a: !
_L"wQxgt
1 .e
_ii §:~!':Qn i | ol\* we i i *I §.!L.r;
*:J'i" G £5fi§'»-2
202% DEC--4"LePM 202~ DEC PM3:
3: ,5
,5 JI
CLERK CLERt{ OF
OF COURT
COURT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
JAPAN BUS LINES, LLC, CIVIL CASE CASENO.
no. CV0514-20
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
ORDER DENYING
vs. PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S H.1.s. GUAM,INC., H.I.S. GUAM, mc., MOTION FOR LEAVE
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This matter came This came before before the Honorable John JohnC.
C.Terlaje
Terlaje on October 22, 2024, 2024,for
for aaMotion
Motion
Hearing Hearing on Japan BusLines, Japan Bus Lines,LLC's
LLC's Second Motion
Motion in
in Liming.
Limine. Attorney
Attorney Joseph
Joseph C. Razzano
Razzano
appeared for Japan appeared for JapanBus BusLines,
Lines,LLC
LLC and
and Attorney
Attorney Phillip Torres
Tories appeared
appeared for H.I.S. Guam, Guam, Inc.
on the relevant law and Based on and authorities authorities the
the court
court now
now issues
issuesthe
thefollowing decision and following decision and order
DENYING DENYINGPlaintiffs PlaintiffsSecond SecondMotion
Motionin
inLimine
Limine and
and DENYING Defendant's Motion for Leave
File for to File for Summary Summary Judgment.
Judgment.
I. 1. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND BACK
On On March March 9, 2022, the court
2022, the court denied
denied Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Motion
Motionfor
forSummary
SummaryJudgment
Judgment regarding
the the fnlstration frustration of purpose defense. Mot.
purpose defense. Mot. in
in Liming
Limine to
to Exclude
Exclude Frustration
Frustration of
ofPurpose
Purpose Def. -J 33
Def. 1]
(2024). (2024). Plaintiff moved moved for
for reconsideration, and, on August reconsideration, and, August 16, 16, 2022,
2022, the
the court
court denied
denied the
the
Plaintiffs PlaintiffsMotion Motionfor
forReconsideration.
Reconsideration. Id
Idatatii,i4.4.On
OnJanuary
January 3, 2024,
2024,Plaintiff
Plaintiff filed
filed a Motion
Motion in
cv0514-20 CV0514-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SECOND MOTION IN Page 2 LIMINE AND DENYTNG DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE DENYING DEFENDANT'S
Limine, praying Liming, praying again again to
to exclude
exclude the
the frustration
frustration of
of purpose defense. Id.
purpose defense. 16, 2024, Id On May 16, 2024, the
court again denied this Motion. Dec. & Order Denying Denying Mot.
Mot. To
To Exclude
Exclude Frustration of Purpose Frustration of
Defense (May 16, 16, 2024).
2024). On September
September 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed Hled aa Second
Second Motion in Liming
Limine
requesting that requesting that the court prohibit the court prohibit Defendant Defendant H.I.S.
H.I.S. Guam
Guam from
from arguing
arguing that
that the COVID-19
the COWD-19
pandemic was the pandemic was the event event that
that frustrated
frustrated the contract purpose, purpose, rather
rather than
than governmental
governmental regulations
which came came as as a result of the
the pandemic.
pandemic. Plaintiffs SecondMot.
Plaintiffs Second Mot. in in Limine
Limine(Sept.
(Sept. 27,
27, 2024).
2024). H.I.S.
Guam filed its Opposition to this Motion on September September 30, 2024, and proceeded to file a Motion
Leave to File for Leave File Motion Motion for
for Summary
Summary Judgment on October October 14,
14, 2024. Amended Oppo.
Oppo. to
to
Plaintiffs PlaintiffsSecond Second Mot.
Mot. ininLiming
Limine(Oct.
(Oct.10,
I 0,2024),
2024); Defendant's
Defendant's Mot.
Mot. For
ForLeave
Leave (Oct.
(Oct. 17,
17, 2024).
Japan Bus Lines Japan Lines filed filed its Reply to H.I.S.
H.I.S. Guam's Amended Response Response on
on October
October 17,
17, 2024.
