Bautista v. Torres
Opinion
• • if BLED SUF':RC CURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 1
2 2O11;V;%'!22 AM!2;55 ROSARIO S. BAUTISTA and ) Civil Case No. CV0471-07 3 MANUEL C. SHOLING, CLERK C ;'. ,`? 4 Plaintiffs. 5 VS. ) DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 6 FRANCISCO TORRES, Individually and Plaintiffs' Motion for Evidentiary as the Previous Special Administrator and ) Presumption 7 Now Executor of the Estate of Jesus U. ) Re: Defendant Peter Perez Torre s, 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,
20 INTRODUCTION 21
22 This matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs ' Motion for Partial Summary
23 Judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion for Evidentiary Presumption. Attorney Wayson W.S. Wong 24 represented Plaintiffs Rosario Bautista and Manuel Sholing. Attorney David A. Mair 25 represented Defendant Peter Perez. Upon review of the evidence, written arguments, and legal 26
authorities presented, the Court hereby issues this Decision and Order Denying Plaintiffs' 27
28 motions with regard to Defendant Peter Perez. I
BACKGROUND 1
2 On April 23, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant for breach of
3 fiduciary duty, recission and restitution, deceptive trade practices, and negligence. See Third 4 Amended Complaint, CV0471-07 (Jul. 10, 2009). This action arose from a 1987 retainer 5 agreement between Ms. Ana Sholing (deceased) and Attorney Jesus U. Tones ( deceased) in 6
7 which Attorney Tones would provide legal services in exchange for ten percent of the monthly
8 rental earnings from the Pacific Island Club Property for a period of twenty five years. Id. at ¶ ¶
9 11-12 at 2-3. Plaintiffs allege improprieties in the handling of Plaintiffs' business and financial 10 affairs by Attorney Tones and, following his death, by Defendant Perez. 11 On May 10, 2010, Defendant Perez moved for Summary Judgment, claiming, among 12
13 other grounds, that Plaintiffs' claims were time barred by the statute of limitations. On July 7,
14 2010 Plaintiffs ' filed their own Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, arguing that rescission 15 of the contract was warranted based on breach of fiduciary duty and defendant' s failure to 16 overcome the presumption of undue influence by Attorney Tones. Plaintiffs' and Intervention 17 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Partial) Against Defendants and Intervention 18
19 Plaintiffs, CV0471-07 (Jul. 7, 2010 ). Plaintiffs also moved for an Evidentiary Presumption on
20 August 23 of that year, arguing that Defendant was responsible for evidence spoliation by 21 failing to preserve the Sholing files. Plaintiffs' Motion for Evidentiary Presumptions Against 22 Defendant Because of Evidence Spoliation, CV0471-07 ( Aug. 23, 2010). This Court granted 23
24 Defendant Perez's Motion for Summary Judgment on April 17, 2013. Decision and Order,
25 Defendant Perez's Motion for Summary Judgment. CV0471-07, (Apr. 17, 2013). In the
26 November 22, 2013 status conference regarding this case, Plaintiffs requested that the Court 27
28 issue judgment on their pending motions in light of Defendant Perez's successful diapositive 1
2 motion. Hearing Minutes, CV0471-07 (Nov. 22, 2013).
3 DISCUSSION 4 The doctrine of Justiciability is a jurisdictional limitation which requires that a live case 5 and controversy exist in order for the Court to issue a decision. Soliman v. U.S. ex rel. INS, 296 6
F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002). This doctrine "prevents courts from encroaching on the 7
8 powers of the elected branches of government and guarantees that courts consider only matters
9 presented in an actual adversarial context." Id. Thus, if the issues of a case are no longer live or 10 the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, the action is considered moot and 11 the court may not exercise jurisdiction. Id. (citing Powell v. McCormack 395 U.S. 486, 496, 12
13 89 S.Ct. 1944, 1951 (1969)). Accordingly, Justiciability and Mootness are considered threshold
14 questions, which must be resolved prior to adjudication on the merits of a dispute. North 15 Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404 (1971) ("The question of mootness is ... 16 [one which a] court must resolve before it assumes jurisdiction."); Fla. Assn ofRehab. 17 Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Dept of Health and Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th Cir.2000) 18
19 ("Any decision on the merits of a moot case or issue would be an impermissible advisory
20 opinion.").
21 As a general principle, a court lacks jurisdiction to resolve issues that have become moot 22 by intervening events. Taitano v. Lujan, 2005 Guam 26, ¶ 27. This rule applies even if a live 23 controversy existed at the onset of the case, since "[it] must be viable at all stages of the 24
25 litigation." Id. (citing C & C Products, Inc. v. Messick 700 F.2d 635, 636 (11th Cir.1983)). As
26 discussed, courts may not rule upon abstract principles where relief cannot be granted to an 27 injured party. Guam Election Comm'n v. Responsible Choices for all Adults Coal., 2007 Guam 28 V 20, ¶ 31 (citing Town House Dept Stores v. Ahn, 2000 Guam 32, ¶ 9). Of particular relevance to 1
2 the present case, a grant of Summary Judgment renders all motions by the parties moot. Roberts
3 v. Jones, 2012 WL 1072232 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 28, 2012) (citing Royhouse v. Miller, 2008 WL 4 2704611, Westlaw op. at 1, 4 & n. 7 (W.D. Okla. June 30, 2008)); Cheetah Lounge, Inc. v. 5 Sarasota Cnty., 387 S.W.3d 10, 14 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). This is because granting a dispositive 6 motion for a defendant definitively settles any controversy between the parties and removes the 7
8 courts ability to grant relief to a plaintiff. Jones v. Isom, 477 S.E.2d 139, 141 (Ga. Ct. App. Sep.
9 26, 1996) (granting a defendant Summary Judgment on statute of limitations renders the 10 plaintiffs motion for partial Summary Judgment moot); Richards v. Wells Fargo Bank; N. A., 11 A13A1678, 2014 WL 503626 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014) (outside of independent compulsory 12
13 counterclaims, a Motion for Summary Judgment which resolves all issues renders other motions
14 moot). In this case, the Court has already granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of
15 Defendant Perez. See Decision and Order, Defendant Perez's Motion for Summary Judgment, 16 CV0471-07, (Apr. 17, 2013). As such, the controversy is extinguished and the Court no longer 17 possesses jurisdiction to rule on the merits of Plaintiffs' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment 18
19 or Evidentiary Presumption.
11 24
28 CONCLUSION 1
2 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES, as moot, Plaintiffs' Motion for
3 Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion for Evidentiary Presumption with regard to 4 Defendant Perez.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bautista v. Torres (Bautista v. Torres) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.