• ||
r *:~_>"~'t`* r {5§\:;7 ~}*~'§* * . .
2025 APR 22. ;>.a25.npa 22 1"11 ~1i t,: 57? FT Ll! ,, i8LEs8§§ CLEll~ OfCEC.GURT:: csuaT;"
IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM
ROSALINDA IGNACIO ROSALINDA M. BURKHART IGNACIOM. BURKHART,! CIVILCASE CWIL CASEno. NO.CV0492-09 CV0492-09
Plaintiff, vs. vs.
ROLAND R. ROLAND R. MIRANDA, MIRANDA, RITA T. DECISION AND ORDER MIRANDA, IRANDA, GUAM HOUSING GRANTING R ANTI NG PL AI NTI FF- PLAINTIFF- CORPORATION and CORPORATION UNITED STATES and UNITED INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY VOL UNTAR SMALL SMALL BUSINESS BUSINESS MOTION MOTION TOTO DISMISS DISMISS ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.
DEAL DEAL ESTATE, ESTATE, INC.
Plaintiff-Intervenor, Plaintiff-Intervenor,
vs. vs.
ROLAND R. ROLAND MIRANDA, RITA T. R. MIRANDA, MIRANDA, STEPHEN H. PEREZ NIIRANDA, PEREZ PANGELINAN, AND AYUMU PANGELINAN, U HOSODA PANGELINAN,
This matter came before the This matter the Honorable Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez on A. Gutierrez on November November25, 25,2024 2024 on on aa hearing
Plaintiff-Intervenor on Plain tif f -In ter v en or Deal Deal Estate, E state,Inc.'s In c.' s ("Deal ("Deal Estate's") E state' s") Voluntary Volu n tar y Motion Motion to Dismiss its to Dismiss its
Intervention Without Complaint in Intervention Without Prejudice Prejudice pursuant pursuanttotoGuam GuamRules Rules of of Civil Procedure Rule Civil Procedure
4l(a)(2) ("Motion 41(a)(2) Complaint ininIntervention"), ("Motion to Dismiss Complaint Intervention"), Attorney Attorney Anita Anita P. P. Arriola Arriolarepresenting representing
Deal Estate, and Deal and Attorney Attorney Joshua D. D. Walsh Walsh representing representingDefendants DefendantsRoland RolandR. R. Miranda Miranda and and Rita Rita T. T. I I 1
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio M.Burkhart CV0492-09; Burkhartv.v. Roland RolandR. R. Miranda, Miranda, Er et al.
Miranda (the Miranda "Mirandas"). 1Upon (the "Mirandas").' Uponreview reviewofofthe thearguments, arguments, pleadings pleadings and and applicable applicable Guam Guam law, law, the the
Court hereby Court hereby grants grantsDeal DealEstate's Estate'sMotion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Complaint in Intervention. Complaint in Intervention.
BACKGROUND GROUN
This Decision This Decisionand andOrder Orderadopts adoptsbybyreference referencethe thecase backgroundpreviously casebackground previouslysetset forth forth in the 'um the
earlier decision filed on Court's earlier on June June 18, 2024. See 18, 2024. See Decision Decision and Order Re Motion Motion to to Substitute, Substitute,
MotiontotoDismiss, Motion Dismiss, and and Motion Motionfor forJudgment Judgmentononthe thePleadings Pleadings(June (June18, 18,2024) 2024) (the (the "June "June 18, 18, 2024
D&O"). D &O")
In brief In brief summary, sununary, this matter stems stems from from aa dispute dispute between betweenfamily family members members over over the the title to titleto
real property real property described described as as Lot Lot Number Number 12, 12, Block Number 2, Block Number 2, Estate Estate Number Number 12008, 12008, Suburban, Suburban,
Subdivision ofTract Subdivision of Tract 85 85 in in Piti, Piti, Guam Guam (the (the "Property").
On March On March 20, 20, 2009, 2009, Plaintiff Rosalinda I.I. Burkhart Plaintiff Rosalinda Burkhart ("Burkhart") ("Burkhart") filed filed her her Complaint Complaint
("Burkhart's Complaint") ("Burkhart's Complaint")seeking seeking ininpart, part, quiet quiet title title to to the the Property and to eject eject the the Mirandas, Mirandas, who who
we living on were liv on tthe Property. h e Pr op e y , The M Mirandas ir a n d ffiled ile ttheir h e AnAnswer s we r tto Burkhart's o Bu Complaint r ld la r t ' Comp la aand
Counterclaims ("Mirandas' Counterclaims ("Mirandas'Counterclaim") Counterclaim")asserting assertingconstructive constructivetrust trust and and reformation. reformation. The The parties parties
litigated the case case up up to to the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court. Court. On On February 8, 2013, the the Guam Supreme Court Guam Supreme
issued an Opinion Opinion holding that the the deed deed by by which which the theMirandas Mirandas claimed claimed title title to to the the Property Property was was void void
the matter and remanded the matter for further See Burkhart v. further proceedings. See v. Ahranda, 2013 Guam Miranda, 2013 Guam22 1] 31. 31. ,r Additionally, theGuam Additionally,the GuamSupreme SupremeCourt Courtheld heldthat that"the "theeffective effectivestart startdate datefor forthe the running running of ofany any statute statute
of limitations of limitations period period shall shall be be the the date of [the] [the] opinion." Id.
Nothing substantive Nothing substantive occurred occurred in in the the case case after after the Guam Supreme Court Guam Supreme Court remanded remanded the the case
further proceedings for further proceedingsuntil until April 2023 when April 5, 2023 when Deal Deal Estate, Estate, who who purchased purchased the the Property Property on
December er 23, 23, 2022, 2022, filed filed a Motion Motion to to Intervene. Intervene. Both Burkhart Burkhart and and the the Mirandas as filed non- non-
Atthe |1 At the Motion hearing,Attorney Motionhearing, AttorneyWalsh Walshnotified notifiedthe theCourt Courtthat that Rita RitaMiranda Mirandahad hadpassed passed away. away. Min. Min. Entry Enny at at 11:26:14 AM 11:26:14 (Nov. 25, AM (Nov. 25, 2024).