2024.
Plaintiffs Reply to Amended Plaintiff's Oppo. To Amended Oppo. To Second
Second Mot. In Limine
Mot. In Limine (October
(October 17,
17, 2024).
2024). The Parties
Parties
also discussed the Motion in Liming Limine at a Motion Hearing held on October October 22, 2024, at which which time
H.1.S. Guam brought
counsel for Defendant H.I.S. brought up two two cases
cases to
to support
support its
its position.
position. Plaintiff
Plaintiff then
responded to these cases cases by filing
filing aa Response with
with the
the court
court on
on October
October 29,
29, 2024. That same day,
Defendant prematurely prematurely filed
filed its
its Motion
Motion for
for Summary
Summary Judgment.
Judgment. This
This motion was opposed by
Plaintiff as as being
being premature
premature and
and was later
later withdrawn
withdrawn by Defendant. Therefore, Therefore, based on these
the outstanding
pleadings, the outstanding motions motions are
are 1)
1)Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Second
Second Motion in
in Limine
Limine and 2)
2) Defendant's
Defendant's
Motion for Leave to File for Summary Judgment, both of which which have received responses from the
opposing party.
The rrelevant substantive eleva nt subst a nt ive facts fa ct s regarding
r ega r ding Plaintiffs
P la int iffs Second
S econd Motion
Mot ion m Limine aand
in Limine
Defendant's Motion Defendant's Motion for for Leave
Leave to
to File for Summary Judgment Judgment are as follows:
cv05I4-20 CV0514-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SECOND MOTION IN Page 3 LIMINE AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
Thecontract 1. The contract atat issue issue ininthis
thiscase
caserequired
requiredPlaintiff
Plaintiffprovide
providetransportation
transportation services
services to
Defendant in exchange for Defendant Defendant paying an amount amount to
to Plaintiff
Plaintiff each month. Mot. in
Limine to Exclude Frustration of Purpose Liming Purpose Def. ,i (2024) (citing Exhibit "A").
Def 1]4 "A").
Thecontract 2. The contractbegan beganon
onApril
AprilI,1,2013,
2013, and
andthrough
through subsequent
subsequent extensions,
extensions, was
was set
set to expire
2021. Id.
on March 31, 2021. Id citing Exhibit Exhibit "B."
3. 3. On OnMarch March14,
14,2020,
2020,the
thegovernor
governorofofGuam,
Guam,pursuant
pursuant to
to 10
10 GCA
GCA §§ 19401,
19401, declared
declared aa state
state
of emergency of emergency for Guam Guam as
as aa result
resultofofthe
theeffects
effectsofofCOVID-19
COVID-19arriving on Guam.
giving on Guam. E.O.
2.20-03.1 Pursuant to 2.20-03 Pursuant to 10 10 GCA
GCA §§ 19405(b), this declaration l 9405(b ), this declaration of of emergency
emergency was
was set
set to expire
to expire
13, 2020. Thereafter,
on April 13, Thereafter, on on March
March 20,
20, 2020,
2020, the governor of Guam closed all nonthe governor
essential essential businesses. Id. at ,i1]4, businesses. Id. 4, 5.
4. Defendant Defendantclaims claimsthat
that on
onor
or about
about March
March 19,
19, 2020, the Guam Visitor's Bureau ("GVB")
issued a memorandum clarifying clarifying the Governor's Governor's Executive
Executive Orders, of Orders, stating in item 13 of
the memo that tour buses buses were
were not
not allowed
allowed to
to operate.
operate.Amend.
Amend. Oppo.
Oppo. To
ToPlaintiffs
Plaintiffs Second
Mot. Mot. 111 Limine, pg.
In Limine, pg. 7.
5. On April8,8,2020, OnApril 2020, the the Department
Department of
ofPublic
Public Health
Health and
and Social
Social Sen/ices
Services (DPHSS)
(DPHSS) issued
issued
2020-05, which provided further DPHSS Memorandum 2020-05, E.0. 2020-05.
further guidance on E.O. 2020-05. The
Memo declared declared that
that private
private transportation
transportation providers
providers providing
providing transportation
transportation services
services
necessary necessary for essential essential activities
activities were
were essential
essential businesses.
businesses. Mot.
