Carter v. Lillis

Opinion

- 1 EJ ha# J é ==.. - . f;ll;;¢;;*Fll PP U E. =..*F *o x 'JH "HURT "a - " ' 5 5,4 1-£1 s

2025 DEC3131 PH 2025 DEC PH 35 3: 28 CLERt{ UF OF COURT COURT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM

KERRY D. CARTER, CARTER, CIVILCASE CIVIL CASEno. NO.CV0051-25 CV0051-25

Plaintiff,

vs. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT USAA GRANTING CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY'S COMPANY'S MARC A. LILLIS, MARC LILLIS, USAA USAA CASUALTY CASUALTY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION INSURANCE COMPANY, COMPANY, and and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, DEFENDANTS 1-10,

Defendants.. Defendants

This matter comes comes before before the the Honorable DanaA. HonorableDana A. Gutierrez Gutierrezon onDefendant DefendantUSAA Casualty USAA Casualty

Insurance Company's Insurance Company'sMotion Motion for Summary Judgment for Summary Judgment("Motion"). ("Motion"). The Court Court held a hearing hearing on

the Motion the on October Motion on 2, 2025. October 2, 2025. Present Present at atthe thehearing hearingwere werePlaintiff Plaintiff Kerry Carter, represented Ken'y D. Carter, represented

and Defendant by Attorney Peter Perez, and DefendantUSAA's counsel, Attorney Mitchell Thompson. USAA's counsel, Thompson. Upon

reviewof review ofapplicable applicableGuam Guamlaw lawand andthe therecord recordofofthis thiscase, case,the theC0u11 Court hereby herebyGRANTS Defendant

USAA'sMotion USAA's Motionfor forSummary SummaryJudgment. Judgment.

BACKGROUND

This action action arises arises from three-vehicle collision that from a three-vehicle that occurred occurred on on April 18, 2024, April 18, 2024, at

approximately 7: approximately 15 a.m., 7:15 a.m.,on onRoute Route11ininPiti, Piti,Guam. Guam.Plaintiff PlaintiffCarter Carter("Plaintiff') was operating ("Plaintiff') was operating a DECISION ANDANDORDER ORDERGRANTINGGRANTINGUSAA'S USAA'S MOTION MOTIONFOR FORSUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGMENT CV005I-25,° CV0051-25; Carter Carter v. v. Lillie, Lillis, et et al.

500L, traveling 2015 Fiat 500L, traveling northbound northbound when when the incident occurred. the incident occurred. Defendant Defendant Marc A. Lillis Marc A. Lillis

("Lillis") 11 was operating a 2013 ("Lillis") 2013 Dodge Dodge Avenger Avenger traveling southbound. southbound. Plaintiff Plaintiff alleges alleges that that Lillis Lillis

attempted an attempted an illegal illegal or improper improper U-turn, U-tum, resulting resulting in in a collision collision with a 2015 Toyota Toyota BRunner 4Runner

operated by operated by Justin Justin Lee Lee Munoz, Munoz, which in turn tum struck struck Plaintiffs Plaintiff's vehicle. Comal. ,r,r vehicle. Compl. W 6-8. 6-8. Plaintiff

contends that, because of the that, because the accident, accident, he he suffered suffered physical physical injuries, injuries, mental mental and and emotional emotional distress, distress,

and various economic and and non-economic non-economic damages. damages. Con Comp ,r 9.9. Plaintiff further pl.1. 11 iilrther alleges alleges that

responding officers responding officers from from the the Guam Guam Police Police Department Department determined determined that that Lillis Lillis was was at at fault fault and and

warned him verbally warned him for for violating Guam's Guam's imprudent imprudent driving driving law. Comal. ,r 10. Compl. 1] 10.

