Butler Trust v. Champion

Opinion

,f

11;-s. *:' ;l__i;> IL;EPJQ§l€ co l Q? {?3U,ELj\;l

Jui'€ -go PH ET 35 EL;83% ,je(§q;g"§'

i rxw. -E33-2. IN I THE T H E SUPERIOR S U P E R I O R COURT C O U R T OF O F GUAM G U A ;;"J}l;'-,.,-~,----,..,..

IGNACIAB. IGNACIA B. BUTLER BUTLERTRUST, TRUST, ByBy and and CIVIL CASE CIVIL CASE no. NO.CV0462-24 CV0462-24 Its Lawfully Through Its Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, DesignatedSole Trustee, GREGORY D. CHAMPION CHAM PION

Plaintiff, vs. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING CECILIA CHAMPION CECILIA CHAMPION and and CECILIA CECILIA MOTION TO DISMISS WITH OTION TO WITH LEAVE TO CHAMPION PION as the Administratrix ofthe Administratrix of the AMEND Estate of of Gerard Gerard Andre Andre Champion,

Defendants. Defendants.

This matter This matter came came before before the the Honorable Honorable Dana Dana A. Gutierrez on February A. Gutierrez February 27, 2025 2025 for a

Motion Hearing Hearing on Defendant Defendant Cecilia Champion's Champion's ("Defendant") ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss Dismiss (Rule

12(b)(6)) or 12(b)(6)) or in in the theAlternative AlternativeMotion Motion for a More Definite Statement More Definite Statement (Rule 12(e)) ("Motion (Rule 12(e)) ("Motion to

Dismiss"). Present Dismiss"). Present at the the hearing hearing was was Attorney Attorney Jon A. A. Visosky Visoskyrepresenting representing Defendant Defendant and and

Attorney Michael MichaelJ.J. Berman Bermanrepresenting representing Plaintiff, Plaintiff,the the Ignacio Ignacia B. B. Butler ButlerTrust, Trust, by by and and through through its

lawfully designated lawfillly designated sole trustee, Gregory DD. Champion Champion ("Plaintiff'). Upon review of ("Plaintiff"). Upon of the the

arguments and arguments and applicable applicable Guam law, law, the Court Defendant's Motion Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

amend. with leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

This case This case arises arises from allegations of firm allegations offraud fraud and and breach breach of of fiduciary fiduciary duty duty concerning concerning the the

disposition of disposition ofreal real property property originally held in originally held in trust. trust. The Ignacio Ignacia B. Butler Butler Trust Trust ("the Trust") was

established in established in Guam on July 1, I, 1986. 1986. Am. Am. Comal. Comp!. atat 1.I. Since Since then, then, the the Trust Trust was amended amended on

October 7, 1986, October 1986, and on June June23, 23,1989. Id at 1989.Id. at 1-2. 1-2. Following the October Following the October 7, 7, 1986 1986 Addendum Addendum that that |

DECISION ANDAND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO DISMISSDISMISSWITH WITHLEAVE LEAVE TO TO AMEND AMEND CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler CV0462-24; Ignacio Butler Trust By and and Through Its Lawfully Lawfully Designated Designated Sole Trustee, Trustee, Gregory D. Champion v. Champion v. Cecilia Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix Administratrix of ofthe the Estate of of Gerard Gerard Andre Andre Champion

revoked the revoked the July 1, 1, 1986 1986 trust, trust, Gerard Gerard A. A. Champion (the "Decedent") Champion (the "Decedent") served served as as the the sole Trustee. Trustee.

Id. atat 1I and Id and Ex. C. Upon Ex. C. UponIgnacio IgnaciaButler's Butler'sdeath, death,the the Trust Trust was was to to continue continue for for the the benefit benefit of of her her

children and children and certain certain religious religious beneficiaries, beneficiaries, with with distribution distribution Powers powers expressly expressly granted granted to the the

trustee. Seeid., trustee. See id, Ex. Ex. C.

From July1986 From July 1986until untilhis hisdeath deathon onJuly July19, 19,2023, 2023,the theDecedent Decedentserved as the servedas the sole sole trustee. trustee.

Id. atat 2.2. Defendant Id Defendant isis the the Decedent's Decedent's surviving surviving legal legal spouse spouse and and the the Administratrix Administratrix of of the the

Decedent's Estate in in Probate Probate Case Case No. PR0123-24. Id. No. PR0123-24. Id

On August On August 7, 7, 2024, 2024,Plaintiff Plaintiff filed filed its Complaint Complaint for Fraud, Fraud, Declaratory Declaratory Relief, Relief, Constructive Constructive

Trust, and and Unjust Unjust Enrichment. Enrichment. On On August August 26, 26, 2024, 2024,Plaintiff Plaintiff filed filed its its First First Amended Amended Complaint Complaint

for Fr Fraud, Declar Declaratory ator y Relief, Constructive Constructive Trust, Trust, and and Unj Unjust Enrichment Enrichment (the (the "Amend "Amended

Complaint")alleging Complaint") allegingfour fourcauses of action causes faction againstDefendant, against Defendant,both bothindividually individuallyand andininher her capacity capacity

as Administratrix of as of the the Estate Estate of of Gerard Gerard Andre Champion Champion (Probate (Probate Case No. PR0123-24): (1) No. PR0123-24): (1)

fraud; (2) fraud; (2) declaratory declaratory relief; (3) constructive constructive trust, trust; and (4) unjust enrichment. See generally generally Am. Am.

Comp!. (Aug, Comal. (Aug. 26, 26, 2024).

Plaintiff P la aalleges th thatt while servin serving in in th that fid fiduciary role, the Deced ry role, Decedent con conveyed th the

following two following parcels ofofreal twoparcels realproperty property that that are are trust property, property, first first to to himself himself individually and individually and

subsequently to to Defendant, Defendant, without consent of without legal authority or the consent of the the Trust's Trust's beneficiaries. Id.

at 2 and and Ex. Ex. D. D.

Parcel I Lot No. Lot No. P19. P19.1B-4-2NEW, Sinajana, Guam 1B-4-2NEW, Sinajana, Guam (Estate (Estate No. 15504 under No. 15504 under Basic Basic Lot Lot No. No. P19.1B-4 && none P19.1B-4 none issued issued under under Basic Lot Lot No. No. P19.1B), P19.1B), Suburban, as said lot is Suburban, as marked and marked and designated designatedon onMap MapDrawing Drawing No. No. 23-87-02 23-87-02LM#l 76FY#87, dated LM#176FY#87, dated May May 6, 1987, 6, 1987, and recorded recorded on June 25, 25, 1987, 1987, under under Instrument No. 386725 kismment No. 386725 in in the the Department of Land Department Management, Government Land Management, Government of ofGuam. Guam. The The map map shows shows the the area area to be approximately 12,009 12,009 square feet (1,116 (1,116 square square meters). meters).Last LastCertificate Certificate of of Title No. Title No. 21569 21569 under under Basic Lot Lot No. No. P19.1B-4 P19.IB-4 was was issued issued to Ignacio Ignacio Bordallo Butler.