Mot. in
in Limine
Liming to Exclude
Frustration Frustration of of Purpose
Purpose De£
Def.1] 5.
,i 5.
6. On OnApril April13,
13,2020,
2020, Defendant
Defendant informed
informed Plaintiff
Plaintiff that
that it was not willing to pay pay the
the full
full
amounts due under under the contract
contract despite, as Plaintiff claims, being ready, willing, and able
to provide transportation services.
services. [al
Id
CV0514-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DENY[NG PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SECOND MOTION IN Page4 Page
LIMINE AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION MOTION FOR LEAVE
OnMay 7. On May5,5,2020, 2020,Plaintiff
Plaintiffsent
sent aa letter
letter to Defendant
Defendant declaring Defendant Defendant in
in default of
of the
contract for failure failure to
to pay
pay the
the amounts
amounts due
due and
and requiring Defendant to cure the default by
May 20, 2020. Id.
rd. (citing Exhibit "E")-
"E").
OnMay 8. On May7,7,2020, 2020, DPHSS
DPHSS issued
issued DPHSS
DPHSS Memo
Memo2020-7
2020-7 declaring
declaring that
that shopping
shopping centers
centers
and mall operations may open upon the governor's declaration of Pandemic Condition of of
Readiness 22 ("PCOR Readiness ("PCOR 2"), 2"), which
which declaration
declarationoccurred
occurredon
onMay
May10,
I 0,2020. Id.atat~
2020.Id. 116.
9. On Ma 9. On May 20,2020, y 20, 2020, Defenda
Defendant had
nt ha notcur
d not cured theirbrbreach.
ed their ea ch. PPlaintiff formal issued aa for
la intiff issued
termination letter on May 27, 2020, 2020, to
toDefendant
Defendant and
and informed
informed Defendant
Defendant they
they would seek
contract. Id.
all amounts due under the contract. Id citing Exhibit "H."
II. 11. LAW AND DISCUSSION
A. Addressing
Addressing Misunderstandings of Court Decisions:
Misunderstandings of Decisions: Breach Breach and
and Contract
Contract
Purpose
It has become clear clear to this court through the recent recent filings
filings from
from both
both parties
parties that
that there is
some misunderstanding misunderstanding regarding regarding the
the Decisions
Decisions and
and Orders
Orders of
of this court on the points of whether
the court has declared that 1) Defendant breached the contract and and 2) the exact purpose
purpose of the
contract. Rather contract. Rather than than allow
allow this
this issue
issue to
to extend proceedings further, this court now clarifies the
meanings of of the previous Decisions.
On March 9, 2022, the court issued a Decision finding that the purpose of of the contract was
in dispute and that Defendant's failure failure to pay the April
April invoice
invoice constituted
constituted aa breach
breach of
of contract,
contract,
determine the damages
but did not determine damages resulting resulting from this
this breach.
breach. However, in the Decision Decision from
16, 2022, the August 16, the court recognized recognized that it had
had made
made an error in
in determining
determining that the purpose of
CV0514-20 DECISION AND AND ORDER DENYING
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION MOTION IN
[N Page 5 LIMINE LIMINE AND
AND DENYING
DENYING DEFENDANT'S
DEFENDANT'S MOTION
MOTION FOR LEAVE
the contract was in dispute, dispute, and
and found
found the
the purpose
purpose of
of the
the contract
contract to
tobe
be"to
"toprovide
providebus
busservices ...
services...to
transport HIS HIS customers on a shopping shopping tour."
Defendant makes the the argument
argument that
that the
the coir"r's
court's March 9, 2022 finding that the defendant
breached the contract no longer applies because the court identified the purpose of of the contract in
its August 16, 2022 2022 Decision
Decision and because Plaintiff violated that purpose purpose when
when it provided no bus
services after March services after March 21, 21, 2020.
2020. Amended
Amended Opposition
Opposition to
to Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Second Motion in in Liming.
Lirnine.