22 x
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio Ignacio M. M. Burkhart Burkhart v. v. Roland Roland R. Miranda, et et al. al.
oppositions to oppositions to Deal Deal Estate's Estate's Motion to Intervene. Motion to Intervene. Thus, Thus, with leave of Court, with leave Court, Deal Estate Estate filed its its
Verified Complaint Verified Complaint ininIntervention Intervention against against the Mirandas ("Complaint ("Complaint in in Intervention") Intervention") on on June 27, 27,
2 In 2023.2 In it, it, Deal Deal Estate Estate alleges alleges that that itit purchased purchased and and now now owns owns the Property. Deal Estate Estate prays for,
inter alia, infer (1) Quiet alia, (1) Title to Quiet Title to the the Property; Property; and and (2) (2) Declaratory Declaratory Judgment Judgment that that Deal Estate Estate owns the the
Property free and Property free and clear clear of of all all liens, liens, claims claims of ofinterest, interest, and and encumbrances, encumbrances, in in fee fee simple, simple, and and that that it is
a bona fide fide purchaser of the Property, for for value. Compo. Comp!. Intervention at 7. Intervention at ' "1
On July On July 27, 27, 2023, 2023, the Mirandas filed their Verified Verified Answer Answer to to Deal Deal Estate's Estate's Complaint Complaint
("Mirandas Answer"). In their Answer''). In their answer, answer, they they asserted asserted the the following affmnative defenses: following affirmative (!) Deal defenses: (1)
Estate is not aa bona Estate bona fide for value, fidepurchaser for value; (2) (2) Mirandas hold equitable Mirandas hold equitable title title to to the the Property Property pursuant
to a deed they hold; (3) Deal hold; (3) Deal Estate operated with unclean hands, with unclean hands; (4) (4) Deal Estate's Estate's claims claims are are barred
the statute by the statute of frauds; (5) of frauds, Estate lacks the appropriate (5) Deal Estate appropriate licenses licenses to to assert assert its its claims; claims, (6) (6) Deal
Estate's corporate Estate's corporate form form and and operations are deficient and prevent it from deficient and from asserting its claims; (7) Deal claims, (7) Deal
Estate's corporate Estate's corporate form and operations are are deficient deficient and warrant piercing piercing the corporate veil; (8) Deal veil, (8) Deal
Estate has failed to Estate to mitigate mitigate damages, damages; (9) Deal Estate Estate has waived its claims, waived its claims; and and (10) (I 0) damages damages may
be barred be barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk. See See Mirandas Mirandas Answer at 2-4. Answer at 2-4.
In the following In months, several following months, several other other motions were filed to the Court. On On June June 18, 18, 2024, 2024, the
Court issued a Decision Court Decision and Order ruling on Order ruling on three three motions: (1) (1) Burkhart's Burkhart's Motion to Substitute Motion ro Substitute Party
or in the Alternative Alternative Voluntary Voluntary Dismissal Dismissal of Original Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Complaint Complaint and and Summary Summary Judgment
2 Subsequent 2 Subsequent totothe theGuam GuamSupreme SupremeCourt's Court's February February 13, 2013 2013Opinion, Opinion, the Property was conveyedthree threetimes. times. On March25, On March 25, 2016, 2016, Burkhart Burkhart sold sold the the Property and and transferred transferred title titleto to Joseph Joseph A.A. Cruz. Cruz. On April April22, 22, 2019, 2019, Cruz sold Cruz sold the the Property Property and and transferred Stephen and Ayumu transferred title to Stephen Ayumu Pangelinan Pangelinan ("the ("the Pangelinans"). Pangelinans'J On December23, December 23, 2022, 2022, the Pangelinans sold the Property Property and transferred title title to to Deal Deal Estate. In its Complaint in Intervention, Deal Intervention, DealEstate Estate also sued suedthe Pangelinans for breachofcontract. of contract.However, However,on onJuly24, July 24,2024, 2024,pursuant pursuant to GRCP GRCP41 41(a)(l), (a)(l ),Deal DealEstate Estate submitted a Notice Notice ofVoluntary VoluntaryDismissal DismissalWithout WithoutPrejudice PrejudiceAgainst AgainstStephen Stephen AyumuPangelinan. and Ayumu Pangelinan.InInit,it,Deal DealEstate Estatestates states that that the Pangelinans were never served with the Complaint in Intervention nor Intervention nor appeared appearedinin the the matter matterthrough throughanswer answerororother othertypetypeof of pleading pleading oror motion. motion. Notice Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Voluntary Dismissal atat 2.
3 s
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S PLAINTIFF-INIIERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio M. CV0492-09; M. Burkhart v. Roland Burkhart v. Roland R. R. Miranda, Miranda, Er et al. al.
as to Counterclaim as Counterclaim Against Against Original Original Plaintiff ("Motion ("Motion to to Substitute"), Substitute"); (2) (2) Burkhart's Burkhart's Motion Motion to
Dismiss for Dismiss for Failure Failure to to Prosecute ("Burkhart's ("Burkhart's Motion to Dismiss"), Motion to Dismiss"); and (3) (3) Deal Deal Estate's Estate's Motion Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant Judgment Pursuant to to Rule Rule 12(c) l2(c) ("Motion for Judgment ("Motion for Judgment on on the Pleadings").
First, in the June 18, First, 18, 2024 2024D&O, D&O, the Court dismissed dismissed the Mirandas' Milrandas' Counterclaim Counterclaim for failure
to prosecute prosecute under underGuam Rules of GuamRules of Civil ("GRCP")Rule Civil Procedure ("GRCP") Rule41(b) 41(b)and and41(c). 41(c). In In doing doing so so the
Court based its decision Court decision on the following facts: (1) following facts: (1) after the the Guam Court Opinion Guam Supreme Court Opinionwas was issued, issued,
Mirandas failed the Mirandas failed to to file file any any substantive substantive filings filings for forover over aa decade decade even even though though they were on notice
that they they were were living living at the Property Property without without a valid deed, deed; (2) the Mirandas failed to Mirandas failed to appear any of appear at any of
three status the three status hearings hearingsthat thatthe theCourt Courtheld during those held during those ten ten years; years, and and (3) (3) the the Mirandas Mirandas failed failed to
demonstrate good demonstrate good cause cause for for the the delay delay in in prosecuting claims. See prosecuting their claims. See Decision and Order Decision and Order at at 9-17 9-17
(June 18, 2024). (June 18, 2024).
