FILED
SUPERIOR C URT
OP GUAM
1 7117! MAY26 P 2 r çj
3
4
5
6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
$
9 COMPADRES, iNC., CIVIL CASE NO. CV0539-20 10
11 Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER
12 vs. 13 JOY’S TAVERN RESTAURANT, SUSAN M.
14 LA ROSA, FORTUNATO P. GODOY, JR.
and FE N. GODOY, 15
16 Defendants.
17 INTRODUCTION
18 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on March 12, 2021, upon the Defendants’ Motion for A More Definite Statement (“Motion”) and Motion to Amend 9/16/20 20 Scheduling Notice. Defendants Joy’s Tavern Restaurant (“Joy’s Tavern”), Susan M. La Rosa, 21 Fortunato P. Godoy, Jr. and Fe N. Godoy (collectively “Defendants”) are represented by 22 Attorney Douglas Moylan. Attorney James M. Maher represents Plaintiff Compadres, Inc.
23 (“Plaintiff’). Having reviewed the pleadings in this matter, the Court issues the following 24 Decision and Order.
25 BACKGROUND
26 This case arose from a 3-year lease agreement (the “Lease”) between the Plaintiff and 27 Defendant Joy’s Tavern. Compi. ¶ 4. (Jul. 30, 2020). The Complaint alleges that Defendants
.
Civil Case No. CV0539-20; Compadres, Inc., v. Joy’s Tavern Restaurant, et at.
.
i Susan M La Rosa, Fortunato P. Godoy, and Fe N. Godoy personally guaranteed Joy’s Tavern’s 2 performance of the terms and conditions of the Lease. Id. at ¶ 5. The Lease required Joy’s 3 Tavern to pay Plaintiff the principal amount of $2,400.00 per month in rent with an escalation 4 provision, late fees, and common area fees. Id. at ¶ 6. The Lease also required Joy’s Tavern to 5 surrender the premises in good order, condition and repair. Id. Joy’s Tavern allegedly failed to 6 make payments in accordance with the Lease and failed to surrender the premises in good order, 7 condition and repair. Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff now claims damages in the principal sum of 8 $34,466.31, post-judgment interest at 6% per year, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and 9 further relief as the Court may deem proper. Id. at ¶ 8. 10 The Summons and Complaint were served on Defendants Susan M. La Rosa, Joy’s ii Restaurant, Fortunato P. Godoy and Fe N. Godoy on August 8, 2020. A Scheduling Notice 12 issued on September 16, 2020 required the parties to file a proposed Scheduling Order and a 13 proposed Discovery Plan by October 5, 2020. As mandated, Plaintiff filed the Scheduling Order 14 and Discovery Plan with the Court on October 2, 2020. Defendants filed an Objection to the 15 10/2/20 Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan on October 2, 2020, and Plaintiff filed a response 16 and declaration on October 8, 2020, to which Defendants replied on October 9, 2020. The Court 17 ultimately signed off on the Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan on October 20, 2020. 18 Defendants now have two pending motions before the Court. On October 19, 2020, 19 Defendants filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement claiming that the Complaint is too 20 vague and therefore does not allow Defendants to reasonably understand and respond to the 21 basis of Plaintiffs claim. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 12, 2020, and Defendants 22 filed the reply on November 30, 2020. On October 19, 2020, Defendants also filed a Motion to 23 Amend the 9/16/20 Scheduling Notice seeking to delay issuance of a discovery plan and 24 scheduling order until after the Court ruled on the pending motions and the Defendants filed an 25 an answer and counterclaim. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 12, 2020, and 26 Defendants filed a reply on November 30, 2020. Subsequently, a new Scheduling Order and 27 Discovery Plan was filed by the parties on March 10, 2021, and signed by the Court on April 28
Page2of9
.
Civil Case No. CV0539-20; Compadres, Inc., v. Joy’s Tavern Restaurant, et at.
e
1 12, 2021. A hearing on the pending motions was held on March 18, 2021, at which point the 2 Court took the matter under advisement. 3
4 DISCUSSION
5 I. The Court denies Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement because the breach of contract claim is not so ambiguous that Defendants cannot 6 reasonably frame a responsive pleading.
Rule 12(e) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[iJf a pleading to which 8 a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement 10 before interposing a responsive pleading.” See Guam R. Civ. P. 12(e). Such a motion must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. Id.
12 Rule 8 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure further provides that “[a] pleading which 13 sets forth a claim for relief.. shall contain.
. . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing 14 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Guam R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(a) “. . . mean[s] a 15 complaint need only provide ‘fair notice of what plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which 16 it rests.” Ukau v. Wang, 2016 Guam 26, ¶ 22.
17 “When interpreting the plain language of Rule 8(a), [the Guam Supreme Court] has 18 historically held that ‘Guam law requires only notice pleading, not fact pleading.” Ukau, 2016 19 Guam 26, ¶ 21 (citing Joseph ij’. Guam 3d. ofAllied Health Exam’rs, 2015 Guam 4 ¶ 9; see also 20 Guam Election Comm’n v. Responsible Choices for All Aditits Coal., 2007 Guam 20 ¶ 94; see 21 also Taitano v. Caivo Finance Corp., 2008 Guam 12 ¶ 13 (“Rule 8 requires only a short and 22 plain statement of the claim.”). Historically, Guam has only required “notice pleading’ of a 23 short and plain statement of the claim,” and the Supreme Court of Guam has declined to adopt a 24 heightened standard. Ukau, 2016 Guam 26, ¶ 29.
25 Here, Defendants assert that the Complaint is “vague and ambiguous,” and therefore 26 does not allow Defendants to reasonably understand the basis of Plaintiffs claim and damages.
27 Mot. for More Definite Statement at 1 (Oct. 19, 2020). The Complaint alleges that Defendant 28 Joy’s Tavern and Plaintiff executed a 3 year Lease. Compl. ¶ 4. Defendants Susan M. La Rosa,
Page 3 of 9
Civil Case No. CV0539-20; Compadres, Inc., v. Joy’s Tavern Restaurant, et at.
1 fortunato P. Godoy, and Fe N. Godoy are alleged to have personally guaranteed Joy’s Tavern’s 2 performance of the terms and conditions under the Lease. Id. at ¶ 5. The Lease required 3 Defendants to pay the principal amount of $2,400 a month per month in rent, to include an 4 escalation provision, late fees, and common area fees, and also required Defendants to surrender 5 the premises in good order, condition and repair. Id. at ¶ 6. The Complaint further alleges 6 Defendants failed to make payments in accord with its promise and failed to surrender the 7 premises in good order, condition and repair, requiring Plaintiff to restore the premises to good 8 order, condition and repair. Id. at ¶ 7—8. The Complaint alleged damages in the amount of 9 $34,466.31. Id. at 8. Attached to the Complaint were the Amended Lease Agreement and 10 Compadres Mall Rules and Regulations. 11 On September 25, 2020, Plaintiff additionally served its Initial Disclosures on 12 Defendants’ counsel. See See I. Maher Deci. ¶ 2 (Nov. 12, 2020). These disclosures set forth the 13 basis for the damages claim through numerous receipts and other documentary support for the 14 calculation of damages alleged in the Complaint. J. Maher Deci., Ex. 1. When considering that is the Complaint specified that the contract was breached due to failure to make payment and 16 failure to surrender the premises in good order, condition and repair; and that the Plaintiff also 17 provided 73 pages in supporting documents; the Court concludes that the Plaintiff provided 18 sufficient information to clearly set forth the basis of the damages claimed by the Plaintiff. 19 Defendants cite Patton v. Carison, 132 So.2d 793, 797 (Fla. 1961) to support their 20 argument that Plaintiffs must plead the complaint with particularity so that the Defendants can 21 understand the nature of the claim. However, Patton is actually quite distinguished. In Patton, 22 the court found that the motion for a more definite statement relative to the breach of contract 23 claim should have been granted; this is because the complaint failed to allege the oral contract 24 or any written contract between the parties, failed to set forth the terms of the contract, failed to 25 set forth the specifications involved, and contained no supporting exhibits. Id. at 794—796. This 26 rendered it impossible for the defendants to know the basis of the cause of action sued upon. 27 However, the case at bar is distinguished because Defendants’ counsel has specified the contract 28 at issue, attached it to Complaint, and specified that the breach stems from non-payment under
Page4of9
Civil Case No. CV0539-20; Compadres, Inc., v. Joy’s Tavern Restaurant, et al.