However, this is an However, an incorrect incorrect interpretation
interpretation of
of the
themeaning
meaning of
of the
the court's
court's second
second decision
decision regarding
regarding
the breach.
breach. The The court
court acknowledges
acknowledges that "[d]efendant's pleadings sufficiently raise genuine issues "[d]efendant's pleadings
of ma t er material f afactual ct didispute
sput over 11) wwhether het h t hthe
e c ocontract's
ntr a ct' principal
inc ip a l purpose
r p os e wa
was
substantially/severely frustrated, and substantially/severely frustrated, and 2)
2) whether
whether the source
source of that
that frustration
frustration was
was reasonably
reasonably
foreseeable." It is possible for the court to to recognize that the Defendant did breach breach the contract,
contract,
while acknowledging acknowledging that that the
the Defendant
Defendant may
may have
have aa valid
valid defense
defense of
offrustration
frustration of
of purpose. This
is what the court has done here. If If the
the court
court meant
meant to
to retract
retract its earlier statement that Defendant
did did indeed indeed breach, breach, itit would
would have
have stated that in
stated that in the August August 2022
2022 Decision.
Decision.
Therefore, based on the previous previous Decisions
Decisions and
and Orders
Orders in
in this
this case, this court now clarifies
that these decisions should be interpreted to mean that 1) Defendant Defendant breached
breached the
the contract,
contract, but this
does not preclude them from bringing the defense of of frustration ofpurpose
lustration of purpose and and 2)
2) the exact purpose
of the contract was to of to "provide "provide bus services...to to transport
transport H.I.S. customers on a shopping tour."
Plaintiff'sSecond B. Plaintiffs SecondMotion Motion in
in Limine
Limine is
is Denied
Plaintiff, Japan Bus Plaintiff, Japan Bus Lines, Lines, has
has requested
requested through
through its
its Second
Second Motion in Limine that that this
court court prohibit Defendant, H.I.S.
prohibit Defendant, H.I.S. Guam, Guam, from
from arguing
arguing the foreseeability foreseeability of the COVID-19 COVID-19
pandemic under under its its frustration purpose defense rather than frustration of purpose than the the foreseeability
foreseeability of governmental
CV0514-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFIS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION IN Page 6 LIMINE AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
regulations affecting regulations affecting its operations.
operations.When
WhenaaMotion
Motion in
in Limine
Liming is
is granted,
granted,itit"exclude[s]
"exclude[s] evidence
before the evidence is offered at trial, tal, onongrounds
grounds that
that would be sufficient to object to or move to
strike strike the the evidence."
evidence." Edwards
Edwards v.
v. Center
Centex Rea!
Real Estate
Estate Corp., 53 Cal.
Cal. App. 4th 15, (l997), see 15, 26 (1997); see
also Palmer, 2021 Guam55JrIt20.
2021 Guam 20.The
Thepurpose
purposeof
ofaaMotion
Motion in
in Limine
Limine is to prevent the jury jury from
hearing and hearing and therefore therefore considering
considering inadmissible
inadmissible evidence
evidence after that
that evidence
evidence is stricken from the
record. Id record. Id.
These parties and and this
this court
courthave
have previously
previously established what is required of of the Defendant
under the under the claimed claimed frustration
frustrationof
of purpose
purposedefense.
defense.To Defendant must To prove the defense, Defendant must 1)
1) show
that both parties parties agreed to the basic purpose of the contract, which which purpose
purpose has
has been destroyed by
supervening event; a supervening event, 2)
2) show
show the
the supervening
superveningevent
eventisis of
of the
the nature
nature that
that itit could not
not have
have
reasonably been foreseen and and that the
the frustration was so
so severe that it was not within within the
the assumed
assumed
risks risks present present in in the
the contract; and3)
contract,and 3) show
show the
the value
value of
of counter performance
performance for the party seeldng seeking
the defense defenseisissubstantially substantially or
or totally
totally destroyed.
destroyed. Palmer v.
v. Mariana
MarianaStones
Stones Corp., 2021 Guam 55 II'Jr 2021 Guam
31.
Plaintiff Plaintiffhas has previously
previouslymade
made the
the argument
argument that Defendant should should not
notbe
be allowed
allowed to bring
the the frustration of purpose frustration of defense because purpose defense because itit has has been
been disfavored
disfavored in other jurisdictions jurisdictions in the
context of of COVID-19.