The Port Authority Authority Police Traffic Accident Report, submitted by Plaintiff as Exhibit A to to

his Opposition ((the the "Accident "Accident Report"), identifies Lillis as the driver of "Vehicle #1," the the Dodge Dodge

Avenger involved in the initial maneuver leading to the Avenger the crash. crash. The The Accident Accident Report Report lists lists William William

Austin Abshire ("Abs fire") as fire ("Abshire") as the the registered registered owner owner of of Vehicle Vehicle #1 #1 and and identifies identifies USAA USAA as as the the

insurer associated with the the vehicle, vehicle, referencing referencing Policy Policy No. No. 018113910 018113910 ("Policy"). ("Policy"). Lillis also stated stated

telephonic interview in a telephonic interview with with USAA that he USAA that he had had applied applied for for aa policy policy with with USAA before the the

accident occurred ("the Other Other Policy"). Deal. of Policy"). Deel. of Samantha Samantha Freeman, Freeman, Ex. Ex. A A at at 33 (May (May 9, 9, 2025). 2025).

Plaintiff filed filed his his Complaint Complaint on on January asserting, inter alia, a direct action January 24, 2025, asserting,

against USAA pursuant against USAA to 22 pursuant to 22 GCA GCA §§ 18305, 18305, alleging alleging that that USAA USAA had issued aa policy had issued policy of of insurance insurance

covering Lillis on the date date of the the accident. Con pl. ,r,r accident. Compl. W 11-24. 11-24. USAA answered the Complaint on

19, 2025, denying coverage March 19, coverage and and expressly expressly asserting asserting affirmative affirmative defenses defenses that no no USAA

automobile tomobi l e insurance i nsu rance policy pol i cy insured i nsu red Lillis Li l i s on on April Apri l 18,, 2024.. USAA thereafter moved for SAA thereafter

9, 2025. Plaintiff summary judgment on May 9, Plaintiff opposed the the motion motion on on June June 13, 13, 2025. 2025. USAA USAA filed filed

1 The Court 1 The Court notes notesthat thatPlaintiff Plaintiff has hasnot notserved servedLillis Lillis yet as of yet as the time of the time this this Decision and Order Decision and Order is is issued. issued.However, However, Plaintiffhas Plaintiff has submitted submitted aaMotion Motion for for Service Service by by Publication. Publication. 2 2 DECISION AND ANDORDER ORDERGRANTINGGRANTINGUSAA'S USAA'S MOTION MOTIONFOR FORSUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGMENT CV0051-25; Carter v. Lillis, et CV005]-25; et al.

its Reply its Reply on on June June 27, 2025, and the Court took the matter under advisement advisement on on October October 5, 5, 2025. 2025.

Min. Mill. Entry Entry at 11:16:35 A.M. (Oct. (Oct. 5, 2025). 2025).

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard Standard for for Summary SummarvJudgement Judgment

On a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he court shall shall grant summary summary judgment if the the

shows that there movant shows there is no genuine dispute dispute of material material fact fact and the the movant is entitled entitled to to

judgment as judgment as a matter of law." Guam Guam R. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "The party moving for summary judgment Civ. p.

initial burden 'bears the initial burden to show show that that undisputed undisputed facts facts in the the record record support support a prima facie ac e

entitlement to the relief relief requested.'" v. Alupang requested."' Cho v. AlupangBeach Beach Club, Club, Inc., 2025Guam Inc.,2025 1 28 (citation Guam331]

omitted). "When "When a defendant moves for summary judgment of a plaintiff, judgment on the claims of plaintiff, itit satisfies satisfies

2 its burden by its by either (1) presenting evidence (1) presenting evidence that that negates negates an an essential elements of essential element of the the plaintiffs plaintiffs

or (2) claim or (2) demonstrating demonstrating that the plaintiffs plaintift's evidence evidence is is insufficient establish an essential insufficient to establish essential

element of the element the claim." claim." Id. "Although this burden is low, it still Id "Although still exists." Id (citation omitted). exists." Id. omitted).

Once Defendant Once Defendant has this burden, has carried this burden, "the burden shifts shifts to [Plaintiff] [Plaintiff] to produce produce

evidence demonstrating evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of existence of of material fact." Cho, 2025 Guam 3 129. 1]29.