Nextthe Next the Court Court also also dismissed dismissed Burkhart's Complaint for Burldlart's Complaint for failure failure to to prosecute prosecute without without prejudice
for reasons. See for the same reasons. id. at Seeid. at 18 18("Burkhart ("Burkhart notes notes that thatany any argument argumentwhich which favors favors dismissing dismissing the
Mirandas' Counterclaim Mirandas' Counterclaimfor forfailure failure to to prosecute prosecute would would apply equally to dismiss dismiss Burkhart's Burkhart's Complaint Complaint
for failure failure to to prosecute. Burkhart Burldiart states her hernon-objection non-objection to aa mutual dismissal ofboth mutual dismissal of both her her Complaint Complaint
and the Mirandas' Mirandas' Counterc1aim.")(citations excluded). 3 Counterclaim.")(citations exc1uded).3
Lastly, the Lastly, the Court Court considered considered Deal Deal Estate's Estate's Motion Motionfor forJudgment Judgmenton onthe thePleadings Pleadingsas as to to its its first
and second causes of of action--quiet title and declaxatoryjudgment action , diet title declaratory judgment that that Deal Estate Estate owns owns the Property Property
free and clear of all liens, liens, claims claims of ofinterest, interest, and and encumbrances, encumbrances, in fee simple, simple, and and that that it is a bona
fide purchaser of the fide the Property, Property, for for value. value. Mot. Mot. J. Pleadings 5. Deal Pleadings ate. Deal Estate Estate argued that"theMirandas "the Mirandas
cannot as aa matter matter of of law law assert assertany anyclaims claims or or defenses defensesthat thatwould would support support their their prayer prayer for for quiet quiet title
as their claims claims are are barred barredby bythe thestatute of limitations."Id. statuteoflimitations." Id.Although Although the the Mirandas' Mirandas' answer includes
3 Because 3 Because the the Court Court dismissed dismissedBurkhart's Burkhart's Complaint Complaint and and the the Mirandas' Burkhart's Motion Mirandas' Counterclaim, Burkhart's Motion to to Substitute became moot. See Decision moot. See and Order Decision and Orderat at 18 I 8 (June (June 18, I 8, 2024).
4 4 '|
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio M. M. Burkhart Burkhart v. Roland Roland R. Miranda, Miranda, et et al. al.
affirmative defenses affirmative defenses and and a prayer prayer for for relief, relief, the theMirandas Mirandas had not not brought brought aacounterclaim counterclaim against against Deal Deal
Estate. See generally Answer Estate. to Deal Answer to Deal Estate's Estate's Con Comp!. Because the pl. Because the parties parties had not not yet yet argued argued their their
positions regarding positions regarding whether Deal Deal Estate is a bona fide fide purchaser, purchaser, the the Court denied Deal Estate's Estate's
Motionfor Motion forJudgment Judgmenton onthe the Pleadings. Pleadings. Decision Decisionand andOrder Orderatat19-21 19-21 (June (June 18, 18, 2024). 2024).
Followingthe Following theCourt's Court'sDecision Decisionand andOrder, Order,Burldlart, Burkhart,Deal DealEstate Estateand and the the Mirandas Mirandas stipulated stipulated
entry of to entry of a Partial Partial Judgment on on all all claims between Burkhart and the Mirandas. Partial J. (July 29, the Mirandas.
2024), see PL 2024); see Pl. Intervenor IntervenorDeal DealEstate's Non-Opp. (July 23, 2024); Estate'sNon-Opp. seeDef.Miranda's 2024), see Def. Miranda's Non-Opp. Non-Opp. (July
23, 2024). 23, 2024). On On July July 24, 24, 2024, 2024,Deal Deal Estate filedits Estatefiled itsMotion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Complaint in in Intervention. Intervention. On On
August 21, August 21, 2024, 2024, the theMirandas Mirandasfiled filed their theirOpposition Opposition to to Plaintiff Plaintiff Intervenor lntervenor Deal Dea1Estate, Estate,Inc's Inc'sMotion Motion
for Volu Voluntary Dismissal ofofComp n t ar Dismissal Complaint-in-Intervention lain t -in -In t n t ion Without it Prejudice Pr ("Opposition"). d ice ("O osit ion "). On
September 4, September 4, 2024, 2024,Deal DealEstate Estatefiled filedits itsPlaintiff-Intervenor Plaintiff-IntervenorDeal Deal Estate, Estate,Inc.'s Inc.'sReply Reply Memorandum Memorandum
Support of in Support of Motion Motion for for Voluntary VoluntaryDismissal Dismissal ofofComplaint-In-Intervention Complaint-In-Intervention Without Without Prejudice Prejudice ("Reply") . ("Reply").
At tthe At h NNovember ov e 25,, 2024 2 4 hearing e ar in g on on Deal De al Estate's at e ' s Motion Mot ion too Dismiss Dismiss Complaintt m in
Intervention, after Intervention, after hearing hearing the parties' arguments, arguments, the Court took the Court took the matter under advisement.
DISCUSSION
Guam Rules Guam Rules of ofCivil CivilProcedure ProcedureRule Rule4l(a)(2) 41(a)(2)sets setsout outprocedures procedures that that enable enable a plaintiff to plaintiff to
voluntarilydismiss voluntarily dismissananaction actionwhere wherea adefend defendant refuses to consent to ant refuses to dismissal dismissal and has has filed filed an answer
to the complaint. complaint. Guam R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Civ. P. 41 (a)(2). In such instance§, instances, dismissal dlsmlssal is is only permitted "upon "upon order
of the of the court and and upon upon such such terms terms and and conditions conditions as as the thecourt courtdeems deemsproper." Id.Additionally,Rule proper."Id. Additionally, Rule
41(a)(2) (a)(2)provides: provides:
If aa counterclaim If counterclaim has has been been pleaded pleaded by by aa defendant defendant prior to to the the service service upon upon the the defendant of defendant of the plaintiff's motionto plaintiff's motion to dismiss, dismiss, the the action action shall not not be dismissed against the defendant's defendant's objection unless the the counterclaim counterclaim can remain pending for independent pending for adjudication by the court. Unless adjudication otherwise specified in Unless otherwise in the the order, order, a dismissal under under this paragraph paragraph is is without without prejudice.