2 I

DECISION ANDAND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS WITH WITH LEA VE TO AMEND LEAVE EN CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Ignacio B. Butler Trust By and Through Its Lawfully Designated Eutler Trust By and Through Irs Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, Gregory D. Trustee, v. Cecilia Champion v. Champion as Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix Administratrix of of the theEstate Estateof Gerard Andre Champion ofGerardAna're

Parcel II Lot No. Lot No. P19.1B-4-R3, Pl9.1B-4-R3, Sinajana, Sinajana, Guam (Estate (Estate No. No. 8637 8637 under under Basic Basic Lot Lot No. Pl9.1B-2-2 P19. 1B-2-2 & & Estate No. 15504 under No. 15504 under Basic Basic Lot No. P19.1B-4), Lot No. Pl9.1B-4), Suburban, Suburban, as as said lot is marked and lot and designated designatedon onMap MapDrawing Drawing No. No. 23-87-02 23-87-02LM#l 76FY#87, dated LM#176FY#87, May6,6, 1987, May 1987, and and recorded recorded on on June June 25, 25, 1987, 1987, under under Instrument No. No. 386725 in in the the Department of Land Department Management, Government Land Management, Government of ofGuam. Guam. The The map map shows shows the the area area to be approximately 12,009 to 12,009 square square feet (1,116 (1,116 square square meters). meters).Last LastCertificate Certificate of of Title No. Title No. 9703 9703 under under Basic Lot Lot No. No. P19.1B-2-2 Pl9.1B-2-2 was was issued issued to to Carlos Pangelinan Bordallo and Bordallo and Ernesta Pellicani Bordallo, and Pellicani Bordello, and Certificate of Title Certificate of Title No. No. 21569 21569 under under Basic Lot Basic LotNo. Pl9.1B-4 No. P19. 1B-4 was issued to to Ignacio Ignacio Bordallo Bordallo Butler.

Am. Comp!. at Ex. Am. Compo. Ex. D. D.

Plaintiffcontends Plaintiff contends that that these these conveyances conveyances were were fraudulent fraudulent and and constituted constituted breaches breaches of of

Decedent's fiduciary duties, Decedent's duties, including the the "obligation to exercise "obligation to exercise good good business business judgment, judgment, to to act act

prudently in the prudently in the operation of the Trust's Trust's business, to to discharge his his actions in good faith, faith, to act in in

the best the interestsof best interests of the the Trust Trust and and its its beneficiaries beneficiaries and to to put the the interest interest of of the the Trust Tnlst before his

own." Id own." Id atat3.3. Plaintiff Plaintiffurther furtheralleges alleges that that "Defendants "Defendants were were direct direct participants participants in in these these two two

fraudulent conveyances to to themselves." themselves." Id. Id

17, 2024, On September 17, 2024, Defendant Defendant filed filed her her Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss (Rule (Rule 12(b)(6)) or or in in the the

Alternative Motion Alternative for aa More Motion for More Definite Definite Statement Statement (Rule 12(e))("Motion 12(e))("Motion to to Dismiss"). Defendant Dismiss"). Defendant

seekss to seek to dismiss d ismiss the the Amended Amend ed Complaint Comp laintunder und erGuam Rulesof GuamRules of Civil Civ il Procedure oced ur e ("GRCP") ("GRCP")

12(b)( 6), which l2(b)(6), whichprovides provides for for dismissal dismissalfor forfailure failuretotostate state aa claim upon which claim upon whichrelief reliefcan canbe be granted. granted.

Mot. Dismissatat1.1. Defendant Mot. Dismiss Defendant argues argues that all all claims are barred claims are barred by by the thestatutes statutesofoflimitations. Id At limitations.Id At

3. She 3. She also contends contends that that the the Trust Trust is is not not a legal legal entity capable of suing suing or or being being sued, sued, asserting asserting

1 that only that a trustee only a trustee may may initiate initiate litigation. Iitigation.1 Id at 7. Id at 7. Further, Defendant argues that Defendant argues the fraud that the fraud claim claim

1 Defendant 1 Defendant also also notes notesthat thatalthough althoughshe sheisisnamed namedininthe thecaption captionasas"Administratrix "Administratrix of the Estate Estate of of Gerard Andre Champion," she Andre Champion," she has has not not been formally role. See appointed to that role. formally appointed See Mot. Mot. Dismiss Dismiss atat 2. However, However, thethe Parties confirmed Parties confirmed that that she was appointed as was appointed asadministratrix administratrixat atthe theMotion MotionHearing. Hearing. Min. I 0: 14 a.m. Min. Entry at l0:14 a.m. (Feb. 2025). (Feb. 27, 2025). 3 I

DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO DISMISSDISMISS WITH WITHLEAVE LEAVE TO TO AMEND AMEND CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Ignacio B. Butler Trust By and Through Its Lawfully Designated Trust By and Through Its Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, Gregory D. Trustee, v. Cecilia Champion v, Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix Administratrix of the theEstate Estateof ofGerard Andre Champion GerardAndre

must be dismissed dismissed for for failure failure to to plead plead with with particularity particularity under under GRCP Rule 9(b), GRCP Rule 9(b ), as as the the Amended Amended

lacks specific allegations Complaint lacks allegations of of dates, dates, conduct, conduct, or facts facts showing how the the Baud fraud was was

at 7-8. committed. Id. at 7-8. Defendant Defendant notes that that the the Amended Amended Complaint's vague reference Complaint's vague reference to "recent

discovery" fails discovery" fails to to establish establish when when the the alleged alleged fraud was discovered for purposes of of calculating calculating the

statute of statute of limitations. Id. atat5-6 limitations. ld In the 5-6 In the alternative, alternative, Defendant Defendant moves moves for for aa more more definite definite statement statement

under GRCP Rulel2(e), GRCP Rule 12(e),requesting requestingthat that the Court Court require require Plaintiff Plaintiff to to "allege "allege more specifically the specifically the

facts upon facts upon which its claims which all its claims are are based." Id. at 8-9. Id at

On October On October 14, 14, 2024, 2024, Plaintiff Plaintiff filed filed Plaintiff's Opposing Memorandum Plaintiffs Opposing Memorandum to to Defendant's Defendant's

Motion to Motion to Dismiss Dismiss or or in in the the Alterative AlternativeMotion Motionfor fora aMore MoreDetailed DetailedStatement Statement ("Opposition"). ("Opposition").

