Chamorro Equities, Inc. v. McCurdy

Opinion

\ \ .

2 70''1 • 3

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 6 OF GUAM

7 CHAMORRO EQUITIES, INC., ) Civil Case no. CV0408-13 8 ) Plaintiff, ) 9 vs. ) 10 ) DECISION AND ORDER VIVIAN McCU RDY, LISA ULLOA, and ) II FEDERICK ULLOA, ) Defendants. ) 12 ) 13 ) VIVIAN McCURDY, WALTER D. ULLOA, ) 14 JUDITH E. OLIVER, and LISA ULLOA ) 15 ) Counterclaim Plaintiffs, ) 16 vs. ) ) 17 CHAMORRO EQUITIES, INC., ROBERT V.) 18 ULLOA, GERALD D. HARTWICK, ) KENNETH E. THOMPSON, PRISCILLA U. ) 19 HARTWICK, SHEILA M. MANALOTO, and) DOES 2-10, ) 20 Counterclaim Defendants, ) 21 ) ) 22 MEC, LLC., ) Intervenor. ) 23

25 INTRODUCTION

26 Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam, Intervenor's

27 motion for protective order was taken under advisement by the Honorable Judge Michael J. 28 Bordallo on August 5, 2014. The Intervenor, MEC LLC. (hereafter MEC), was represented by

Page 1 of3 attorney Joseph C. Razzano. Plaintiff was represented by attorney Mitchell F. Thompson. 2 Counterclaim Defendants Robert V. Ulloa, Gerald D. Hartwick, Kenneth E. Thompson, 3 Priscilla U. Hartwick, and Sheila M. Manaloto, (hereafter Counterclaim Defendants) did not 4 file any papers regarding this motion. After considering the matters presented, the Court now 5

6 issues the following decision and order DENYING as moot MEC's motion.

7 BACKGROUND 8 This case arises out of a March 29, 2013 complaint for the cancellation and collection of 9 several improper loan agreements, made between Plaintiff and Defendants. Compl. at 2-5. The 10 complaint seeks to void the loans and recover the amounts of the loans. !d. at 5. MEC asserts II an ownership interest in Defendant McCurdy's shares, dividends and rights to corporate 12

13 participation, Defendant McCurdy's collateral for the loans which is allegedly being held by

14 Plaintiff. It has accordingly been allowed to intervene herein. 15 On July 2, 2014, citing a July 3, 2014, scheduled deposition of MEC and rule 26(c) of 16 the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, MEC requested that, the Court enter and order barring the 17 July 3, 2014 deposition. Mot. at 1-2. In support of the request MEC asserts that through 18

19 stipulation it agreed to be deposed between the dates of August 25-27, 2014. !d. at 2. It argues

20 that the July 3, 2014 notice violates that agreement and would require MEC to cancel travel 21 plans and so cause it an undue burden. Jd. 22 Plaintiff filed its opposition to MEC's request on July 31, 2014. Mot. at I. While 23 Plaintiff argues that the issue has been made moot, the need to obtain information to oppose 24

25 MEC's injunction past, it also disputes that MEC has asserted sufficient specific verified facts

26 to support a finding of good cause. !d. It further asserts and argues that MEC has been less 27 than forthright in its assertions and making itself available to discovery. !d. at 2-6. 28 MEC filed its reply on August 13, 2014. Reply at I. In it MEC asserts that Plaintiffs

Page 2 of3 August 27, 20 I4, deposition of MEC has been re-noticed and that the issue is accordingly 2 moot. !d. at 2. It further details the specifics of the Parties' discovery agreement which was 3 strictly set to accommodate and comply with the Parties' travel schedules and the tight 4 discovery deadline. !d. MEC argues that Plaintiffs breach of this agreement provides 5

6 sufficient cause to grant the motion. !d. at 3-4. Lastly it argues that its filing of a motion for

7 injunctive relief did not justify Plaintiffs breach of the discovery agreement. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Citing U.S. Federal law the Guam Supreme Court has often referred to the 10 Constitution's federal court prohibition to rendering advisory opinions and limit to cases in II controversy. Maeda Pacific Corp. v. GMP Hawaii, Inc., 20 II Guam 20 ~ I9; In re I Mina' 12

13 Bente Sing'ko Na Liheslaturan Guahan, 200I Guam 3 ~ 12 (A "controversy" in this sense must

14 be one that is appropriate for judicial determination. A justiciable controversy is thus 15 distinguished from a difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character; from one that 16 is academic or moot). In this case the Parties both concede that the issue of whether a 17

18 protective order should enter prohibiting MEC July 3, 2014 deposition is moot. The Court

19 agrees, accordingly absent some further request, MEC' s motion is denied as moot. 20 CONCLUSION 21 Based upon the foregoing the Court DENIES MEC's request. 22

24 SO ORDERED, this / 'L- day of M{:> 25

26 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 27 I acknowledge that a copy of the original hereto was plactct In the CO)If\_box of: r ~ /~ 28 ~ufU~c lrrr.A:J

Page 3 of3