1 the terms of the contract and also failure to surrender the premises in good order, condition and 2 repair. Thus, Defendants know the basis of the cause of action, and also have the supporting 3 documents which serve the basis for the damages claim through the Initial Disclosures served 4 on the Defendants in September 2020. 5 Defendants also cite to Bush v. Bank of New York Mellon, 720 S.E.2d 370, 376-377 (GA 6 2011) in support of their argument that Courts have a separate interest in ensuring the complaint 7 is plead with particularity in the interest of judicial time and resources. While that may be true, 8 the situation in Bush is distinguished to the case at bar. In Bttsh, the plaintiffs filed an amended 9 complaint which consisted of 133 numbered paragraphs, asserted claims in 17 distinct counts, 10 some of which asserted multiple legal claims within a single count, and which were difficult to ii understand. Id. at 372—373. This is different from the current matter, which contains only one 12 breach of contract claim, and which clearly indicates that the breach is due to non-payment 13 according to the terms of the Lease and failure to surrender the premises in good order, 14 condition and repair. The alleged breach is neither difficult to understand, nor so vague or 15 ambiguous that the Defendants could not reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading. 16 Because the Plaintiffs Complaint clearly indicates that the claim is based on breach of 17 the Lease agreement, attaches the Lease in question, and specifies that the Lease was breached 18 due to failure to make payment as promised and failure to surrender the property in good 19 condition, the Court concludes that it is not so vague and ambiguous that Defendants cannot 20 reasonably frame a responsive pleading. Plaintiff also provided more specificity through the 21 Initial Disclosures provided to Defendants setting forth the basis of the damages claim. for 22 these reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement. 23 II. The Court denies Defendants’ alternative request to dismiss the Complaint for - failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 25 The Defendants alternatively request that should the Court deny the Motion for a More 26 Definite Statement, that the Court dismiss the Complaint under G.R.C.P. l2(b)(6) for failure to 27 state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “A complaint should not be dismissed for failure 2$ to state a claim unless ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
Page 5 of 9
Civil Case No. CV0539-20; Compadres, Inc., v. Joy’s Tavern Restaurant, eta!.
i support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Ukau, 2016 Guam 26, ¶ 26 (quoting
2 Core Tech Int’l Corp. v. Hanil Eng’g & Const. Co., 2010 Guam 13, ¶ 52). When reviewing a 3 12(b)(6) motion, the court must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-
4 moving party. First Hawaiian Bank v. Manley, 2007 Guam 2, ¶ 9. “Dismissal is appropriate 5 only when the non-moving party ‘can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 6 entitle him to relief.” Ukau, 2016 Guam 26, ¶ 51 (citing Taitano, 200$ Guam 12, ¶ 9).
7 Here, the Court is persuaded that when construing the pleadings in the light most 8 favorable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has provided enough evidence to show that it will likely 9 be able to prove facts in support of its breach of contract claim. This is evidenced by the Lease 10 attached to the Complaint and the Initial Disclosures consisting of 73 pages worth of documents 11 setting forth the basis for the Plaintiffs monetary claim through receipts and other documentary 12 support. This supporting documentation shows that the Plaintiff can likely prove facts to support 13 the damages claim. for these reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendants’ request to dismiss the 14 Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 15 III. The Court finds good cause to Grant Defendants’ Motion to Amend the 9/16/20 16 Scheduling Notice.
17 The issue is whether the Court should Amend the 9/16/20 Scheduling Notice, which 18 required the parties to file a proposed Scheduling and Discovery Order on October 5, 2020.
19 According to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 16, “[t]he judge must issue the scheduling 20 order as soon as practicable, but in any event within the earlier of 120 days after any defendant 21 has been served with the complaint or 90 days after any defendant has appeared.” See Guam R.
22 Civ. P. 16(b)(2). Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) further requires the parties to meet and 23 confer to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, and to develop a proposed 24 discovery plan. See Guam R. Civ. P. 26(f). Due to the COVJD-19 pandemic, the Guam 25 Supreme Court issued Administrative Order ADM2O-4l3, which additionally specified that, “all 26 filing deadlines — including statutory filing deadlines — shall be tolled from August 16, 2020, 27 until October 19, 2020, unless otherwise specifically ordered by the applicable court”
28 (emphasis added).