In discharging In scharg i ng this thi s burden, rden, Plaintiff Pl ai nti ff must mu st not not "merely "merel y rely allegations rel y on al l ned in contained ons contai i n the the

complaint." Id. complaint." Instead, Plaintiff Id Instead, Plaintiff must "produce "produce at least least some some significant significant probative probative evidence evidence

tending to tending to support support the the complaint." complaint." Id. omitted). "If (citation omitted). Id (citation "If the the non-movant non-movant 'fails 'fails to to make make a

showing sufficient to establish the the existence existence of an an essential essential element element to to that that party's party's case case on on which which

2 2 Plaintiff's claim Plaintiff's claimagainst against USAA USAA is is brought brought asas aadirect directaction under22 actionunder 22GCA GCA§§18305. 18305. SeeSee Con pl. Compl. ,r 241[24 ("Plaintiff...... ("Plaintiff hereby asserts his right ofofdirect direct action[] action[] against against Defendant[]USAA... Defendant[] USAA ...pursuantto, pursuant to, inter inter alia, 22 G.C.A. alia, 22 G.C.A. § § 18305."). 18305 ."). Because § 18305 provides that an injured person "shall have a right of direct action against the insurer within the Because § 18305 provides that an injured person "shall have a right of direct action against the insurer within the terms and andlimits limits of the policy," an essential policy," an essential element elementof ofPlaintiff's direct-actionclaim Plaintiffs direct-action claimisisthe theexistence existence of ofan insurance an insurance policyissued policy issued by by USAA USAA effective effective at at the the time time of ofthe the accident. accident. 3 3 DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDERGRANTING GRANTINGUSAA'S USAA'S MOTION MOTIONFOR FOR SUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGMENT CV0051-25; Carter CV005I-25; Carter v. v. Lillie, Lillis, el et al.

that party patty will bear the burden of proof at trial,' then the the movant is is entitled entitled to to aa judgment judgment as as a

law." Id. matter of law." "[T]he court's Id "[T]he court's ultimate ultimate inquiry inquiry is is to determine determine whether the the 'specific 'specific fact' fact' set

forth by the nonmoving party, coupled with the forth the undisputed background or contextual contextual facts, facts, are are

such that a rational and reasonable reasonable jury might return a verdict in its favor based jury might based on on that that evidence." evidence. an

Id. (citation (citation and and quotation omitted).

II. 11. USAA Has USAA Has Met Met Its Its Initial Burden by Producing Burden by Producing Evidence that No No Policy Policv Was Was in Effect at the Time of the Accident

USAA has produced evidence to demonstrate USA.A demonstrate that that there there was was no no policy policy applicable applicable at the the

time of the the accident. accident. Specifically, USAA has Specifically, USAA has proffered proffered the Coverage Decision that was was issued in in

response to response to Plaintiff's Plaintiffs insurance insurance claim. claim. See See Deel. Decl. of of Jacquelyn Jacquelyn Shinohara, Shinohara,Ex. Ex.AA atat 11 ("We've ("We've

there is no reviewed your claim and have determined there no coverage coverage available available for for this this loss.") loss.") (May (May 9, 9,

("Shinohara Deck."), 2025) ("Shinohara Deel."); see also Deal. Deel. of Samantha Freeman at 2 ("[T]he accident had taken

place a ce about bou t seven en hours before Lillis hou rs before l l i s applied ppl i ed for for the the automobile tomobi l e policy.") pol i cy." ) (Jun. (Ju n. 27, 2 7 , 2025) 25)

("Freeman Decl."). ("Freeman Deel."). Because Because the the existence of an existence of an insurance policy is is necessary for for a direct action to to

stand, and because USAA has produced evidence to show no insurance stand, policy existed to cover insurance policy

of the accident, Lillis at the time of accident, USAA has has canted carried its its burden, burden, and and the the burden burden now shifts shifts to to

Plaintiff Plaintiff to produce produce evidence evidence demonstrating demonstrating a genuine genuine dispute dispute of material material fact fact exists. exists.

