;¢,.s.»1.-I §"£;'l£3,; "QC'f*_;i~`\ 'f Vi? C~»£,E'2A
2f!25 Mff --6 .»6FrlFE·3:3;26 QYPZSWYI' 25 CLERK uP Cfél.-RT CLERK COURT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM ,3\';-~"·.------ =8T1C8-
DANIEL V. DANIEL V. LEON LEON GUERRERO, CIVIL CASE CIVIL CASE NO. no. CV0140-24
Plaintiff, Plaintiff; DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTIONS DECISION MOTIONS vs. TO DISMISS
THE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OFOF LAND LAND MANAGEMENT,JOSEPH MANAGEMENT, JOSEPH M. M. BORJA, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, SANDCASTLE, INC., SANDCASTLE,
Defendants. Defendants.
Defendant Sandcastle, Defendant Sandcastle, Inc., Inc.,moves movestotodismiss dismissPlaintiff PlaintiffDaniel Daniel V. V. Leon Leon Guerrero's
which claims lawsuit, which claims that that individuals individuals at at the the Department of of Land Land Management fraudulently
conspired to convey his father's interest in conspired in property property to toI&F I&F Corporation, who then sold this
property to property to Sandcastle Sandcastle via via aa quitclaim quitclaim deed. The Court deed. The Court determines determines that Leon Leon Guerrero lacks
standing to standing to file file this this suit suitand andhas hasalso alsofiled tileditituntimely. untimely.The TheCourt Courttherefore thereforeGRANTS GRANTS
Sandcastle's Motion Sandcastle's Motion to to Dismiss. Dismiss.
I. 1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Leon Guerrero Leon Guerrero filed filed an an Amended Amended Complaint Complaint against against Sandcastle and and DLM on October DLM on 2, October 2,
2024, arguing that that fraudulent fraudulent activities activities impacted impacted the thetransfer transferof oftitle titlefrom fromI&F I&F Corporation Corporation to
Sandcastle. First Am. Compo. Sandcastle. Comp!. at 77 (Oct. (Oct. 2, 2,2024). 2024). Sandcastle seeks seeksdismissal dismissal on on five five different
grounds arguing that that Leon Leon Guerrero: (1) (1) did did not not comply comply with service service requirements, requirements; (2) (2) lacked lacked
standing; (3) standing, (3) failed failed to state state aaclaim claim for for any any interest interest in in the theSubject SubjectLots Lots for for which which the Court Court can
provide relief, provide relief; (4) (4) filed filed his his claims claims outside outside the the applicable applicable statute statute oflimitations; and (5) failed to limitations, and
ORIGINAL @REGEE\HAL CV0140-24 DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER RE RE MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS Page2 Pa ge
adequately plead adequately plead fraud. fraud. Def. Def. Sandcastle, Sandcastle, Inc. 's Mot. Inc.'s Mot. Dismiss Dismiss at 1-2 1-2 (Nov. (Nov. 12, 12, 2024). 2024). The The Court
heard the motion motion on March 13, 2025, March 13, 2025, and took itit under advisement.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND BACKGRO
The following The followingfacts factsare areundisputed undisputedbased basedon onthe the pleadings pleadings and and declarations declarations presented presented to
the Court.
I. On 1. On March 14, 1929, March 14, 1929, Lot Lot No. No. 5078, 5078, Agana, Asana, was was conveyed conveyed to toVicente Vicente Aguon Aguon Leon Leon
Guerrero, Leon Guerrero's late Leon Guerrero's late father, father, under under the theCertificate Certificateof of Guaranteed GuaranteedClaim Claim No. No.
3123 (Instrument (InstrumentNo. No. 641). 641). Def. Sandcastle, Inc.'s Req. Jud. Not., Dei Sandcastle, Not., Ex. Ex. A (Nov. 12, A (Nov. 12,
2024). 1l
2. Lot Lot 5078 5078 was was then divided into several several parcels, parcels, one one of of which which was was Lot Lot No. 5078-5. No. 5078-5.
An August 13, An August 13, 1980 1980 Parceling Parceling Survey Map prepared for Map prepared for Vicente Vicente Leon Leon Guerrero
further divided further divided Lot 5078-5 5078-5 into into Lot Lot No. 5078-5-R 5078-5-R and and Lot. Lot. No. 5078-5-1- R/W No. 5078-5-1- R/W
(collectively, "Subject Lots"). (collectively, Def.Sandcastle, Lots"). Dei Sandcastle, Inc.'s Inc.'s Mot. Mot. Dismiss Dismiss at at 6. 6.
