- 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.
3
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.
4
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
5
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.
6
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
7
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).
8
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.
9
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).