Plaintiffasserts Plaintiff asserts that that the the statute statute of of limitations limitations has not run because because the the alleged alleged fraud fraud by former

trustee trustee Gerard Gerard Champion Champion could not not have been discovered discovered until until his death death on July 19, 19, 2023, when when

the current current trustee, trustee,Gregory Gregory Champion, Champion, gained access to the relevant trust trust information. Opp. at information. Opp. at 2-

Plaintiff also 3. Plaintiff also refutes refutes Defendant's Defendant's argument argument that that the the Trust Trust is is not aa proper proper party party to to sue,

emphasizing that emphasizing that the suit is is brought by by and and through through its its lawfully designated sole lawfully designated sole trustee, trustee, Gregory

Champion, who is is the the real party in interest. interest. Id. at 7-8. Id at 7-8. Finally, Finally, Plaintiff Plaintiffmaintains maintains that that the the Haud fraud

claim meets claim meets the pleading standards standards of of GRCP Rule9(b), GRCP Rule 9(b),as as ititclearly clearlyalleges allegesthat that the the prior prior trustee trustee

engaged in in self-dealing self-dealing by transferring trust property property to tohimself himself and and his hiswife wife without without authority and

includes dates, includes dates, context, and and identifies identifies the parties involved. Id. parties involved. at 8-9. Id at

On November On November 4, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendantfiled tiledDefendant DefendantCecilia Cecilia Champion's Champion's Reply Reply ("Reply").

Defendant argues Defendant argues that thatthe thestatute statuteoflimitations of limitationsbars barsPlaintiff's Plaintiffs claims claims because because Gregory Gregory Champion, Champion,

as a beneficiary for 35 beneficiary for 35 years, years, had access to to public records of public records ofthe the alleged alleged property property transfers transfers and

cannot claim ignorance until claim ignorance until becoming becoming trustee. trustee. Reply I. The at 1. Reply at Replyasserts The Reply asserts that that the the Amended Amended

4 DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DISMISS WITH WITH LEAVE LEAVE TOT() AMEND AMEND CV0462-24; Ignacio CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler Trust Trust By By and and Through Through Its Its Lawfully Lawfully Designated Designated Sole Sole Trustee, Trustee, Gregory D. v. Cecilia Champion v. Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix of the Administratrix of the Estate Estateof Gerard Andre Champion ofGerord

Complaint fails Complaint fails to to plead plead Baud fraud with withparticularity particularityor orestablish establish grounds grounds for for delayed delayed discovery, as it

specific dates, lacks specific Defendant's involvement, and allegations of dates, Defendant's Id. at of concealment. id. at 2-5.

On 12,2024, On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff Plaintiff filed filed Plaintiffs PlaintiffsSur-Reply Sur-ReplyMemorandum MemorandumtotoDefendants Defendants'

Reply Memorandum Reply ("Sur-Reply"). 2Plaintiff Memorandum("Sur-Reply").2 Plaintiffmaintained maintainedthat that the the Amended Amended Complaint Complaintmeets meets the the

pleading standards pleading standards under underGRCP Rules 8(a) GRCP Rules 8(a) and 9(b) 9(b) by by sufficiently sufficiently alleging fraud, fraud, particularly particularly in in

the context of the context of aa fiduciary fiduciary relationship relationship involving nondisclosure. Sur-Reply involving nondisclosure. Sur-Reply at at 2. 2. Plaintiff Plaintiffasserts asserts

that both both actual actual and and constructive constructive fraud fraud are are properly properly alleged, alleged, and and that that the the failure failure to to disclose disclose real real

estate transfers estate transfersby by the theformer former trustee trusteeconstitutes constitutesfraud fraudsufficient sufficient to to toll toll the statuteof the statute of limitations, limitations,

especially given the especially given the fiduciary relationship. Id. fiduciary relationship. Id at at 4. 4. Finally, Finally, Plaintiff Plaintiffcontends contends that that the the "recent "recent

allegation is discovery" allegation is specific specific enough Guam law. Id. enough under Guam at 7. Id at

On February On February 27, 27, 2025, 2025, the the Court Court held held aa motion motion hearing hearing on on the the matter. matter. After After hearing hearing

arguments from the arguments from parties, the the parties, theCourt Court took took the the matter matterunder advisement.Id. underadvisement. Id at at 10:39 10:39AM AM (Feb. (Feb. 27, 27,

2025). 2025).

DISCUSSION S

GRCP GRCPRule Rulel2(b)(6) 12(b)( 6)provides providesgrounds groundsfor fordismissal dismissalfor forfailure failure to to state state aa claim claim upon upon which which

relief relief can can be be granted. "In ruling granted. "In ruling on on aa l2(b)(6) 12(b)(6) motion, motion, aa court's consideration is court's consideration is limited limited to to the the

complaint, complaint, written written instruments instruments attached to the attached to the complaint complaint as as exhibits, exhibits, statements statements or or documents documents

incorporated incorporated in the complaint in the complaint by by reference, reference, and documents on and documents on which which the the complaint complaint heavily heavily relies .a s relies."

Newby v. Newby v. Gov Gov't't of of Guam, Guam, 2010 Guam 4 2010 Guam 41] '1[ 14. Whenanalyzing 14,When GRCP 12(b)(6) analyzingaaGRCP l2(b)(6) motion motion to dismiss, to dismiss,

the Court the Court "may "may consider consider aa document the authenticity document the authenticity of of which which is is not not contested, and upon contested, and upon which which

the plaintiffs complaint the plaintiffs complaint necessarily Id. ate] relies." Id necessarily relies." at 15. ,r Generally, motions 15. Generally, motions to to dismiss dismiss are are"viewed "viewed

2 The delay between the filing of Plaintiffs Opposition and Defendant's Reply & Plaintiffs sur-reply was 2 The delay between the filing of Plaintiffs Opposition and Defendant's Reply & Plaintiffs sur-reply was a result of a of a stipulation stipulation to to extend extend the thetime timefor for filing filing filed on on October October 28, 28, 2024. 2024. 55 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DISMISS WITH WITH LEA VE TO LEAVE TO AMEND AMEND CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Ignacio B. Butler Trust Trust ByBy and and Through Through ItsIts Lawfully Lawfully Designated Designated Sole Trustee, Trustee, Gregory D. Champion v. Cecilia Champion Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix Administratrix of ofthe the Estate Estate of of Gerard Gerard Andre Andre Champion

with disfavor with disfavor and and [are] [are] rarely rarely granted." granted." Gilligan Gilliganv.v. Jam Jamco Dev. Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 246,249 (1997). (1997). ea "Dismissalisis only "Dismissal onlyproper ifit is proper init is clear clear ... that the complaint .. that couldnot complaint could not be be saved saved by any amendment."