5 1
DECISION AND AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S PLAINTIFF-lNTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio M. M. Eurkhart Burkhart v. v. Roland R. Miranda, et al.
GRCP GRCP41(a)(2). 4l(a)(2).
The Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court has has not not yet analyzed analyzed Rule 41(a)(2). 4l(a)(2). However, Rule 41(a)(l) However, Rule 4l(a)(l) of of the the
GRCPisismodeled GRCP modeledafter afterits itsfederal federalcounterpart, counterpart, and the Guam Supreme Court has relied relied on federal federal
precedent when precedent when interpreting Rule 41(a)(I). 4l(a)(l). Guam Guam R. R. Civ. P.41, 41,SOURCE; See Reyes v. SOURCE, See v. First First Net hrs. Ins.
Co., 2009 Guam 1] '1117 17 (citing (citing to to federal federal case case law law to to interpret interpret the thepurpose purposeof of Rule Rule 4l(a)(l)). 41(a)(l)). Without Without
Guam precedent, Guam precedent, this Court Court looks looks to tofederal federalinterpretations interpretations ofofthe the analogous analogous federal federalprocedural proceduraln11e rule
for guidance. M Electric Corp. Corp. v. v. Phil-Gets Phil-Gets (Guam) (Guam) lnt7 Int'/ Trading Trading Corp., 2016 Guam 35 Corp., 2016 ,i 35 1]25, n. 1I
("[F]ederal decisions ("[F]edera1 decisions construing rules rules from which our own which our ownare are derived derived are are persuasive authority.").
"A motion "A motionfor forvoluntary voluntary dismissal dismissalunder underRule Rule41(a)(2) 4l(a)(2) isisaddressed addressed to to the the [Court's] [Court's] sound sound
discretion[.]" Westlands discretion[.]" West/ands Water Water Dist. v. v. United United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th States, 100 (9th Cir. 1996). Cir. 1996). "The "The purpose purpose
of of [Rule [Rule 41(a)(2)] 4l(a)(2)] is to to permit permit aa plaintiff plaintiff to to dismiss dismiss an an action action without without prejudice prejudice so long long as as the the
defendant will be prejudiced will not be prejudiced or unfairly affected affected by dismissal." dismissal." Stevedoring Stevedoring Servs. of Am. Sews. of Am. v. v.
Armil/a Int'l Armilla Int'/ B.V., 889 F.2d 919, B. V., 889 919, 921 921 (9th (9th Cir Cir. 1989). 1989). Thus, a court "should grant grant a motion motion for
voluntary dismissal under under Rule Rule 41(a)(2) 4 l(a)(2) unless unless a defendant can can show show that thatititwill will suffer some plain
legal legal prejudice as aa result." prejudice as result." Smith Smithv.v.Lenches, Lenses, 263 263 F.3d F.3d 972, 975 (9th 972,975 Cir. 2001). (9th Cir. 2001).
Legal prejudice Legal prejudice means means "prejudice "prejudice to to some legal interest, some legal interest, some some legal legal claim, some legal claim, some legal
argument." Id. argument." Id. A defendant's "[u]ncertainty because A defendant's"[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains remains umesolved" because "the unresolved" or because
threat of of future future litigation ...causes litigation ... causes uncertainty" uncertainty" does doesnot not amount amount to a legal prejudice. Id. Id. Courts Courts have
considered factors such as considered as "the "the defendant's effort and defendant'seffort and expense expenseof preparation for trial, ofpreparation trial, excessive excessive delay delay
and lack of diligence on the part diligence on part of of the theplaintiff plaintiff in in prosecuting prosecuting the the action, action, insufficient insufficient explanation explanation for
the need need to to take take aa dismissal, dismissal, and and the the fact fact that that aamotion motion for for summary summary judgment judgment has has been been filed filed by the
defendant." Kovalic v. defendant."Kovalie v. DEC Int'!,Inc., DEC Intl 855 F.2d Inc., 855 F.2d 471, 471,474 (7th Cir. 1988), 1988); See See also also Co/on-Cabrera v. Colon-Cabrera v.
Esso Standard Oil Co. Essa Standard (Puerto Rico), Co. (Puerto Inc., 723 Rico), Ire., F.3d 82, 723 F.3d 88 (1st ad 88 Sew. 3d R. Serv. Fed . R. 86 Fed. 82, 86 Cir. 2013), (It Cir 2013);
Bridgeport Music, Bridgeport Music, Inc. Inc. v. v. Universal-MCA Music Pub., he., Universal-MCA My/sic 583 F.3d Inc., 583 F.3d 948 948 (6th (6th Cir. 2009). 2009). The The Court
66 1
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio Ignacio M. M. Burkhart Elkhart v.v.Roland RolandR. R. Miranda, Miranda, et et al. al.
does not have does have to to find find all factors in in favor of the the moving party for moving party for dismissal dismissal to to be be appropriate. appropriate. Kovalic, Kovalic,
855 F.2d at 855 at 474. "It is rather 474. "It rather simply simply a guide for the the trial trial judge, judge, in in whom the discretion ultimately whom the
rests." Id. rests." Id.
11. The Mirandas' Affirmative The Mirandas' AffirmativeDefenses Defenses Do Do Not Not Operate Operate as as a Counterclaim
As stated previously, As stated previously, the the Mirandas Mirandas did not not raise raise any any counterclaims counterclaims in in their answer to to Deal Deal
Estate's Complaint Estate's in Intervention. Complaint in Intervention. See generally Mirandas Mirandas Answer. However, However, the the Mirandas argue
that affirmative defenses serve affinnative defenses serve as as a counterclaim in in aa quiet quiet title title action, action, and and that that therefore, therefore, their their
affirmative defenses affirmative defenses raised serve as a counterclaim inthe counterclaim in the present present matter. Opp. at 5. To To support their
proposition, the Mirandas proposition, 79 Colo. v. Sullivan, 79 Mirandas cite to Scott v. Colo. 173, 173, 177, 177,244 P. P. 466, 466,468 (1926) (1926) and
Ogden v. Ogden No. 2011-CA-001227-MR, v. Beverly, No. 2011-CA-001227-MR,2013 2013WL WL5221576, 5221576,atat 44 (Ky. (Ky. Ct. Ct. App. App. Oct. Oct. 4, 4, 2013). 2013).