COVID-19. In
Inone
oneofofthese
thesemotions,
motions, Plaintiff
Plaintiffquoted
quotedaaCalifornia
Californiacourt
courtas
as saying
saying that
that
"where aa government government regulation
regulation is
is not
not aapermanent
permanent prohibition
prohibition but
but merely
merely temporary,
temporary, the
the
commercial commercial frustration doctrine does frustration doctrine does not not apply"
apply" and
and that
that the
the COVID-19
COVID-19 "government
"government closure
closure
orders orders were temporary, temporary, which precludes the application precludes the application of aa commercial commercial frustration
frustration defense."
defense."
SVAP III III Pow ay Crossings, Poway Crossings, LLC LLC v.v. Fitness
FitnessInternational,
International, LLC,
LLC, 87
87 Cal.
Cal. App.
App. 5th
5th882,
882, 896
896 (January
CV0514-20 DECISION AND ORDERDENYING PLAINTIFF'S PLAINTIFF'S SECOND
SECOND MOTION IN Page 7 LIMINE AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION MOTION FOR LEAVE
20, 2023).
2023). Plaintiff Plaintiff uses
uses this
this argument
argument to
to attempt
attempt to
toconvince
convince the
the court
court that
thatDefendant's
Defendant's evidence
evidence
supporting its frustration frustration of
of purpose
purpose defense
defense is
is not
not only
only ineffective, but also also inadmissible.
As detailed above, Plaintiff now now makes the adjacent but slightly cent but slightly different argument argument that the
courtt must cour mus t separate epa r a t e the
t he issue foreseeability is s ue of t he for es eea bilit y of of the
he COVID-19
OVID-I9 pandemic
ndemic from
om tthe
he
foreseeability of foreseeability of governmental governmental regulations
regulations affecting
affecting Defendant's
Defendant's operations,
operations, and
and admit only
evidence and argument concerning foreseeability of concerning foreseeability governmentregulations.
ofgovemment regulations. Plaintiffsupports Plaintiff supports this
argument with rental caselaw from Illinois, Pennsylvania, and other other states. These cases, however, however,
are are not binding on Guam. Furthermore, they are are also easily differentiated from the present case
because they concern concern leases where
where one
one party
party still had use of the the property, and
and therefore
therefore the
the "benefit
"benefit
of the bargain." This case, in of in contrast, contrast, is
is about
about aatwo-way
two-way contract
contract where
where neither
neither party
party was
was gaining
gaining
anything from the contract during the shutdown.
Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff correctly asserts that Defendant Defendant has
has failed
failed to
to provide
provide persuasive
persuasive caselaw
caselaw showing
showing
the evidence of the that the the foreseeability foreseeability of the
the COVID-19
COVID-19 pandemic should be admitted. However,
gets to
this assertion gets to the thecenter
center of
ofthe
theproblem
problemwith
with both
bothparties'
parties' arguments:
arguments: binding
binding Guam
Guam caselaw
on whether whether or or not
not the
the commercial
commercial fhlstration
frustration defense
defense applies
applies to COVID-19
COVID-19 or government
government
regulations associated with it does associated with not yet does not yet exist.
exist. The
The Supreme
SupremeCourt
Court of
of Guam
Guam isis the
thehighest
highestcourt
coiN
in this Territory Territory and and the
the high court's
court's decisions
decisions can only be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
See 2004, 2004, H.R.
H.R. 2400
2400 (Pub.
(Pub. L.
L. 108-378) andSantos v. Guam, Santos v. Guam, 43 6 F.
F. 3 dd 1051
1051 (2006)
(2006) (confirming
(confirming
Ninth Circuit that the Ninth Circuit no no longer
longer had
had jurisdiction
jurisdiction over
over the
the Guam
Guam Supreme Court, which has since
only been subject to review by the U.S.
U.S. Supreme
Supreme Court).
Court). As such, decisions of of the present
present court
are only bound by the Guam Supreme Supreme Court
Court or
or the
the United
United States
States Supreme
Supreme Court,
Court, and not courts
in California, other state.