Taitano v. Tairano 2008 Gu v. Calvo Finance Corp., 2008 Guam a 12 1]9.9.When 12 ,r When reviewing reviewing aa GRCP Rule 12(b)(6) GRCP Rule 12(b)(6)

motion, the motion, the court must construe the the pleading pleading in the the light light most favorable to the the non-moving non-moving party

and resolve all doubts in in the non-moving party's favor. Id. non-moving party's

I. Amended The Ame Complaint nde Compl ai Identifies Ide nti ti e s Gregory Gre gorv D. D. Champion as the on as the RReal e Party in Partv in Interest. Interest. Defendant argues Defendant argues that that dismissal dismissal is is warranted warrantedbecause becausePlaintiff Plaintiff referred referredtotoitself itselfasas"Plaintiff "Plaintiff

Trust" and the Tnlst" and the Trust Trust was was not not aa party of suing party capable of suing pursuant pursuant to to the the Amended Amended Complaint. See Complaint. See

Mot. Dismiss Mot. Dismissatat 7. 7. However, However, Defendant's Defendant's position positionmischaracterizes mischaracterizes the the caption caption of of the the Amended

While itit isis true Complaint. While true that that under common law only common law onlyaa real real party party in in interest interest may may maintain maintain an

action, and and that thatin intrust Mst cases this this party party is is typically typically the the trustee, trustee,the theAmended Amended Complaint Complaint expressly

complies with that requirement requirement by by identifying identifying the the Plaintiff as "Ignacia Plaintiff as "Ignacio B. Butler Butler Trust, Trust, by and

lawfully designated through its lawhllly designated sole sole trustee, trustee, Gregory Gregory D. D. Champion." See Am. Compo. Champion." See Comp!. at at 1I

added). (emphasis added).

Defendant correctly Defendant correctly cites cites that that Powers Powers v. Ashton states that a party v. Ashton party who who is not the real party

in interest in interest may not maintain a suit, and that that complaints by or on behalf complaints brought by behalf of of a trust without without

identifyingthe identifying the trustee trustee are areinvalid. invalid. Powers v. Ashton, 45 Cal.App.3d Powers v. 783, 787-88 CaLApp.3d 783, (! 787-88 (1975). However, However,

this case addresses addresses pleadings pleadings where the trustee trustee is is unnamed. unnamed. That That is is not not the thecase casehere. here.The TheAmended Amended

Complaint and Complaint and subsequent subsequent filings filings make clear that that "Gregory "Gregory D. D. Champion" is the Champion" is the sole sole tnlstee trustee and

that the action that is being initiated "by action is and through "by and lawfullydesignated through its lawfully designated sole trustee." trustee."Am. Am. Comp!. Comal.

I. at 1.

6 DECISION ANDAND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTIONMOTION TO DISMISS DISMISSWITH WITHLEA VE TO LEAVE TO AMEND AMEND CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Ignacio B. B. Butler Trust Trust By By and and Through Through Its Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, Lawfully Designated Trustee, Gregory D. Champion v. Champion v. Cecilia CeciliaChampion Championas asthe the Administratrix Administratrixof ofthe the Estate of of Gerard Gerard Andre Champion

because the Thus, because the Amended Amended Complaint Complaint properly identifies Gregory D. Champion Champion as as the the

trustee trustee and and real realparty partyin in interest, interest,the theCourt Courtfinds finds no no basis basis to to dismiss dismiss the the action action on this ground.

II. Plaintiff's Claims Plaintiff's Are Not Claims Are Not Barred Barredby the Statute bythe Statute of Limitations. Defendant argues that Defendant that Plaintiff's claimsare PlaintifFs claims aretime-barred time-barredby by the the three-year period period prescribed prescribed

in in 7 GCA GCA §§ 11305 11305 because Gregory Gregory Champion, Champion, "had access access to topublicly publicly available available information information about

the land the land transfers transfersduring duringthose those35 35years," years,"that hewas thathe wasa abeneficiary. beneficiary.Mot. Mot.Dismiss Dismiss at at2. 2.However, However,

Plaintiffargues Plaintiff argues that that Gregory Champion Champion had had no no duty duty to to inquire inquire and and investigate investigate as as to the Trust's

property transfers property transfers until mltil he he became became the the Trustee Trusteefollowing the Decedent's passing. Sur-Reply following the at 7- Sur-Reply at

9. Further, he he argues argues that that he he discovered discovered the the documents documents transferring transfening the the Trust Trust properties through

bank documents, which bank were not which were not public publicrecords. records. Min. Min.Entry Entryatat10:20 10:20 a.m. a.m. (Feb. (Feb. 27, 27, 2025).

Under Under Guam Guam law, law, the the statute statute of of limitations limitations for for fraud fraud isis three three years years 7 GCA GCA§§11305(d).. 11305(d).

Further, a fraud iiaud cause of actionis isnot faction not"deemed "deemedtotohave haveaccrued accrueduntil untilthe the discovery by the aggrieved discovery by

party facts constituting party of the facts constituting the the fraud fraud or or mistake." mistake." Id. Id. ((emphasis added).InInapplying emphasis added). applying77GCA GCA § §

1305(d)toto aa claim ll305(d) claimofoffraud, fraud, the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court held held that that "the statute statuteof oflimitations limitations will will

begin to run begin when the plaintiff Mn when suspects or plaintiff suspeets or should suspect that that his his injury injury was was caused causedby bywrongdoing wrongdoing

or that someone someone has has done done something wrong wrong to to him." Burkhart Burkhart v. ,i 2013 Guam 2 1126. v. Miranda 2013

Additionally, Ad the Guam Sup itionally , the Supreme eme Court has has held held that, that, when when a ffraud r case inv case involves ppublic

recordation, the recordation, the trial trial court court should not not conflate conflate "the "the constructive constructive notice notice given given to to subsequent subsequent

purchasers under purchasers under Guam's statute with Guam's recording statute inquiry notice with the inquiry notice that that starts starts the statute statute of of

in aa fraud limitations in fraud case." Cruz v. case." Cruz v. Cruz, 2023 2023 Guam 20 20 1] 21.iJ 21.The The Guam Court has Guam Supreme Court has

emphasized that emphasized that in cases, public recordation in such cases, recordation does does not not trigger trigger inquiry inquiry notice. notice. Id. iJ Id. atat 1] 27

("Where fraud is ("Where fraud is involved, involved, public public records records are are not not constructive constructive notice notice of of the the true true facts facts to to the the

defrauded party."). party."). Further, Further, "[p]ublic "[p]ub1icrecords recordscannot cannotbe beused usedtotodefend fraud."Id. defendfraud." ,i Id at1]26.