III. 111. Plaintiff Has Not Carried Plaintiff His Burden Carried His Burden Because Because the the Evidence He Produced Produced Did Did Not Create a Genuine Dispute ofof Material Material Fact

When the defendant has produced evidence negating an essential essential element element of of the plaintiff' plaintiffss

claim, "the burden shifts to to [the [the plaintiff] plaintiff] to to produce produce evidence evidence demonstrating demonstrating the the existence existence of a

genuine genuine issue issue of material fact." See Cho at ii,r 29. The fact." See The sole sole evidence evidence Plaintiff Plaintiff offers offers to oppose oppose

summary judgment summary judgment is is the police Accident Accident Report. However, this Accident Accident Report is insufficient to to

4 DECISION AND ANDORDER ORDERGRANTINGGRANTINGUSAA'S USAA'S MOTION MOTIONFOR FORSUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGMENT CV0051-25; Carter v. CV005I-25; v. Lillis, et al. Lillie, et

create a "genuine dispute of material material fact" fact" as as required required by by Guam Guam Rule Rule of ofCivil Civil Procedure Procedure("GRCP") ("GRCP")

Rule 56(a).

The Accident Report identities identifies Abshire fire as as the the vehicle vehicle owner and lists lists the "Policy" as the the "Policy" the

associated with insurance policy associated the car. See Opp'nn at with the at 3. But the Accident Accident Report does not not indicate indicate

in effect at the time of the whether the Policy was in the accident. accident. This This omission omission is is significant. significant. Without Without

evidence establishing the the validity validity or effectivenessof or effectiveness ofthe thePolicy-or of any insurance policy Policy-or of policy issued issued

USAA-Plaintiffails by USAA-Plaintiff failstotogenuinely genuinelydispute dispute USAA's USAA'sshowing showing that that "no "no coverage [is] [is] available available

for [Plaintiffs] [Plaintiff loss." See Shinohara Shinohara Deal., Deel., Ex. Ex. A A at at 1. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff 1. The Plaintiff has has

sufficient evidence to not produced sufficient to create create a genuine genuine dispute dispute of of material material fact fact that that defeats defeats summary summary

judgment.

Plaintiff Plaintiff also faults USAA for "not USAA for "not include[ing] includ[ing] the the Other Other Policy Policy Lillis Lillis stated he he applied applied for for

prior to to the the accident," accident," thus thusleaving leaving aagenuine genuinedispute disputeof ofmaterial materialfact. SeeOpp fact.See 'n at 4. After Opp'nat4. After Plaintiff Plaintiff

filed the Opposition, Opposition, USAA USAA submitted the Other Other Policy. See Freeman Policy. See Freeman Deel., Deal., Ex. Ex. A A (Jun. (Jun. 27, 27, 2025). 2025).

The Other Policy Policy states states that that itit became became effective effective on April 18, on April 18, 2024 2024 at at "12:01 "12:01 A.M. A.M. standard standard time." time. SO

See id. atat 4. 4. Because Because "the "the effective effective date date and time of policies policies issued issued by by USAA USAA is Central Central Time," Time,"

Deel. at see Freeman Deck. at 11 (Jun. (Jun. 27, 27, 2025), 2025), this this means means the the Policy Policy became became effective effective at at 3:01 3:01 p.m. p.m. on on

see id. April 18, 2024, Guam time, see at 2. id at 2. As As the the accident took place "at approximately approximately 7:30 7:30 a.m., a.m.,

Guam time" on April 18, 2024, see id., the Other Policy Policy was not effective at the time time of of the the accident. accident.

Plaintiff has not introduced Because Plaintiff introduced any any evidence to show otherwise, Plaintiff has has not not raised raised a

genuine dispute of material fact as to the the Other Other Policy. Policy.

5 5 DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDERGRANTING GRANTINGUSAA'S USAA'S MOTION MOTIONFOR FORSUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGMENT CV005I-25; CV0051-25; Carter v. Lillis, Carter v. Lillis, et al. al.

