Honda v. Yoshida

Opinion

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 BARRY HONDA, 8 CIVIL CASE NO. CV1895-09 Plaintiff,

9 v.

10 DECISION AND ORDER

II LAWRENCE S. YOSHIDA,

12 Defendant.

l3

14

15 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 161h day of August,

16 2013, for hearing on the Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. Attorney Georgette Bello 17 Concepcion represented the Plaintiff with Attorney Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje on the brief, 18 and Attorney Thomas Tarpley represented the Defendant. On submission on the briefs 19

20 by the parties, the Court, for the reasons set forth below, denies the Plaintiffs Motion for

21 Reconsideration. 22 The Plaintiff requests reconsideration ofthe Court's grant of summary judgment in favor 23 of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs principal contention is that the court found a novation "sua 24 sponte" and that he had no opportunity to argue the question of whether there was a novation.

25

26 However, the Court's mere use of a more accurate legal term to characterize the circumstances

27 underlying the transaction is not enough to justify reconsideration. The Plaintiff had ample

Decision and Order Honda v. Yoshida, Civil Case No. CVI895-09

opportunity on summary judgment to make substantive factual and legal arguments about the

2 nature and character of the transaction, including the arguments he articulates in the Motion for

3 Reconsideration. The Plaintiff has not established any of the grounds on which reconsideration 4 is permitted by Rule 60 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure.

5 Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

6

7 AU 1

IT IS SO ORDERED this __ day of August, 2013.

8

9

10 ~~_Signed By: ~llfiTR R RARONAS

II HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 2 of2