7 DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DISMISS WITHWITHLEAVE LEAVE TOTO AMEND AMEND CV0462-24; Ignaeia CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler Trust Trust By By and and Through Through Its Lawfully Trustee, Gregory Lawfully Designated Sole Trustee, Gregory D. Champion as the Champion v. Cecilia Champion the Administratrix Administratrix of of the theEstate Estateof Gerard 0fGerardAndre Champion

Plaintiffalso Plaintiff also correctly correctlystates states that that courts recognize that that where where aa confidential confidential or or fiduciary fiduciary

relationship exists, relationship exists, such such as as between between aa trustee trustee and trust trust beneficiaries, beneficiaries, the the statute statute of of limitations

with begins wi of the t discovery of the fraudulent fraudulent activity. See See King v. v. King, 69 F.4th 738, 738, 748 748(I(nth Ith Cir.

2023)("the failure 2023)("the to disclose failure to discloseaamaterial materialfact fact constitutes constitutes fraud fraud for for the the purposes of of tolling tollingthe the statute statute

oflimitation"); of see Opp. limitation"), see Opp. at at 5.

Because the Decedent served served as as sole sole trustee trusteefrom from July July 1986 1986 until until his death death on on July 19, 19,

2023, Plaintiff 2023, had no Plaintiff had no duty duty to to investigate investigate fraudulent actions involving trust assets involving trust assets until until assuming

the role role of trustee. Neither oftrustee. Defendant cited Neither has Defendant cited to to any case law that imposes imposes a duty duty on on aa beneficiary beneficiary

to investigate to investigate fraud Baud through through public public records. records. The The Amended alleges that Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff

improper property discovered the improper property transfers transfers only after after assuming the of trustee. the role of trustee. As aa result, result,

Plaintiffstates Plaintiff states that that July 20, 2023, is the earliest possible possible discovery date. See See Opp. Opp. at at 3. 3.Accepting Accepting

these allegations these allegations as astrue trueand anddrawing drawingall allinferences inferencesininPlaintiffs favor, July Plaintiffs favor, July 20, 20, 2023 2023 would would be be the

earliest possible discovery date. date. As As Plaintiff filedsuit Plaintiff filed suitwithin withinthree threeyears years of ofthat that date, date, the the claims claims

would be would be timely, timely, and and the the statute statute oflimitations does not limitations does not bar bar the action.

This reasoning reasoning applies applies not not only only to to Plaintiffs fraud claim, Plaintiffs fraud claim, but of the but to all of the claims claims in in the the

Amended Complaint. Amended Complaint. The Theunjust unjustenrichment, enrichment, declaratory declaratory relief reliefand and constructive constructive trust trust claims are

equitable remedies that depend equitable depend on on the thesame samecore allegationof coreallegation ofDecedent's Decedent's fraud. fraud.See SeeMot. Mot. Dismiss Dismiss

at 4 to In 4 (citing to In re re Advent Advent Mgmt. 178 B.R. Corp., 178 Mgmt. Corp., 480, 488, B.R. 480, 1995 WL 488, 1995 1995) (9th Cir. 1995) 126290 (9th WL 126290

(internal citations (internal citations removed) to the removed) ("Similar to the unjust unjust enrichment enrichment and and declaratory declaratory relief relief claims,

'[b]ecause it is a remedy, remedy, the the right right to to aaconstructive trust is consMctive trust is subject subject to to the the statute statuteoflimitations of limitations on

the underlying that gives rise to the right to action that underlying action to a constructive constructive trust."').

Therefore, based based on what isisbefore on what beforethe theCourt Courtand anddrawing drawingallallinferences inferencesininPlaintiffs Plaintiffs favor,

the Court declines to Court declines to dismiss dismiss the the Amended Amended Complaint on the Complaint on the basis of statute statute of of limitations. limitations.

8 DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO DISMISSDISMISS WITHWITHLEAVE LEAVE TO TO AMEND AMEND CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler Trust CV0462-24; Ignacio Trust By By and and Through Through ItsIts Lawfully Lawfully Designated Designated Sole Trustee, Trustee, Gregory Gregory D. Champion v. Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix of the Champion v. Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix of the Estate of Gerard Andre of Gerard Andre Champion

III. The Amended Complaint The Amended ComplaintDoes Does Not Not Satisfv Satisfy Pleading Standards. Under GRCP Under GRCPRule Rule8(a), 8(a),a apleading pleadingmust mustcontain contain"a"ashort short and and plain plain statement statement of the the claim claim

showing that showing that the pleader pleader is is entitled entitled to to relief." See GRCP relief." See 8(a). This GRCP 8(a). Thisstandard standard requires requires only only that that the

complaint provides complaint provides fair fair notice notice of ofthe the nature nature of the and the the claim and the grounds grounds on on which it rests. which it rests. Ukau Ukau

v. Wang, v. 2016 Guam 18 Wang, 2016 ,i 22. 18 1]22.

However,when However, whenaaparty party alleges alleges fraud, fraud, the pleading isis subject the pleading subject to to the heightened requirements

GRCP Rule of GRCP Rule9(b 9(b). See Ukase, ). See ,i 35 26 1] Ukau, 2016 Guam 26 35 ("Generally, ("Generally, fraud fraud claims are are subject to

heightened pleading pleading standards standardsunder underRule Rule 9(b) 9(b)of ofthe theGRCP."). GRCP.").

GRCPRule GRCP Rule9(b) 9(b)provides providesthat that"[i]n "[i]nallallaverments avermentsofoffraud fraud or ormistake, mistake, the the circumstances circumstances

constituting fraud constituting fraud or mistake shall or mistake be stated shall be stated with with particularity" particularity" and and that that "[m]alice, "[m]alice, intent, intent,

knowledge, and knowledge, and other other conditions conditions of of mind of aa person mind of person may be averred may be averred generally." generally." GRCP 9(b). GRCP 9(b).