Page 6 of 9
Civil Case No. CV0539-20; Compadres, Inc., v. Joy’s Tavern Restaurant, et al.
i Defendants assert that pursuant to Administrative Order ADM2O-4 13, the deadline to 2 file the Scheduling and Discovery Order should have been October 19, 2020, rather than 3 October 5, 2020. However, upon a plain reading of this provision, the Court concludes that 4 ADM2O-413 specifically permits Courts to set independent deadlines, and therefore the proper 5 deadline to submit the Scheduling and Discovery Order was October 5, 2020. 6 In any event, Defendants argue that good cause exists to delay issuance of a discovery 7 plan and scheduling order until after Defendants file their answer and counterclaim. Mot. to 8 Amend at 2 (Oct. 19, 2020). Defendants assert that that they have been unable to file an answer 9 and counterclaim for a variety of reasons, to include the following: 10 1) Defendants assert Plaintiff’s Complaint is too vague 11 2) Defendants have yet to file an answer and have filed a Motion for a More Definite 12 Statement 13 3) Defendant Susan La Rosa was in the Philippines at the time the motion was filed and 14 it was difficult for her and her husband to travel back to Guam or access needed 15 documents 16 4) The island was in Pandemic Condition of Readiness (PCOR) 1, which may have 17 made discovery dangerous and/or difficult 18 5) The government shutdown of non-essential government services and non-essential 19 private companies may make obtaining documents difficult 20 6) Plaintiffs lawsuit is not urgent or exigent 21 7) The backlog of criminal cases have priority and warrant holding off on a firm 22 scheduling order until parties can more reasonably estimate cutoff dates and set trial 23 8) The pending Motion for a More Definite Statement will affect scheduling and 24 discovery dates 25 9) Defendants are unable to identify potential fact and expert witnesses and gauge how 26 long discovery should last given the allegedly vague nature of the Complaint. 27 Id. at 2—3. Defendants argued that prematurely setting dates could require additional 28 work and attorney’s fees. Id. at 4. Defendants also plan to file an answer and counterclaim,
Page7of9
.
Civil Case No. CV0539-20; C’ompadres, Inc., v. Joy’s Tavern Restaurant, et at.
i which pertains to Plaintiffs alleged breach of lease and conversion of property, and which may 2 result in an answer and third party claim. Reply to Opp’n to Mot. to Amend at 2 (Nov. 30, 3 2020). 4 Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that Defendants’ arguments are unsubstantiated by 5 affidavit or declaration, are vague and also pure speculation. Opp’n to Mot. to Amend (Nov. 12, 6 2020). For example, while Defendants contended that PCOR-1 would affect the ability to obtain 7 documents from non-essential government agencies and non-essential businesses, Defendants s did not indicate whether they sought documents, or from whom, or whether they planned to 9 request documents from government agencies or non-essential businesses. Id. at 3. Defendants 10 do not claim which documents are needed or their relevance to the breach of contract claim. Id. ii On September 18, 2020, Defendants’ counsel also noted that much of what is normally 12 conducted face-to-face can now be accomplished remotely through Zoom. Id. at 4. Plaintiff also 13 argues that the Defendants’ claim that adherence to the Court Scheduling Order and Discovery 14 Plan will force Defendants to pay additional attorney’s fees is not a valid basis to modify a court 15 order or delay the administration of this matter. Id. at 5. 16 The Court recognizes that these briefs were filed during PCOR-1, when the island was 17 in a markedly different health situation. As the island has returned to PCOR-3, quarantine and 18 other restrictions have relaxed, and many non-essential agencies and businesses have reopened. 19 Thus, many of the arguments set forth above are now moot. Further, the parties filed a 20 Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan on April 12, 2021. Nevertheless, given the island’s 21 evolving health situation, the uncertainties that may have resulted due to the pandemic over the 22 past year, and considering that Defendants have yet to file an answer due to the pending 23 motions, the Court finds there is good cause to amend the scheduling order. Thus, the Court 24 hereby GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion to Amend the 9/16/20 Scheduling Notice, and 25 permits the parties to file an Amended Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan within twenty (20) 26 days. 27
28
Page $ of 9
Civil Case No. CV0539-20; Compadres, Inc., v. Joy’s Tavern Restaurant et at.
1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby DENIES the Defendants’ Motion for a 3 More Definite Statement. The Court DENIES the Defendants’ request to dismiss the Complaint 4 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Finally, the Court GRANTS the 5 Defendants’ Motion to Amend the 9/16/20 Scheduling Notice, and permits the parties to file an 6 Amended Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan within twenty (20) days. 7
2
8 IT IS SO ORDERED MAY 52021 9
HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 13 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 14
15
16
17
18 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 19 copy of the onginal was emaiIed to:
13 A*Aj-J
20 / pV-
21 Date:
22 Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 9 of 9