HubTech Int'l Co. v. Gov Guam

Opinion

FiLED

' , ' ,JiiOR COURT

GU"\M

:ffl!ll OCT I 7 Pii I: I 8 2

3 (.,, C' jUR-::::T r·-,v OEF (

AJ:h!\

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF G~:r:M- - - 5

6 HUBTEC INTERNATIONAL CO., a Guam ) Case No. CV 1358-12 corporation, )

7 )

)

8 Plaintiff, )

) DECISION AND ORDER ON 9 ) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR vs. ) RECONSIDERATION AND 10 ) CLARIFICATION OF DECISION )

II GOVERNMENT OF GUAM and JOANNE ) BROWN, in her capacity as Director of the )

12 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, and )

instrumentality of the Government of Guam, )

13 )

)

14 )

Defendants. )

15 ________________________________)

16 INTRODUCTION

17 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III on the Plaintiffs 18 Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of Decision on August 4, 2014. Attorneys John B.

19 Bell and Phillip Torres represent Plaintiff. Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Orcutt 20 represents Defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiffs Motion. 21 BACKGROUND

22 Per the Complaint tiled on December 10, 2012, Plaintiff presents claims for breach of

23 contract and quantum meruit. (Compl. ~~ 12-23.) The claims concern a contract between Plaintiff and Defendants pursuant to which Plaintiff was to perform road infrastructure 24 improvement; Defendants terminated the contract. (Compl. ~~ 3-11.)

25 On July 5, 2013, Defendants filed their Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims to 26 Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendants present counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud. (Sec.

27 Am. Ans. ,[~ 15-50.)

Decision and Order CV 1358-12, Hubtec v. Guam

On October 31, 2013, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment in which they moved for "summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims and for a partial summary 2 judgment on defendants' claims against plaintiff[, ... ] in the amount of$120,000 for breach of 3 contract." On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to Defendant's Motion for 4 Summary Judgment. On December 23, 2013, Defendants filed their Reply Memorandum in 5 Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.

6 On May 9, 2014, the Court issued its Decision and Order granting "Defendants' motion 7 for summary judgment with regard to Plaintiffs breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs quantum 8 meruit claim, and Defendants' breach of contract counterclaim."

9 On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of

10 Decision. Plaintiff contends that "it is unclear whether the [Court's Decision and Order] directly addressed or disposed of [Plaintiffs] claim for damages pursuant to the terms of the contract (as II opposed to quantum meruit) regardless of whether the contract was later properly terminated by 12 [Defendants]." Plaintiff further asserts that the Court's Decision and Order "did not clearly 13 address whether [Defendants] owe[] [Plaintiff] money for construction services rendered prior 14 to [Defendants'] termination of the contract." Plaintiff concludes that "[i]t would be manifestly 15 unjust to dismiss [Plaintiffs] damages claim based on any misunderstanding or conflation of the 16 issues" and Plaintiff accordingly seeks to "proceed to trial on the issue of damages owed to 17 [Plaintifl] for work performed pursuant to the contract before [Defendants] terminated it and for 18 which [Defendants] ha[ ve] yet to pay." 19 On June 16, 2014, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for

20 Reconsideration of Decision Granting Defendant Summary Judgment. Defendants maintain that the Court "properly dismissed Plaintiffs breach of contract claims[.]" In particular, Defendants 21 argue that reconsideration is inappropriate because Plaintiff "failed to present any evidence to 22 raise an issue of fact that it did not breach the contract[.]"

23 On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Motion for 24 Reconsideration and Clarification of Decision. Plaintiff argues that "[i]t is clear from the record 25 there are many triable issues of relevant fact and law which have yet to be fully and finally 26 adjudicated." 27

28

Page 2 of3

Decision and Order CV 1358-12, Hubtec v. Guam

DISCUSSION

Reconsideration is appropriate when 1) the Court is presented with new evidence; 2) the 2 Court committed clear error or its decision was manifestly unjust; or 3) if there is an intervening 3 change in controlling law. Rong Chang Company, Ltd., Inc. v. M2P, Inc., 2012 Guam 1, ~ 16 4 (quoting Ward v. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1, ~ 10). Rule 7(i) of the Local Rules of the Guam 5 Superior Court further provides that "[n]o motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat 6 any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion." 7 A review of the briefs submitted by the parties with respect to Defendants' Motion for 8 Summary Judgment as well of this Court's Decision and Order concerning the same reveals that

9 there is no ambiguity which merits clarification. The Court explicitly granted summary

10 judgment in favor of Defendants as to both of Plaintiffs claims; the Court also granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to their breach of contract claim. While Plaintiff II now attempts to expand on the nuances of its breach of contract claim, the fact remains that the 12 Court's Decision and Order addressed and disposed of the only two claims set forth by Plaintiff 13 in its Complaint, i.e., breach of contract and quantum meruit. Plaintiff likewise sets forth 14 purported factual disputes which merit full adjudication. The Court considered the presence or 15 absence of factual disputes in rendering summary judgment, and declines to entertain such 16 arguments anew. Reconsideration is inappropriate where, as here, none of the three factors set 17 forth above is met; a party may not relitigate matters already decided, whether through novel or 18 rehashed arguments. The Court, therefore, finds no cause to reconsider its Decision and Order

19 and denies the Motion.

20 CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration and 21 Clarification of Decision.

22

23 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of Octo be 24

25

26 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX HONORABLE ,· LAMORENA III 27 rt of Guam 28

Page 3 of3