GRCPRule GRCP Rule9(b) 9(b)does doesnot notrequire requireaa plaintiff plaintifftotoprove proveaaclaim claimofoffraud fraudatat the the pleading pleading stage. stage. Taitano Taitano ·

v. Calvo v. Calve Finance 2008 Guam Corp., 2008 Finance Corp., 12 ,i 16. "Rather, Guam 121116. "Rather, what what isis required required is is that that a plaintiff set forth plaintiff set

his claim his claim with with sufficient sufficientdetail detailtotoprovide providenotice noticetotodefendants defendants as as to to what what particular particular fraudulent fraudulent

action is being action alleged."Id. being alleged." Id (citing Bly-Magee v.v. California, citing Bay-Magee 236 F.3d California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1014, 1019 1019 (9th (9th Cir. 1989)). 1989)).

This has Th has beendescribed been described as as the the "who, "who, what, when, where, and and how" requirement. Ukau, how" requirement. 2016 Guam Ukau, 2016 Guam

26 26 1147. '1147.

A. Plaintiff'sAllegation Plaintiffs Allegation of of"Recent Discovery" is Too "Recent Discoverv" Too Vague

Defendant argues Defendant argues that that the the Amended Amended Complaint fails to Complaint fails to establish establish when when the the statute statute of of

limitations commenced limitations commenced because because itit vaguely vaguely alleges alleges only a "recent only a "recent discovery" of the discovery" of the alleged alleged

fraudulent fraudulent property property transfers. SeeMot. transfers.See Mot. Dismiss at 5-7. Dismiss at She further 5-7. She further contends contends that that the the Amended Amended

Complaint lacks Complaint lacks any any dates dates indicating indicating when when the the transfers transfers occurred occurred or or when when Plaintiff discovered Plaintiff discovered

9 DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO DISMISS DISMISS WITH WITH LEAVE LEAVE TO TO AMEND AMEND CV0462-24; Ignoeia CV0462-24, Ignacia B. Butler Trust Trust 8y By and and Through Through Its Its Lawfully Lawfully Designated Designated Sole Trustee, Trustee, Gregory D. v. Cecilia Champion v. Cecilia Champion as the Administratrix of the Estate Administratrix of Estate of of Gerard Gerard Andre Andre Champion

them, and that that this this vagueness vagueness "was "was done done order [sic] [sic] to to avoid obvious statute statute of limitations bars bars

applicable to all claims." Id. applicable to at 6. Id at 6.

response, Plaintiff In response, maintains that Plaintiff maintains that the the phrase phrase "recent discovery" is is not not too too vague vague as as he

discovered the alleged misconduct could not have discovered misconduct while while he he was was aa beneficiary beneficiary because because he lacked

access to trust records. records. Opp. at 7.

Cruz v. In Cruz v. Cruz, the trial court found that the phrase phrase "recently "recently discovered" was too vague

establish when to establish when the the statute statute of of limitations limitations commenced commenced and and ordered ordered the the plaintiff plaintiff to to amend amend with with

more precise more language. 3 See Cruz, 2023 Guam 201]4. precise language.3 'I)

Here, Plaintiff Here, Plaintifffails fails toto identify identify aamore more specific specificdate date reference reference to to "recent discovery" in its

Amended Complaint. Amended Complaint. See See Am. Am. Con Comp!. at 22 ("This pl. at ("This Cause Cause of ofAction Actionisisnot not barred barred by the applicable

statute of limitations for statute oflimitations for fraud fraud ... ... because of the only only recent recent discovery discovery of of the fraudulent fraudulentscheme."). scheme.").

However, Ho Plaintiffslater w ever, Plaintiffs laterfilings filings make make cclear that Plaintiff lear that Plaintiffkno knows when ws w c o very oof discovery hen dis the alleged f the

fraud occurred. In fraud occurred. In his his Opposition, Opposition, Plaintiff Plaintiff argues that "the argues that "the earliest earliest that that [Plaintiff] [Plaintiff] could have

discovered the the [Decedent's] fraud July 20, fraud was July 20, 2023 2023 ((and thatwould and that wouldonly only be be if if the the [Plaintiff] [Plaintiff]

discovered the fraud the day day the the [Plaintiff] became became Trustee)." at 7. Plaintiff Trustee)." Opp. at reiterates this Plaintiff reiterates

point in point in the the Sur-Reply, Sur-Reply, stating stating that he he did not and could not have discovered the the fraud fraud "until "until he

became Trustee on July became July 20, 20, 2023" 2023" because because only onlythen then did didhe heobtain obtainaccess access to to the the trust's trust's records. records.

Sur-Reply at Sur-Reply 2. Because at 2. Because that date date is is specific specific and and available to Plaintiff, Plaintiff, itit appears appears that the the omission omission

of date in of aa date in the the Amended Amended Complaint is not Complaint is not due due to lack of to lack of knowledge, but rather knowledge, but rather aa lack lack of of pleading pleading

detail.

3 The Guam 3 The Guam Supreme Com's Court'sacknowledgment acknowledgmentofofthe the trial trial court's court's reasoning reasoning m may be be considered considered persuasive persuasive dictum. dictum. Although AlthoughthetheGuam GuamSupreme SupremeCourt Courtacknowledged acknowledged the the procedural procedural history, history, the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court did did not not directly decide decide whether phrase "recently whether the phrase "recently discovered" was was too too vague vague to to toll the the statute statute of limitations. 110 DECISION ANDAND ORDER ORDER GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS WITH WITHLEAVE LEAVE TOTO AMENDEN CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, Butler Trust Ignacio B. Butler Trust By By and and Through Through Its Its Lawfully Lawfully Designated Designated Sole Trustee, Gregory Gregory D. Champion v. Cecilia Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix Administratrix of of the theEstate Estateof Gerard Andre ofGerord Andre Champion

Therefore, the the language "recently discovered" discovered" does does not not meet meet the particularity requirements particularity requirements

of Rule of Rule 9(b) 9(b) of the GRCP. of the GRCP.

B. B Plaintiff Failed to Plaintiff to Allege Allele Fraud with with Particularity Particularitv

The elements of The elements of fraud fraud are: are: "1) "l) aa misrepresentation, misrepresentation; 2) knowledge knowledge of of falsity falsity (or (or scienter), scienter);

3) intent to to defraud defraud to to induce reliance; 4) justifiable justifiable reliance; and 5) resulting damages." damages." Ukase, Ukau,

Guam26 2016 Guam ,r 26 1136. 36.

