. SHOLING, ) 16 Defendants, ) ) 17 And ) ) 18 GLORIA C. SHOLING, ) 19 Third-Party Defendant. ~ 20 INTRODUCTION 21

22 This matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Fourth

23 Amended Complaint. Attorney Wayson W.S. Wong represented Plaintiffs Rosario Bautista and 24 Manuel Sholing. Defendant Francisco Torres and Plaintiff-Intervenors Daniel U. Torres and 5 Barbara DeMello were represented by Attorneys Michael Phillips and Daniel J. Berman. 26 Attorney David A. Mair appeared for Defendant Peter Perez. Following the hearing on July 28,

28 2010, the Court took the matter under advisement. Upon review of the evidence, written DISCUSSION 1

2 Plaintiffs seek leave from this Court in order to make amendments to their complaint for

3 a fourth time. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to bolster standing by re-characterizing themselves as 4 trustees of a revocable living trust. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended 5 Complaint, at 2-4 (May 12, 201 0). Further, they attempt to allege harms more specifically 6

7 increase the amount of damages sought, and make various changes as to form. !d. at 4-9.

8 Defendants and Plaintiff Intervenors oppose leave to amend. They claim that such amendmen

9 . would prejudice them by changing the nature of the parties and would be futile due to incurable

10 statute of limitations issues. See Defendant Peter F. Perez's Memorandum of Points and 11 Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint 12

13 CV0471-07 at 9-12 (Jul. 14, 2010); Plaintiff Intervenors' Oooosition to Plaintiffs' Motion for

14 Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint, CV0471-07, at 6-10 (July 14, 2010). Further, they 15 claim that Plaintiffs have already been given multiple opportunities to amend the complaint and 16 their inability to correct defects justifies denial of the motion. Defendant Peter F. Perez'~ 17 Opposition, at 3-9; Plaintiff Intervenors' Opposition at 10-11. Finally, Defendant Perez argue~ 18

19 that the existence of the motion for summary judgment weighs heavily against allowing leave tc

20 amend. !d. at 2-3. For the reasons below, the Court agrees. 21 Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 15 defines the appropriate standard for granting leave to 22 amend a pleading after the first modification: "a party may amend the party's pleading only by 23 leave of court or by ·written consent of the adverse party." G.R. C.P. 15. This rule is based on 24

25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a) (2). Thus, the Court may look to

6 relevant federal case-law when interpreting a Guam statutory rule that closely tracks a federa 7 procedural rule. See Farmer v. Slotnick, 1996 WL 10452 7. 8 These rules state that "leave shall be freely g1ven when justice so requires." !d. 1

2 Nonetheless, the policy favoring liberal amendments is not "unbounded." Dole v. Area Chern.

3 Co., 921 F .2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990). The decision whether to grant or to deny a motion fo 4 leave to amend rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Farnan v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 5 182,83 S.Ct. 227,230 (1962); PSG Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 417 F.2, 6 659,664 (9th Cir. 1969). A court may deny leave to amend a complaint because of"undue delay 7

8 bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice to the opposing party." Unite

9 States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979-80 (9th Cir. 1981). (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182). 10 Discretion to deny amendment is particularly broad where, as here, "the court has already give 11 a plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend his complaint" Mir v. Fosburg, 646 F.2d 342, 34 12

13 (9th Cir. 1980).

14 Futility 15 An amendment is futile when "no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to th 16 pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense." Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, 17 Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). In this case, the amendment sought by Plaintiff woul 18

19 most certainly be futile. A case in which neither the complaint nor the motion for leave to amen

20 was filed within the limitations period is by definition futile, since all claims are barred. Abels v. 21 JBC Legal Grp., P.C., 229 F.R.D. 152, 157 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Here, this Court has alread 22 granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment based on the fact that the statute o 23 limitations for the causes of action sought had run prior to the commencement of Plaintiffs' suit. 24

5 See Decision and Order. Defendant Perez's Motion for Summary Judgment, CV0471-07 (Apr.

26 17, 2013). As this defect has not been cured by Plaintiffs' proposed changes and cannot be cure 27

28 by any subsequent changes, leave to amend would be futile to adjudication and the court rna 1

2 deny it.

3 Prejudice 4 Though futility alone is sutllcient to deny the motion, this Court must also refuse leave t 5 amend because it would result in substantial prejudice towards the defendant. This is the mos 6 important and heavily weighed factor in determining whether amendment is appropriate. 7

8 William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1053 (9th Cir.

9 1981). Federal case-law holds that a Court may not grant leave to amend after defendants hav 10 made a successfully dispositive motion. Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 87 (M.D. N.C. 1987 11 ("To allow plaintiff to amend after defendants have made a successful dispositive motio 12

13 prejudices defendants"); Union Planters National Leasing, Inc. v. Woods,687 F.2d 117, 121 (5t

14 Cir. 1982)("after summary judgment has been granted, the court has more reason for refusing t 15 allow amendment"). Thus, once a court has decided a dispositive motion not based upon an issu 16 which a plaintiff seeks to amend, the prejudice resulting from amendment to the complain 17 renders modification impossible. Kartman v. Markle, 5:10CV106, 2013 WL 4829314 (N.D.W. 18

19 Va. Sept. 10, 2013) (citing Forstmann 114 F.R.D. at 88). As discussed, this Court has alread

20 granted a dispositive motion for summary judgment based upon an incurable violation of th 21 statute of limitations. Additionally, the mere fact that there were many previous efforts to amen 22 may be sufficient to demonstrate prejudice. Abels, 229 F.R.D. at 156 (citing Mir, 646 F.2d a 3 347). Accordingly, further amendment is unduly prejudicial to the Defendants and therefore, 24

25 Plaintiffs' request must be denied.

28 CONCLUSION 1

2 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to

3 File Fourth Amended Complaint. 4 SO ORDERED this +--day of FEBRUARY, 2014. 5

9 HONORABLE KATHERINE A. MARAMAN Judge, Superior Court of Guam 10