California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, or any other state. This court reiterates its earlier statement
CV0514-20 DECISION AND AND ORDER DENYING
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION MOTION IN Page 8 LIMINE LIMINE AND
AND DENYING
DENYING DEFENDANT'S
DEFENDANT'S MOTION
MOTION FOR LEA
LEAVE
that "[t]he law regarding this this issue in Guam remains remains unclear
unclear and
and undecided
undecided...
... [which is] [a]ll the
more reason for the commercial ii'ustration frustration defense not to be precluded, so that the Guam courts
system might make system might make its its own
own decision
decisionand
andprovide
provideclarity."
clarity." Dec.
Dec. &
& Order
Order Denying
Denying Mot.
Mot. to Exclude
Frustration of Purpose Defense (May 16, 16, 2024).
Under the Guam Rules of Evidence Rule 402, "[a]ll Under "[a]lI relevant evidence is admissible, except
as otherwise provided provided by
by the Constitution of the United States, States, by the Organic Act of Guam, by
by these Rules or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of Guam pursuant the laws of Guam, by
to statutory statutory authority." The court determines admissibility of of evidence based on these established
standards, and relevant relevant evidence
evidence is
is inadmissible only when there is a specific legal rule asserting
it cannot be heard.
heard. The only exception to this admissibility standard is found in Evidence Rule
403, 403, which states that evidence states that evidence may
may be
be excluded
excluded when
when "its
"its probative value is substantially substantially
outweighed by the danger of of unfair prejudice" (emphasis added).
added). While Plaintiff
Plaintiff has previously
made made arguments under 403, arguments under 403, itit has has not used
used this rule
rule in
in regard
regard to
to barring
barring evidence
evidence of the
the
foreseeability of of the pandemic. This court sees no reason under the laws of Guam or the decisions
of the the United United States States Supreme Court or
Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of Guam Supreme Court Guam that that evidence
evidence of the
the
foreseeability of the pandemic is inadmissible. Therefore, this court finds finds that it may be admitted
into evidence for the trier of fact fact to
to consider
consider and
and weigh,
weigh, along with all other evidence.
Additionally, the court Additionally, the court notes notes that
that this
this is the
the fourth
fourth time
time Plaintiff
Plaintiff has
has challenged
challenged the
the
admissibility admissibility of of Defendant's
Defendant's frustration
frustration of
ofpurpose
purpose defense, with the Court responding responding by
by allowing
allowing
the defense to to proceed.
proceed. The
The court
courtwill
willnot
notentertain
entertainany
anyfurther
furthermotions
motionsfrom
fromthe
thePlaintiff
Plaintiffregarding
Defendant's Defendant's frustration frustration of
ofpurpose
purpose defense.
defense.
CV0514-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SECOND MOTION IN Page 9 Page
LIMINE AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
C. Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motionfor
forLeave
Leaveto
to File
Filefor
forSummary
SummaryJudgment
Judgment is
is Denied
Generally, a party party is
is allowed
allowed to
to file
file aa motion
motion for summary judgment judgment at any time until 30
days after the the close
close of
of all
all discovery.
discovery. Guam
Guam Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(b). Under the Guam ). Under
of Civil Procedure Rule ll 6(b Rules of )(4), aa court 6(b)(4), court schedule schedule may
may be
be modified
modified "only for good cause
and with the judge's judge's consent."
consent." The
The court
court finds
finds that
that there is not good cause to allow the Defendant
to file for Summary Judgment Judgment at
at this
this point
point because
because there
there is
is not
not aa substantial
substantial reason to alter the
established court schedule.
The court agrees with Defendant's assessment assessment that
that the parties
parties have misunderstood misunderstood the
of this court regarding breach and the purpose of the contract in Decisions of in aa manner manner which could
impact evidence at trial.
trial. However,
However, rather than
than allow
allow Defendant
Defendant to
to file
file to
to Summary
Summary Judgment and
extend the life of
once again extend of this case, the court has has chosen
chosen to
to clarify
clarify these
these Decisions
Decisions in the present
Order, eliminating any good good cause
cause that may have existed existed to
to allow for
for such a filing (See
(See section A).
