• ||
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,
Defendants.
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 nonnon
-
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).
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.
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).
'|
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.
66
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
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
88
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
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
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
11
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.
112
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.
.. 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
114
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 ¢-/- -_:..