In Scott, the In Scott, theColorado Colorado Supreme Supreme Court Court held held that a plaintiff theta plaintiff could not voluntarily dismiss aa quiet voluntarily dismiss
title action to to avoid avoid an an adverse adverse judgment judgment after after the court determined that that his his deed deed was was invalid. Scott, Scott,
79 Colo. 79 Colo. atat 177. 177. While Whilethe the defendant defendant had had not not filed filed aa formal formal counterclaim, counterclaim, he he asserted asserted title to to the
property in his answer property answer based on a tax tax deed. Id.Although deed.Id. Although the the Court Court found found that the the plaintiff's plaintiff's deed was
the Court void, the Court held held that that dismissal dismissal was was inappropriate inappropriate to to prevent prevent the court court from recognizing the the
defendant's competing defendant's competing interest interest through a viable title in viable claim to title in his his answer. answer. Id.
As noted above, in Scott, As noted Scott, the the defendant defendant held held aalegitimate legitimate competing competing claim claim to to title via via a valid valid
Here,the tax deed.Here, the Mirandas Mirandas assert assert no such interest. interest. The The Mirandas claim to title rests rests solely on on aa deed
that the Gu Guam Supreme Court has already declared void. SSee Burkhart, 2013 Guam E l k h a r t 2013 Guam 2, 1]31. 31.Unlike Unlike
the defendant in Scott, the Mirandas Scot; the Mirandas do not not assert assert any any valid valid claims to to title. title.
Instead, they claim Instead, claim to "hold equitable title "hold equitable titletotothe the property property at issue issue in in this this action, action, based based on on the the
contracted terms contracted terms and and deed deed conveyed conveyed by the predecessor predecessor in interest to in interest to the property property conveying conveying the
property to property to them." them." Mirandas Mirandas Answer Answer at 2. 2. Toe The Mirandas' assertion fails on multiple grounds, Mirandas' assertion grounds.
First, equitable First, equitable title merely aa conditional, title is merely conditional,beneficial beneficialinterest interestininproperty propertyand and does does not not grant grant
7 7 l I
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio Ignacio M. Burkhart Burkhart v. v. Roland Roland R. R. Miranda, Miranda. et et al. al.
complete ownership complete ownership of of property. property. See See RC Dev. &&Realty Royal Dev. RC Royal Realty Corp. Corp. v. Standard Pac. v. Standard Co,p., 177 Pay. Corp., 177 Cal.
App. 4th 1410, 1419 (2009); (2009); see also Liberty Nat'/ Enters., Liberty Nat'I L.P. v.v. Chicago Enters., L.P. Chicago Title Title Ins. Ins. Co., 217 217 Cal.
App. 4th 62, 81 (20l3)("the (2013)("the general general rule rule isis that that the holder of of equitable title cannot maintain a quiet
action against title action against the holder of the holder of legal legal title."); see also title."), see also Osborn Osborn v. v. Osborn, 42 Cal.2d Osborn, 42 Cal.2d 358, 358, 363 363
(1954)("At the (1954)("At the time time of ofthe the execution execution of ofthe the contract contract of ofsale, sale, the the grantee grantee acquires acquires an equitable title to
estate being the estate being sold; sold, the the grantor grantor retains retainsthe thelegal legal title title as as security security for for the the purchase purchase price. price. The The legal legal
title passes passes to to the thegrantee granteeatathe timeofofhis thetime hiscompletion completionofofthe theconditions conditionsprecedent .... precedent "). ....").
Second, the Mirandas Second, do not Mirandas do not state aa basis basis of of how how they they acquired acquired equitable equitable title, title, or or how how equitable equitable
title can grant grant them them full full legal legal title. title. Furthermore, Furthermore, not not only only do do the the Mirandas Mirandas fail to to state cause of state a cause of
action, the deed that that the the Mirandas. based their Mirandas.based their equitable equitable title title on was deemed void. While While the the Court Court
acknowledgedthat acknowledged that the the void void deed deed "may "may still stillbe usefulininascertaining be useful ascertaining whether whetherthere there was was an an agreement agreement
to transfer the property," itit isis the theproperty," theMirandas' duty to Mirandas' duty to argue argue and and explain explain to the Court Court how the the deed may
represent an agreement, represent agreement, and how that that would grant them equitable would grant equitable title title to to the the property. Burkhart Burkhart v. v.
Miranda, 2013 Guam 2, ,i1124, 2013 Guam 24; RSA-Tuman, RSA-Tumon, LLC v. Pill LLC v. Pitt Cnty. Mem 'I'l Hosp., Cnty. Mem Hosp., Inc., 2023 Guam 8 ("In· Inc., 2023 ("In
both trial both trial and and appellate appellate courts, courts, the the development development of an argument of an argument isis a party's patty's responsibility, not aa responsibility, not
judicial duty."). duty."). The Mirandas Mirandas have have failed failed to to do do so so inin the the twelve twelve years years since since the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme
Court's Opinion. Cou1'r's Opinion.
r Additionally, whereas in Scott Additionally, whereas Scott the Court prevented prevented the theplaintiff plaintiff without without aa valid valid deed deed from
dismissal, in exercising dismissal, in contrast, contrast, the the Mirandas Mirandas as as defendants, defendants, did did not not initiate initiate the the case and have not
articulated their claim to the claim to the property. Since they are not not seeking seeldng affirmative relief and affirmative relief and their their deed deed has
been deemed invalid, there already been there is is no no claim left for claim left for the the court to resolve in their their favor. Thus, the
Mirandas cannot rely on Mirandas on Scott to assert assert that that their their affirmative defenses can affirmative defenses can operate as aa counterclaim. counterclaim.