Defendant asserts Defendant asserts that thatthe thefraud fraudallegations allegationscontained containedininthe theAmended Amended Complaint Complaint is "so

vague that vague that [she] [she] cannot cannot reasonably reasonablybe requiredtotoframe berequired frameaaresponsive responsivepleading." pleading."Mot. Mot. Dismiss at Dismiss at

9. 9.

The allegations for The factual allegations for fraud fraud in in the the Amended Amended Complaint Complaintstates states that: that:

8. ItItwas 8. wasaafraudulent fraudulent act act by by the the late Gerard Gerard A. A. Champion to convey Champion to convey legal legal title title to to the the two two properties properties firstfirst to to himself individually, and himself individually, and then then later later in in part, part, to to his lawful spouse, lawful spouse, Defendant Defendant Cecilia Cecilia Champion. late Gerard 9. The late Gerard A. A. Champion Champion breached breached his his fiduciary fiduciary duties duties to the the Trust by making these making these conveyances conveyances to to himself himself and his spouse. spouse. The The fiduciary duties duties he breached included the breached the obligation obligation toto exercise exercise good good business business judgment, judgment, to to act act prudently in the operation of the Trust's business, in the business, toto discharge discharge hishis actions actions in good faith, good faith, to to act act in in the the best best interests of the interests of the Trust Trust and and its its beneficiaries, and to beneficiaries, and to put the interest of put of the the Trust Trust before before his his own. own. 10. The The late Gerard A. A. Champion breached his duties Champion breached duties ofloyalty loyalty and good faith by intentionally conveying intentionally conveying to to himself himself individually and to to his wife, wife, Defendant Defendant CeciliaChampion, Cecilia Champion,these these two two parcels parcels ofof property. property. 11.Defendants ll. Defendants were were direct direct participants participants inin these these two two fraudulent fraudulent conveyances conveyances to themselves. 12. Plaintiff, and its Plaintiff, and its Trust Trust beneficiaries, beneficiaries,have have been been damaged damaged by by the the fraudulent fraudulent acts of the Defendants. of

Am. Con Comp!. at 3. pl. at

While these allegations While these allegations reference reference fiduciary fiduciary duty duty and and self-dealing, self-dealing, they they fail fail to to clearly

identify the identify the legal legal theory theory of offraud fraud being being asserted asserted and do do not not articulate articulate how how the required required elements elements of of

11 11 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS WITH W LLEAVE EA V E TOO AMEND CV0462-24; Ignacio CV0462-24, Ignacia B. B. Butler Butler Trust Trust By and Through By and Through ItsIts Lawfully Designated Sole Lawfally Designated Sole Trustee, Trustee, Gregory D. Champion v. Champion v. Cecilia Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administrafrix Administratrix of ofthe the Estate Estate of of Gerard Gerard Andre Andre Champion

fraud are fraud are met. example, itit isis unclear met. For example, unclear whether whether there there was was aamisrepresentation, misrepresentation, whether whether the the

Decedent intended Decedent intended to to defraud the trustee trustee and andhow how Defendant Defendant is is implicated in the implicated in the matter. matter.

Plaintiffargues Plaintiff argues that that "[g]iven "[g]iven the the fiduciary relationship, fraud, fiduciary relationship, fraud, either either actual or constructive,

sufficiently alleged." is sufficiently Sur-Reply at alleged." Sur-Reply at 7. 7. Plaintiff Plaintiffadds adds that that because because Gerard Gerard Champion had aa

fiduciary duty, "any transaction duty, "any transaction involving involving self-dealing self-dealingisispresumed presumedFraudulent, fraudulent, and and the the burden

shifts to the the fiduciary fiduciary to to justify justify the transaction." Id. the transaction." Id at 5. 5. Plaintiff Plaintiff elaborates in his Sur-Reply Sur-Reply that: that:

Theree wa Th was aa f id fiduciary relationship, u c ia r y r e la t io i.e.,. , a ttrustee, ip , i. r t e e , who wh o failedd tto ddisclose is c lo s transactions. The transactions. The Trustee knew or or should should have have known known based based on on the the Trust Trust that that he had had aa duty duty disclose disclose the the real real estate estate transfer transactions to transfer transactions to the the Trust Trust and and to to the the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries. The failure failure to to disclose discloseindicates indicatessufficient sufficientfacts facts to to demonstrate demonstrate intent defraud. Disclosure to defraud. of the Disclosure of the facts of the transfers transfers would would have have been been disclosure disclosure of of the Trustee's Trustee's misdeed, misdeed, aasufficient sufficient indication of intent indication of intent to deceive.

Id. at 5. Id at

Although the Sur-Reply Although the Sur-Reply provides provides clarity clarity and and identifies identifies the the type of fraud fraud alleged alleged along along with with

application of application offacts facts to to the the elements, elements, "it "it is axiomatic that that a complaint complaint may not be be amended amended by by the the

briefs briefs in in opposition opposition to to aa motion to to dismiss." dismiss." Car Car Carriers, v. Ford Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Co., 745 745 F.2d F.2d 1101, 1101,

1107 (7th Cir. 1107 (7th Cir. 1984); 1984), Morgan Morgan Distributing Distributing Co., Co., Inc. Inc. v. Unidynamic Corp., v. Unidynamic 68 F.2d Corp., 68 F.2d 992, 992, 995 995 (Sth (8th

Ci r . 1989). Cir. Therefore, the 1989). Therefore, the Court Court may may not not consider consider the facts or the facts arguments raised or arguments iaised in in the Sur Reply the Sur Reply

the claim of fraud has been sufficiently pleaded. when determining whether the

However, the However, the Sur-Reply Sur-Replydoes does demonstrate demonstrate that that Plaintiff likely has has sufficient sufficient information

to to plead fraud claim plead a fraud claim under under Rule Rule 9(b) 9(b)'s 's heightened heightened pleading standard. If these pleading standard. were included these facts were included

in the the Amended Amended Complaint, Plaintiff may have have sufficiently alleged alleged fraud. fraud.

