In re Estate of Maruyama

Opinion

ORIGINAL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 In the Matter of the Estate ) 4 ) 5 of ) ) Decision and Order 6 MASATAKA MARUYAMA, ) Re: Motion for Reconsideration 7 ) Deceased. ) 8

10 INTRODUCTION II

12 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on June 1, 2012. 13 Tricia Torres Candoleta, the prior Administratix of the above-captioned estate, was represented 14 by Attorney Wayson W.S. Wong. Tamio S. Clark, Administrator of the above-captioned estate, 15

16 was represented by Attorney Kevin J. Fowler. After considering the matter presented, the Court 17 issues the following decision and order denying Mrs. Candoleta's motions for reconsideration. 18

20 On March 30, 2012, the Court issued a decision and order denying Mrs. Cando leta' s 21

22 first motion for reconsideration. Mrs. Candoleta asked the Court to (1) set aside any and all

23 findings, determinations and orders as to any fraud and/or embezzlement by Mrs. Candoleta in 24 the court's August 18,2009 order; (2) set aside the court's November 5, 2010 order assessing a 25

26 penalty of $236,000.00 against Mrs. Candoleta; and (3) set aside the abstract of judgment

27 issued by the Clerk of Court on February 14, 2011. Mrs. Candoleta again asks the Court to 28 reconsider the above findings.

Page 1 of2 ' ''') I ('- ; !. : r\ I ( ) ~\ I l; II \. :-\ L DISCUSSION 2 In filing this second, successive "Motion for Reconsideration," Mrs. Candoleta has 3

4 provided no authority for the proposition that multiple "Motions for Reconsideration" may be 5 entertained, and the Court remains unconvinced that successive motions pursuant to either Rule 6 59(e) or Rule 60(b) are authorized under the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure. 7

8 Furthemore, the assertion of issues already addressed or the advancement of arguments 9 which were otherwise available for presentation at the initial hearing may not be addressed 10

II under Rule 60(b). Merchant v. Nanyo Realty, 1998 Guam 26, '9. When a court has considered

12 all arguments and a motion for reconsideration merely reiterates those arguments, no relief may 13 be granted under Rule 60(b). Here, Mrs. Cando leta requests the Court to reconsider its previous 14

15 decisions. The Court however notes that Mrs. Candoleta has not brought forward any

16 arguments that were not available for presentation at the initial hearing or her first motion for 17 reconsideration. The Court also notes that Mrs. Candoleta's arguments in her second motion for 18

19 reconsideration, to a certain extent, reiterate her previous arguments. Therefore, the Court finds 20 that Mrs. Cando leta is not entitled to reconsideration. 21

23 Based on the foregoing, the court hereby DENIES Mrs. Candoleta's motions for 24 reconsideration. 25

26 SO ORDERED, this 7-- day Of---'"~~-A--,--,--,--,--_2012. 27 //J / 28

4~ ();WJ

f~J Wu