Granting leave to Defendant Defendant to file for Summary Judgment Judgment at
at this stage would be a waste
of court time time because because the
the parties'
parties' circumstances
circumstances remain
remain the
the same
same as
as they
they were
were when
when Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in in August
August 2022.
2022. At
At this
this time,
time, the
the court
court stated
stated that
that
"summary judgment judgment is is not
not appropriate
appropriate because several elements of of Defendant's
Defendant's frustration
frustration of
of
purpose defense remain purpose defense remain in material material factual dispute." Decision factual dispute." Decision and and Order
Order Denying
Denying Plaintiffs
Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Summary Summary Judgment.
A motion for summary judgment judgment may be granted
granted if
if the movant shows there is no genuine
dispute as to to any material fact
fact and
and the
the movant
movant is entitled to judgment judgment as
as a matter of law.
law, Guam R.
Civ. Civ. P.
P. 56(a). The pleadings and andthe
thesubstantive
substantivelaw
lawdetermine
determinethe
the"materiality"
"materiality" of
of particular
particular facts.
facts.
Anderson v.v. Liberty Anderson Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 US 242, 248 (1986). The court must must view
view the
the evidence
evidence and
and
CV0514-20 CV0514~20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SECOND MOTION IN 10 Page 10
LIMINE AND
AND DENYN~1G DEFENDANT'SMOTION DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONFOR FOR LEAVE
draw inferences inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
non-movant. Edwards
Edwards v. Pacific
Pacyic Fin.
Fin. Corp.
Corp.,, 2000
Guam 27, 7. If the 7. If the court court were
wereto
toallow
allowDefendant
Defendant to
to file
file for
for Summary
Summary Judgment,
Judgment, the
the Motion
Motion would
quickly be dismissed dismissed because
because there
there are
are still
still several
several material facts parties do facts that parties do not agree on,
which could could be be determinative
determinative in
inthis
this case, Inparticular, case. In particular, the the court
court draws
draws attention
attention to
to the
the parties
parties'
dispute regarding the interpretation of of government regulations for tour buses during during the
the COVID-
19 pandemic. Plaintiff claims claims that
that tour buses
buses were allowed to
to operate
operate essential
essential services,
services, and
Defendant Defendant claims that GVB had had completely
completely barred
barred tour
tour buses
buses from
from operating
operating at
at all.
all. Until factual
factual
questions like this one are no longer longer in question,
question, the only way
way to
to resolve
resolve this
this dispute
dispute is
is through
through
trial, trial, not not summary summary judgment
judgment motions.
Counterclaims D. Counterclaims
The court acknowledges Plaintiffs Plaintiffs request
request that
that the court order Defendant to identify on the
record whether it will will continue
continue to
to prosecute
prosecute its
itscounterclaims.
counterclaims.Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Reply
Reply to
to Amended
Amended Oppo.
to Second Mot. in Limine. The court therefore requests that the the Defendant
Defendant shall submit a summary
of status of of the current status of its its counterclaims
counterclaims within 10 days of this Decision.
/ I / I I/ I/ I/ I/ I/ I/ I/
CV0514-20 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SECOND MOTION IN Page Page III
LIMINE AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
III. 111. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the Based on the foregoing, foregoing, the
the court
court DENIES
DENIES Plaintiffs Second
Second Motion in
in Limine
Limine and
and
DENIES DENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motionfor
forLeave
Leavetotofile
filefor
forSummary
SummaryJudgment.
Judgment. At
At the
the resolution
resolution of
of these
these
motions, the court motions, the court is prepared to move forward prepared to forward with with trial.
trial. A11
An Order setting
setting out the
the Pretrial
Pretrial
Conference and the Trial and the Trial date shall sent out shall be sent outby
by the
the Court.
Court. Plaintiff
Plaintiffshall
shall submit
submit aa summary of
summary of
current status the current statusof of its
its counterclaims
counterclaimswithin
within 10 daysof
10 days of this
this decision
decision and
and aa Request
Request for
for a Jury,
Jury, if
if
desired.
SO ORDERED ORDERED . _l1_L--_(1--±__.__ Ur _ ____._,-=-20.c.=2'
2024. q -'-',4.
¢1<i>
Hon.( HON. l.AJE Judge, Sup rt of Guam