Next, the Mirandas Next, Mirandas argue that under under Ogden, Ogden, "where defendant's answer denies "where a defendant's denies aa plaintiff's plaintiff's
claim, alleges claim, alleges title title and and possession of the land land ... and also ... and also includes includes aa general general prayer for relief," courts
88 l t
GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio CV0492-09; Rosalinda Burkhart v. Ignacio M. Burkhart Roland R. v. Roland al. R. Miranda, et al.
will treat affirmative willtreat defenses as affirmative defenses counterclaim for quieting title which as a counterclaim "in tum which "in triggers the tumtriggers court's the court's
issue of duty to pass upon the issue title as of title of superiority of between the as between parties." Opp. the parties." at 55 (citing Opp. at Ogden, (citing Ogden,
2013 WL 5221576 at WL 5221576 However, the Mirandas at 4). However, to include Mirandas fail to rest of the rest include the theholding of the in Ogden holding in Ogden which which
in full: states in full:
Adverse possession is Adverse possession more than is more defense; it would than aa defense, only bar not only would not the remedy bar the sought remedy sought by the plaintiff by in aa quiet plaintiff in title dispute, quiet title but would dispute, but also vest would also in the vest in defendantan the defendant absolute an absolute title For this reason, title to the land. For where a defendant's reason, where answer denies defendant's answer plaintiff's claim, denies aaplaintiff's alleges title and possession of title and the land (by of the virtue of (by virtue adverse possession, for example), of adverse and also includes aa general also includes prayer for relief, Kentucky general prayer courts have Kentucky courts treated what a have treated defendant "affirmative de defendant styles as an "affirmative ofadverse defense of possession" as, adverse possession" as, Min effect, effect, a counterclaim for counterclaim quietingtitle forquieting based upon titlebased theory of upon aa theory adverse possession. ofadverse
Ogden, 2013 WL at 33 (citations omitted). 5521576 at WL 5521576
When h it isis clear read in full, it that the Court clear that that not stand for the propositions that does not Court in Ogden does
all answers that allege title answers that to land title to See id. Rather, affirmative land act as counterclaims. See defenses act affirmative defenses as a act as
counterclaim when counterclaim they are when they not just are not if established, would just defenses, but if vest the would vest defendant "absolute the defendant
title to the land." See id. land." See
Again, none none of ofthe Mirandas affirmative the Mirandas defenses can affirmative defenses in them can vest in Property. the Property. to the them title to
Ogden also Accordingly, Ogden proposition that the proposition support the cannot support also cannot Mirandas defenses that the Mirandas as aa defenses act as
counterclaim. See id. counterclaim. See
Unlike the defendants Unlike the Ogden, the Mirandas defendants in Scott and Ogden, affirmative any affirmative Mirandas have not filed any
that can defenses that act as can act counterclaims, therefore, as counterclaims, thisCourt therefore,this hasdiscretion Courthas to dismiss discretionto Deal Estate's dismiss Deal
Complaint in Complaint Intervention. See in Intervention. See GRCP Water Dist. West/ands Water 4l(a)(2); Westlands GRCP41(a)(2), v. United Dist. v. States, 100 United States, F.3d at 100 F.3d
96. 96.
2. 2. Mirandas Will The Mirandas The NotSuffer WillNot LegalPrejudice SufferLegal UponDismissal PrejudiceUpon ofDeal Dismissal of Estate's Deal Estate's Complaint-In-Intervention Complaint-In-Intervention
The The Court Court now Tums to whether turns to whetherthe Mirandas Mirandas can can"show "show that that[they] [they] will suffer some plain legal will suffer
prejudice as prejudice as aa result" result" of of dismissal dismissal of of the complaint in the complaint in intervention. SeeSmith intervention. See Smithv.v.Lenches, Lenses, 263 263 F.3d F.3d at at
9 9 s
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio M. Burkhart Ignacio M. Burkhart v. Roland R. Miranda, et et al. al.
975. In In applying the four 4--{l) the defendant's effort and expense 975. applying the four factors factors to to evaluate evaluate legal legal prejudice prejudice4-(1) the defendant's effort and expense
of preparation of preparation for tal, (2) for trial, (2) excessive delay and and lack lack of of diligence diligence on the part part of the the plaintiff plaintiff in
prosecuting the prosecuting the action, (3) (3) insufficient insufficient explanation explanation for forthe the need need to to take take a dismissal, and (4) (4) the fact
that that a motion for for summary summary judgment judgment has has been been filed by the filed by the defendant--the defendant-the Court Court finds finds that that the the
Mirandas will Mirandas willnot notsuffer sufferlegal legal prejudice prejudice upon upon dismissal dismissal of of Deal Deal Estate's Estate's Complaint Complaint in in Intervention. Intervention.
See id.
A. Mirandas Effort Mirandas Effortand and Expense Expense of Preparation Preparation For For Trial Trial
The first factor isthe first factors thedefendant's defendant'seffort effortand andexpense expense of ofpreparation preparation for for trial. Deal DealEstate Estate argues argues
that the that the Mirandas Mirandas have have "made "made no no effort effort or expense to or expense to prepare preparefor fortrial." trial."Mot. Mot. Dismiss Dismiss Comp!. Comal.
Intervention at Intervention at 6. The Court Court agrees. agrees.
Despite having Despite having ample ample opportunity opportunity to to do doso, so, itit does does not not appear appear that the Mirandas have taken Mirandas have taken
steps, aside any steps, aside from from opposing opposing motions, to move move the matter matter forward forward since since Deal Deal Estate first first filed filed its
Complaint in Intervention Complaint in Intervention on on June June 27, 27, 2023. 2023. Deal DealEstate Estate states states that that although although the Mirandas sent sent
interrogatories and interrogatories and document documentrequests, requests,the theMirandas Mirandasfailed failedtoto respond respond to to any any of of Deal Estate's Estate's
interrogatories and first request interrogatories request for for production of documents. Id. production of Id. at 6-7. Therefore, at 6-7. Therefore, it is unlikely that that
the Mirandas have expended Milandas have expended great great litigation expenses or efforts to defend against Deal litigation expenses Deal Estate.