Nonetheless, the Nonetheless, the current current Amended Amended Complaint deficient because it fails to identify Complaint is deficient identify the the

type of fraud, the elements, elements, and and sufficient meet the "who, sufficient facts to meet "who, what, when, where, where, and and how" how"

requirement. requirement,

112 DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO DISMISS DISMISS WITH WITH LEAVE LEAVE TO TO AMEND AMEND CV0462-24; Ignacia CV0462-24, B. Butler nacio B. Butler TTrust By and rusf By and TThrough Its Lawfully hrough Its Lawfully Designated Designated Sole Sole TTrustee, rustee, Gregory Gregory D. Champion v. Champion v. Cecilia Champion as Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix of the Administratrix off he Estate Estate of Gerard Andre ofGerara' Andre Champion Champion

Thus, Plaintiff failed to Plaintiff failed to plead plead his fraud claim with with particularity.

cC.. Plaintiff is Granted Plaintiff Granted Leave to to Amend Amend

R u l e 115(a) Rule of tthe G 5 ( a ) of GRCP R CP p provides rov i d e s t hthat a t aapparty must a rt y mu seek st se e a e ffrom e k lleave rom tthe amend aa rt tto a court h e cou

complaint once complaint once an an answer answer has been filed filed but requires requires that that such suchleave leave"shall "shall be be freely freely given given when

justice so requires." justice requires." Under Guam Guam law, law, leave leave to to amend amend should be be liberally granted. granted. Arashi Arashi & & Co.

Nakashima Enterprises, Inc., 2005 v. Nakashima 2005 Guam ,i 16 (citing 21 1116 Guam 21 Farnan v. (citing Foman 371 U.S. v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178(1962)). 178(1962)).

Farnan directs courts to Foman to review whether certain certain factors are present present which against which may mitigate against

leave to amend, leave amend, including: "undue "undue delay, delay, bad faith or or dilatory dilatory motive motive on on the the part part of of the the movant,

repeated re p e a t e d failure f a i l u re to t o cure cu re ,deficiencies . d e f i ci e n ci e s by b y amendments a me n d me n t s previously p re v i ou sl y allowed, undue a l l ow e d , u n d u e pprejudice re j u d i ce tto o tthe he

opposing party by opposing by virtue virtue of of allowance allowance of of the theamendment, amendment,[or] [or]futility futilityof amendment." Arashi, 2005 ofamendment."Arashi,

14 1 Guam 4 G 1 1,i u a m 221 16. ] 1 Further, 6. F u r t h e r , "an outright "an o u t r i g h t refusal r e f u s a l to grant to g l e a v e without r a n t leave u s t i f y i n g rreason n y jjustifying any without a eason

appearing for the appearing the denial denial is not an an exercise of of discretion; it is discretion, it is merely merely abuse abuse of of that that discretion and and

inconsistent with the spirit inconsistent spirit of the the Federal Federal Rules." 2005 Guam Rules." Arashi, 2005 Guam 21 ,i 16 21 11 16 (quoting Farnan, (quoting Foman

371 U.S. 371 U.s. at 182).

Here, although Here, although Plaintiff Plaintiff has has already already amended the original complaint once as a matter the original matter of of

right, no amendments amendments have havebeen beenpreviously previously allowed allowed by by this this Court. Court. An examination of An examination of the the record

reveals no evidence reveals evidence of of bad faith, undue delay delay or aa dilatory dilatory motive, motive, Further, Further, although although the the Amended Amended

Complaint d does oes not pplead fr fraud with with the the rrequisite specificity, eq uisite sp ecificity, it ddoes sufficiently pput oes sufficiently the ut the

Defendants on Defendants on notice notice of ofthe the facts and events events upon upon which which such claim is based. claim is based. Therefore, Therefore, the Court Court

does not does not find find that that leave leave to toamend amendwould would impose undue prejudice impose undue on either prej udice on defendant. either d ef end ant . See See Eminence Eminence

Capitall LLC Ca L v.. Aspeon, Aspe Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 1048 (9th (9th Cir. Cir. 2003) 2003) (holding (holding that that absent absent an affirmative

showing ofpprejudice, owin g of rej u d ice, aa presumption exists mp t ion exist in ffavor s in of ggranting avor of leave to amend). ran t in g leave

13 13 r \

DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION MOTION TO DISMISSDISMISS WITHWITHLEAVE LEAVE TO TO AMEND AMEND CV0462-24; Ignacio CV0462-24, Ignacia B. B. Butler Butler Trust Trust byBy and and Through Through Its Its Lmtfully Lawfully Designated Designated Sole Sole Trustee, Trustee, Gregory D. Champion v. Cecilia Champion Championas Cecilia Champion as the the Administratrix Administratrix of ofthe the Esfafe Estate of Gerard Andre ofGerord Andre Champion

Lastly, an Lastly, an amendment would not be futile. At the motion At the motion hearing, hearing, Plaintiff voiced that Plaintiff voiced that the " 53 issues in the Amended Complaint did Amended Complaint did not not warrant warrant aa dismissal, dismissal, but but that that "I'm happy to "I'm happy to amend amend it."

at 10:23 Min. Entry at 10:23 a.m. a.m. (Feb. (Feb. 27, 27, 2025). IfPlaintiff 2025).If Plaintiff is able to to adequately adequately amend amend to to sufficiently sufficiently

assert his assert his claim claim of Hand fraud against against the proper proper parties, parties, the theclaim claim may may survive survive aa motion motion to to dismiss.

Accordingly, this Accordingly, this Court Court finds finds that that 'justice 'Justice so so requires" requires" that that the the Court grant Plaintiff Plaintiff leave leave to to

amend. See amend. SeeGRCP Rulel5(a). GRCP Rule 15(a).Furthermore, Furthermore,because because the the Court Court is granting Plaintiff leave to Plaintiff leave to amend,

the the concerns concerns raised raisedin inPlaintiffs AlternativeMotion Plaintiffs Alternative Motionhave havealready alreadybeen been addressed. addressed.

CONCLUSION

For the For the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, the the Court Court hereby GRANTS N T S Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Dismiss.

However, the However, the First Amended Amended Complaint is DISMISSED DIS MIS WITHOUT IT HOUT P PREJUDICE andthe REJUDICE a nd theCou Court rt

hereby GRANTS Plaintiff hereby Plaintiffleave leave to to amend. amend. Should Plaintiff Plaintiffchoose choose to to amend the the First First Amended Amended

Complaint, the Court Complaint, Plaintiffto Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file file his Second Amended Amended Complaint Complaint within thirty (30) within thirty (30)

from the days Hom the entry entry of of this Decision and Order Decision and Order on on the the docket. ., ,,____ .':¢.-I SO s o ORDERED: JUN 0O992025 2025 .»_¢I1- A1/,:-- ---------- ' .~'»i< ,:`:.. I

HO ORABIJEDAN GUT EZ Judge. Suberi6r;ct>utt bi GUam