IV. USAA Does USAA Does Not Not Have Have the the Burden Burden of of Disproving DisprovingPlaintiff's Plaintiffs Case

Plaintiff argues that summary Plaintiff summary judgment judgment should be be denied denied because because "USAA "USAA has not included included

the Policy in the record or in support support of of its its [M]otion." [M]otion." Opp'n Opp'n at 5. 5. This This argument argument misconstrues misconstrues the the

burden-shifting burden-shifting framework framework governing governing summary summary judgment. judgment.

In Estate Estate of of Cruz, the plaintiffs sought damages against against defendant defendant Detry for the death of a

worker who died on aa work trip. Estate of Cruz v. work trip. v. Detry Derry Corp., Guam 14 ,r1]2. 2023 Guam Corp., 2023 2. Detry Detry moved

for su for summary jjudgment, u submitting su bmi ng declarations arati ons establishing establ i shi ng that that the the decedent decedent was was Detry's Detry's

employee, which employee, which barred barred the claim claim for damages under Guam's Guam's worker's worker's compensation compensationlaw. ,r Id. atat 1] law.Id.

5. In opposition, the In opposition, the plaintiffs plaintiffs argued argued that that Detry Detry had had failed failed to to prove prove the the absence absence of evidence evidence

showing that the decedent was not aa purely purely casual employee, and therefore that the the claim claim was was not

subject to the ,r 31 worker's compensation law. Id. atat 1] the worker's 31 (The plaintiffs plaintiffs argued that that "While "While there there is is

evidence of evidence of compensation, compensation, there there is no evidence presented that the the decedent decedent was was not not purely purely aa casual casual

employee."). loyee)

The trial court court granted granted summary summary judgment, judgment, and the the Supreme Court of of Guam affirmed. Id. Guam affirmed. Id

at ,r'H36. 36.The TheSupreme SupremeCourt Courtexplained explained that that the the plaintiffs plaintiffs had had misinterpreted misinterpreted the the burden burden of of proof proof by by

Detry. Id. placing itit on Detry. at 31 Id at 31 (The (The plaintiffs plaintiffs "misinterpreted the burden of proof proof as as being being Detry's Derry's

of their own."). The instead of The Supreme Supreme CoLu"t Court held held that that "[a]fter "[a]fter Detry Detry made made and supported their

[plaintiffs] to set forth motion for summary judgment, the burden shifted to the [plaintiffs] forth specific specific facts facts

showing there showing there was aa genuine genuine issue issue of ofmaterial material fact." ,r 30. Id.atat'H fact." Id 30. Because Because the plaintiffs failed to to do do

so, summary judgment judgment was proper. Id. was proper. Id at ,r at1]35.

Estate E s t a t e of o f CCruz applies r u z appl i es here. here. USAA has has susubmitted evidence bmi tted ev demonstrating i dence demonstrati ng that that "no

coverage [is] available available for for [Plaintiff [Plaintiffs] loss." See Shinohara loss." See Deel., Ex. A at 1. Shinohara Deal., l. The burden therefore therefore

6 6 DECISION AND ANDORDER ORDERGRANTINGGRANTINGUSAA'S USAA'S MOTION MOTIONFOR FORSUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGMENT CV0051-25; Carter CV005I-25; Carter v.v. Lillie, Lillis, et et al.

shifts to to Plaintiff to to produce produce evidence evidence establishing establishing that that coverage coverage existed. existed. Plaintiff's Plaintiffs assertion that

USAA bears bears the the bu burden of disproving coverage would would improperly improperly invert invert the the burden-shifting burden-shifting

framework governing summary judgment.

v. V. USAA's Motion USAA's Motion Is Not Not Premature Premature

Plaintiff argues that "the record is Plaintiff is insufficiently developed" and that Plaintiff "should "should be be

opportunity to given an opportunity to develop develop the therecord recordtotooppose opposeUSAA's USAA'sMotion. Motion. Specifically, Specifically, Plaintiff Plaintiff seeks seeks

to conduct discovery discovery on the Policy, the Other Policy, Lillis, and the declarations declarations submitted submitted by by

USAA. Opp'n USAA. Opp'n at at 5.