However, the However, the Mirandas Mirandas raise raise that Estate is "seeking a dismissal that Deal Estate without prejudice dismissal without prejudice wide with
eye toward an eye toward simply simply refiling an an action for quiet title involving issues here," involving the same issues here," and and that that "[a]
civil action new civil action ... ...will will certainly certainly prejudicethe prejudice theMirandas, Mirandas,bybyrestarting restarting litigation litigation and and discovery, discovery,
inviting new inviting new motions, and cutting off motions, and off pathways within which the within which the Mirandas Mirandas can can relate relate their their claims
regarding the property back to to the original case brought original case brought against against them." Opp. Opp. at at 2, 2, n. 1. I.
However,courts However, courtshave have held held that that legal prejudice prejudicemeans means "something "somethingother otherthan thanthe the necessity necessity that
4 Deal Estate 4 Estate also also applies these these four four factors factors in in arguing arguinglack lack of of legal legal prejudice. See Mot. prejudice. See Mot. Dismiss Comal. Compl at 6. Intervention at
10 t h
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio M. CV0492-09; M. Burkhart Burkhart v. v. Roland Roland R. Miranda, et et al.
defendant might face defendant face of of defending another action." defending another action." Key Kernv.v. TXO TXO Prod Prod.. Corp 738 F.2d Corp., 738 F.2d 968, 968, 970 970 (Sth (8th
Cir. 1984). Cir. 1984). The The case law isis clear case law clearthat that "substantial "substantial prejudice prejudiceto to the the defendant defendant does does not not result from the
mere possibility possibility that that aa second second lawsuit lawsuit may be filed, may be filed,but butrather, rather, the prejudice incurred must be actual
prejudice." Vosburgh legal prejudice." Vosburgh v,v. tandem. Indem. Ins. bus. Co. f N. Am., Co. of F.R.D. 384, Am., 217 F.R.D. 384, 386 386 (S.D.W. (S.D.W. Va. Va. 2003). 2003).
expense and effort of Further, neither "the expense drafting and of drafting and responding responding to to discovery" nor the loss of discovery" nor of aa
738 F.2d tactical advantage constitute legal prejudice. Kern, 738 at 970.; Mullen F.2d at Mullen v. Hankel Filtering v. Heinke/ FilteringSys., Sys.,
zc., 770 1Inc., 770 F.3d F.3d 724, 724, 728 728 (8th (Sth Cir. Cir. 2014). 2014).
Althoughthe Although the Mirandas Mirandasare are correct correct that that they they would would expend expend more more costs costs and efforts efforts should should Dead Deal
Estate pursue another quiet Estate quiet title title action, action, they have have not not demonstrated demonstrated that thatsuch suchan anaction actionwould would impose
prejudice on an actual legal prejudice on them.
Additionally, the Additionally, the Mirandas' Mirandas' raise raise the the issue ofwhether issue of whether the the relation relation back back doctrine doctrine may be
available to them. them.55 The The relation relation back back doctrine doctrine in in Guam Guam is is aa principal which "[a]n principal in which "[a]n amendment amendment of of a
pleading relates pleading relates back back to to the dateof thedate ofthe theoriginal originalpleading pleading... ..." under certain certain circumstances. circumstances. G.R.C.P. G.R.C.P.
15(c)(2). Relation 15(c)(2). Relation back back specifically only allows specifically only allowsfor foramendments amendments to to the original original pleadings. Benavente Benavente
v. Taitano, Guam 15, Taitano, 2006 Guam 15, 1]79,r 79 (Guam (Guam Oct. Oct. 27, 27, 2006)("The first requirement requirement for for application of the application of
relation-back doctrine isis that relation-back doctrine that "the claim claim asserted asserted in in the the amended amended complaint complaint arises arises out out of of the the same same
conduct, transaction, conduct, transaction, or occurrence set set forth forth in the the original pleading.")(emphasis pleading.")(emphasis added).
Court has The Court has already dismissed the original pleadings pleadings between between the Mirandas and Burldiart. Mirandas and Burkhart.
Notably, the Notably, the Mirandas Mirandas filed filed aanon-opposition dismissalofofthe non-oppositiontotodismissal thecase casebetween betweenthem themand and Burldaart. Burkhart.
See Def. Miranda's See Non-Opp.(July Miranda's Non-Opp. (July23, 23,2024). 2024). Here, Here, itit appears appears that the the Mirandas Mirandas would be relating would be
back their affirmative back defense to affimlative defense to an "original pleading" pleading"that that has has been dismissed by this Court. Based
on the current posture of this on the this case, case, itit is is not not clear clearthat that such such an an argument argument can can be be supported supported.
5 The 5 Mirandas only The Mirandas brieflyraised onlybriefly raisedthe therelation relationback backdoctrine doctrineininaafootnote footnoteand anddid didnot notsubstantiate substantiate their their argument. See Opp. at 2, n. argument. l. n.1.
11 11 I \
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio CV0492-09; Ignacio M. M. Burkhart Burkhart v. v. Roland Roland R. Miranda, et et al. al.
Accordingly, the first Accordingly, the first factor factor favors favors dismissal.
B. B Deal Estate Whether Deal Estate Caused Excessive Excessive Delay Delav or Lacked Diligence Diligence
The next factor factor looks at at whether whether there was was excessive excessive delay and and lack lack of diligence on of diligence on the the part part
of the plaintiff of the in prosecuting plamtiff in action. Deal the action. prosecuting the Deal Estate Estate joined joined the the case caseby by filing filing its its Complaint Complaint in
Intervention on June 27, Intervention 2023.On 27, 2023. OnNovember November 30, 30,2023, 2023,Burkhart Burkhartfiled filedher herMotion Motion to toDismiss, Dismiss, moving moving
the Court Court to to dismiss dismiss the the Mirandas' Counterclaimfor Mirandas' Counterclaim forfailure failuretotoprosecute. prosecute. Just Just days days later, on December
1, 2023, 1, 2023, Deal Deal Estate Estate filed filed its Motion for Judgment Motion for Judgment on on the Pleadings.