In response, response, USAA USAA argues that that its Motion is not premature premature because because under under the the GRCP, "[a]

defendant may defendant may file file a motion for summary summary judgment judgment 'at any time' before before the the court[-]imposed court[-]imposed

deadline. "33 Reply at 4. USAA also emphasizes USAA also emphasizes that that Plaintiff Plaintiff was put on notice notice regarding regarding the the issue issue

of lack of coverage for Lillis "in "in a telephone conversation with counsel for Plaintiff" Plaintiff' on or about

February 12, 12, 2025, and therefore, therefore, "Plaintiff "Plaintiff should should not not be be heard heard totonow now complain complain that thatUSAA's USAA's

Motion is somehow premature." Reply at 5.

GRCP Rule 56(b) provides that "a party party may may file a motion for for summary summary judgment judgment at at any any

time until 30 days after the close of the close of all all discovery." discovery." The Court may may "defer considering the the motion motion

or deny it" if the the nonmovant nonmovant "shows "shows by affidavit or declaration declaration that, that, for for specified specified reasons, reasons, it cannot cannot

present facts facts essential essential to to justify justify its its opposition." opposition." Guam GuamR. R. Civ. Civ. P. P. 56(d). 56(d). A A party party seeking seeking relief

"must show how additional discovery "must discovery would preclude preclude summary judgment judgment and why a party party cannot

provide 'specific facts' demonstrating immediately provide issue of material demonstrating a genuine issue material fact." fact." Estate s a t e of f

Guam 14 Cruz, 2023 Guam ,r 27 14 1] 27 (citation and quotation quotation omitted). omitted). Mere Mere references references in in memoranda memoranda or

3 2026. See The deadline 3 The deadline for for filing filing aa motion motion for forsummary summary judgment in this judgment in this case case is is February February 2, 2, 2026. See Scheduling Scheduling Order Order (Jun. (Jun. 10, 2025). 10, 2025). 7 7 DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDERGRANTING GRANTINGUSAA'S USAA'S MOTION MOTIONFOR FORSUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGMENT CV0051-25; Carter CV005I-25; Carter v. Lillis, et al. Lillie, et

declarations to declarations to aa need for for discovery discovery "do "do not not qualify qualify as as motions motions under under [the [the former former GRCP] GRCP] Rule Rule

56(f)." Id ,r 56(f)." 44 Id. 28. When 1128. When aa party party fails fails to to file file an affidavit under an affidavit GRCP Rule under GRCP Rule 56( 56(d), the the Court has has the the

discretion to to grant grantsummary judgment.Id. summaryjudgment. Id ("[A] ("[A] party's failure to file an affidavit affidavit under [the former former

GRCP] Rule 56(f) invokes the court's discretion in granting granting summary summary judgment."). judgment.").

Here, Here, Plaintiff did did not not submit submit an an affidavit affidavit to to provide provide the the "specified "specified reasons" reasons" for for why why

Plaintiff cannot cannot yet yet present present facts facts essential essential to to his opposition of his opposition of USAA's Instead, the USAA's Motion. Instead, the

Opposition contains contains a list of of questions questions such such as as "[ w ]hether the "[w]hether the terms, terms, conditions, and limits limits of the the

Policy cover Lillis" and and "[w]ho "[w]ho had had title title to to Vehicle Vehicle #1 #1 at the the time of the the accident." See Opp'n accident." See Opp'n at

3. These questions are at best speculative speculative and they do not explain explain to to the the Court Courtwhy why Plaintiff"cannot Plaintiff "cannot

present facts facts essential essential to to justify justify [his] [his] position." position."

In addition, addition, the Cou rt isis unpersuaded the Court u npersu aded by by Plaintiffs Plaintiffs claim that summary claim that mmary judgment dgment is is

premature because because "[d]iscovery "[d]iscovery has not commenced." Opp'n at 5. The Supreme Court of Guam Guam

addressed this argument of Cruz, where the plaintiff contended argument in Estate of contended that"[ s]ummary judgment that "[s]ummary judgment

begun." Id. 1],r 18. The is inappropriate before discovery has begun." The Supreme Supreme Court rejected rejected that contention, contention,

reasoning that reasoning that the the plaintiff plaintiff had had more more than than four fou r months' notice of the months' notice motion for the motion for summary mmary

judgment-timesufficient judgment-time sufficientoto"at "atleast least [begin] [begin] the discovery." Id. the commencement of discovery." Id The The Supreme Supreme

Court therefore therefore affirmed affirmed summary summary judgment judgment in the the defendant's defendant's favor. favor.

The same reasoning reasoning applies applies here. here. USAA USAA filed its its Motion Motion on May 9, 2025. on May 1. See Mot. at 1. 2025. See

hearing was held on October The hearing October 2, 2, 2025. Entry (Oct. 2025. See Min. Entry (Oct. 2, 2025). 2025). Nearly five months Nearly five months

4 The Guam 4The Guam Rules Rules of of Civil Procedure were Civil Procedure were amended amended in in 2022 to reorganize 2022 to reorganize RuleRule 56. 56. Former Former Rule Rule 56(f), 56(f), governing governing requests for additional requests for additional discovery when facts discovery when facts are are unavailable, unavailable, isis now now Rule 56(d). See In Rule 56(d).See Inre S'holder Litig., Inc. S'holder PHC, Inc. rePHC, Litig., 762 F.3d 762 138, 143 F.3d 138, 143(1st (let Cir. 2014) ('"Rule Cir. 2014) 56(d) was ("'Rule 56(d) was formerly formerly Rule Rule 56(t),' and 'the 56(f),' and between current differences between textual differences 'the textual current Rule 56(d) and Rule 56(d) and former former Rule Rule56(1) 56(f) are are purely purely stylistic."'). Sincethe stylistic."'). Since amendments were theamendments were organizational; the substantive organizational, the substantive standards applied in Estate of Cruz v. Detry Corp. remain controlling. standards applied inEstate of Cruz v. Delay Corp.remain controlling. 8 8 DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDERGRANTING GRANTINGUSAA'S USAA'S MOTION MOTIONFOR FORSUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT JUDGMENT CV005I-25; v. Lillis, CV0051-25; Carter v. Lillie, et al.

elapsed elapsed between between the filing tiling of Motion and the of the Motion the hearing. hearing. As As in Estate Estate of of Cruz, this period afforded

Plaintiff ample opportunity to conduct discovery into the issues raised.55 Plaintiff

CO NCLU IO CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Defendant USAA's USAA's Motion for for Summary Summary

Judgment.

SO ORDERED this 3pt SO ORDERED 31" day of of December, 2025. 2025. - -~::--.~~ ~ .. ,.::.··,---=-·· . ::;·::. .

HO BEE 1] GUTI EZ Jud Superior Eoullt bf Guam

5 The Court 5 The Court further further notes notes that that Plaintiff Plaintiff was was on on notice of the notice of insurance coverage the insurance issue as coverage issue as early early as as February February 12, 12, 2025 2025.. See Deel. See Decl. ofof Mitchell Mitchell F. F. Thompson Thompson at at l1 (USAA (USAA counsel counsel "advised "advised [Plaintiffs counsel] that [Plaintiff's counsel] that USAA USAA had not issued had not issued an an insurance policy that insurance policy that was in effect was in effect at at the the date date and and time time ofof the motor vehicle the motor accident which vehicle accident which is is the the subject subject of this of this action."); see action."), see also also id., Ex. A id, Ex. A (letter (letter from from Attorney Attorney Thompson Thompson to to Attorney Attorney Perez dated February Perez dated February 14, 2025 "regarding 14, 2025 "regarding the lack of the lack of insurance insurance coverage coverage ofof Defendant Defendant Marc Marc A. Lillis."). Additionally, A. Lillis."). Additionally, although although Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Opposition Opposition was was originally due originally due on on June June 6,6, 2025, 2025, the the parties parties stipulated stipulated to to extend the deadline extend the deadline by by one one week, week, at at the the request request of of counsel counsel for for Plaintiff. See Stip. Plaintiff. See Stip. to to Extend Extend Briefing Briefing Dates Dates (Jun. (Jun. 10, 10, 2025). 2025). 9 9