Court dismissed The Court dismissed the Mirandas' Counterclaim Counterclaim against against Burkhart in its its June June 18, 18, 2024 2024
Decision and Decision and Order. A little over A little over a month later, later, on on July July 24, 24, 2024, 2024, Deal Deal Estate Estate filed filed its its Motion Motion to
Dismiss Complaint Dismiss Complaint ininIntervention Intervention after after the Court issued its Decision and Order. Since Deal Estate Decision and
intervened into the present intervened present matter, matter,itithas hasfiled filed quickly quickly and without without delay. Further, after the the Mirandas Mirandas
interrogatories and document propounded interrogatories document requests, requests, Deal objections and Deal Estate served objections and responses responses to
the discovery discovery requests requestson on May May 17, 2024.See 17, 2024. SeeMot. Mot. Dismiss Dismiss Comp. Intervention Intervention at 7. 7. Therefore, Therefore, Deal Deal
Estate has not Estate not caused caused excessive excessive delay delay and and demonstrated lack of demonstrated lack of diligence, diligence, and the second second factor factor favors favors
dismissal. 6 dismissal.'
cC.. Sufficient Explanation for for Dismissal Dismissal
The third factor considers whether whether Deal Deal Estate provided provided a sufficient sufficient explanation for dismissal. for dismissal.
Deal Estate Deal Estate alleges alleges that its claims against against the Mirandas are no"." Mirandas are moot because now moot because the Court held in its
June 18, 2024 2024 D&O that the Mirandas D&O that Miraudas have no title or claim claim to the the Property. Property.77 Mot. Mot. Dismiss Dismiss Comp!. Con pl.
Intervention at 5-6. Intervention 5-6. Deal Deal Estate argues, argues,"[b ]ecause the "[b]ecause theCourt Courtheld helddefinitively definitively that the the Mirandas Mirandas have
s6 Additionally, Additionally, thetheMirandas Mirandasdid didnot notargue arguethat thatDeal DealEstate Estatehas hascaused causedexcessive excessivedelay delayorordemonstrated demonstrated lack of diligence of diligence inin their their Opposition, Opposition, or or during during the the motion motion hearing hearing on November November 25, 2024. claimisismoot 17 A claim moot"when "whenthe theissues issuesareare no no longer liveor longer live or the the parties parties lack lack aa legally legallycognizable coguizableinterest interestin in the 1he outcome." In re Guardianship of outcome." of Ulloa, 2014 Guam Ulloa, 2014 Guam 32 ,r 25. 32 1] 25. A case can become A case become moot moot "at "at any stage stage of litigation."Id. litigation." Id.atat1],r 26.
112 .. E
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Burkhartv.v. Roland CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio M.Burkhart Roland R. R. Miranda, Miranda, et et al.
no legally no legally cognizable cognizableinterest interestininthe theProperty, Property, there there isis no no relief reliefthat that the the Court Court can can grant to to Deal Deal Estate
or the Mirandas or Mirandas in the complaint-in-intervention." complaint-in-intervention." Id. ld.
The Court Court does does not not need to determine whether the the claims claims are are indeed indeed moot. moot. The The Court Court only only
needs to evaluate needs evaluate whether whether "Plaintiffs of the need "Plaintiff's explanation of need for a dismissal ... when considered .. when considered
with the with the other factors, factors, isis sufficient sufficient so as as to to warrant warrant dismissal dismissal of of this this action." Vosburgh, 217 action." Vosburgh, 217 F.R.D. at F.R.D. at
387.
Here, regardless Here, regardless of of whether whether the the matter isis moot, moot, the the Court Court is is unable unable to to grant grant the theMirandas Mirandas any
of relief form of as they have relief as have not not alleged alleged any any legal legal claims to the claims to Property.Therefore, theProperty. Therefore,the theMirandas Mirandaswill will
not suffer legal not legal prejudice through the the dismissal dismissal of of the the matter. matter.See Seeid.id.("The ("TheCourt Courtfinds findsthat thatPlaintiffs Plaintiffs
explanation of explanation ofthe the need for for a dismissal is is not not legally legallysound. sound.In Inany any event, event, the Court finds that Court finds that the third third
factor weighs weighs in favor favor of of dismissal, dismissal, as as the Court finds finds that that Defendants will not suffer will not suffer actual actual legal legal "). prejudice."). Accordingly, the third factor favors dismissal.
D. Whether the Mirandas Mirandas Filed a Motion For Summarv Summary Judgment
factor considers whether the The fourth factor the Mirandas Mirandas filed for a motion filed for for summary motion for summary judgment.
Courts favor Courts favor dismissal dismissal when whenthe the matter matter is is still in the still in the early early stages stages oflitigation and where litigation and where the the defendant
has not motioned for summary judgment. motioned for See Vosburgh, 217 judgment. See 217 F.R.D. F.R.D.at at 387, 387; Mullen, 770 F.3d Mullen, 770 F.3d at at 728, 728;
Kem, 738 F.2d at Kern, at 972.
Here, the Mirandas Here, Mirandas did did not file a motion for judgment. Therefore, for summary judgment. Therefore, the the fourth fourth and and last
factor weighs towards dismissal.
Accordingly, all four Accordingly, all fourfactors factors weigh weigh towards towards dismissal. dismissal. For For the the following followingreasons, reasons, the the Court Court
dismisses Deal Estate's Complaint Complaint in in Intervention Intervention without without prejudice. See See GRCP 4l(a)(2). GRCP 41(a)(2).
CONCLUSION US
For the For the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons,Deal Deal Estate's Estate'sMotion Motion for for Voluntary Voluntary Dismissal Dismissal of of Complaint in
R A N T E D . Thus, Deal Intervention is GRANTED. Deal Estate's Complaint-in-Intervention DISMISSED without Complaint-in-Intewention is DISMISSED without
13 13 i
DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING PLAINTIFF-I.NTERVENOR'S PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S VOLUNTARY MOTION TO VOLUNTARY MOTION DISMISS CV0492-09; Rosalinda CV0492-09; Rosalinda Ignacio Ignacio M. Burkhart v. Roland R. M. Burkhart R. Miranda, et et al. al.
prejudice.
SO ORDERED: ORDERED APR 22 APR 2 22025 2025 --------- -...it i"~. 1:/m , ,--_»/
HO N O R KG IERREZ Judge, 1 or Ciii1TtofG . r/" ._ / y .,_c `. 0 `..,,....» ,-0I/_5 ¢-/- -_:..