Therewas 3. There waslitigation litigationregarding regardingthe theSubject SubjectLots Lotsfrom fromSeptember September 30, 30, 1980, 1980, to to August August
1981, pertaining 5, 1981, pertaining to to aa mortgage mortgage ofreal real property with Clank International Co. and with Clank
Agnes S.E. Lee Agnes Lee (trustee (trustee for for Jadelynn Jadelynn L. L. Lee) Lee) as asMortgagors Mortgagors and andVicente Vicente M. M. Leon Leon
as Mortgagee Guerrero as Mortgagee for for aa debt debt of of$202,342.50 $202,342.50 secured by the the Subject Subj actLots. Lots. The The
litigation resolved litigation resolved through through a Cancellation Cancellation and and Release Release of of First First Mortgage Mortgage on Real Real
(Instrument No. Property (Instrument No. 322945). at 3, 322945). Id. at 3; Dei Def.Sandcastle, Sandcastle, Inc.'s Inc. 's Req. Req. Jud. Jud. Not., Not.,
Exs. B-E. -
1 Sandcastle 1 Sandcastle requested requestedthe theCourt Courttake takejudicial judicialnotice notice of of documents documents constituting constituting public public records DLM. IdId.atat2.2.Pursuant from DLM. Pursuantto to Guam Guam Rule RuleofofEvidence Evidence20l(b), 20l(b),the the Court Court grants grants judicial judicial notice of the exhibits of exhibits attached attached to this this request.
ORIGINAL CV0l40-24 CV0140-24 DECISION AND ORDER ORDER RE RE MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS Page Pag 3 e 3
4. On 4. On February February 1, I, 1982 1982 Vicente Leon Guerrero Vicente Leon Guerrero transferred transferred the Subject Subject Lots Lots to to Jaung Jaunt
Gin Rice Gin Riceand and Virginia VirginiaE.E.Balajadia Balajadiavia viaaaWarranty WarrantyDeed Deed(Instrument (Instrument No. 326501) 326501) in in
consideration for the purchase consideration purchase sum sumof of $231,735.00. $231,73l5.00.Plaintiff Plaintiff Daniel Daniel Leon Leon Guerrero
signed this Warranty Deed this Warranty Deed as as attorney-in-fact attorney-in-factfor forhis father.Id., hisfather. Id, Ex. Ex. F.
5. On 5. On September September 12, 12, 1986 1986 Jaung Jaunt Gin Gin Rice and Virginia Rice and E. Balajadia Virginia E. Balajadiatransferred transferred the the
Subject Lots Subject Lots to to Furusawa Fumsawa Investment Corporationvia vestment Corporation viaaaWarranty Deed(Instrument WarrantyDeed (Instrument
No. 375579). No. Id., Ex. 375579). Id, Ex. 1. I.
6. On 6. On May May18, 18, 1988 1988 Furusawa FurusawaInvestment Investment Corporation Corporationtransferred transferred the the Subject Subject Lots to to
I&FCorporation I&F Corporationvia viaaa Quitclaim QuitclaimDeed Deed(Instrument 398352). Id., (Instrument No. 398352). Ex. L. Id, Ex. L.
7. On 7. On July July 26, 26, 1988 1988 Jadelyrm L. Lee Jadelynn L. Leetransferred transferred any any interest interest she had in the Subject Lots Lots
to I&F Corporation via a Quitclaim I&F Corporation Quitclaim Deed Deed (Instrument (InstrumentNo. 401306). Id., No.401306). M. Id, Ex. M
Certificate of Title Certificate of TitleNo. No.68111, 68111, indicating indicatingthat that Jadelynn L. Lee Jadelynn L. Leeheld heldan aninterest interest in in the
Subject Lots, was canceled in in 1988, 1988, upon upon which which II & Corporation received & F Corporation received title in in
Certificate of Certificate of Title Title No. 83111. Id., No. 83111. S. Iii, Ex. S
On October 8. On October 19, 19, 1989 I&F Corporationtransferred I&F Corporation transferred the the Subject Subject Lots Lots to Sandcastle via a
Quitclaim Deed Quitclaim Deed (InsMment (InstrumentNo. No.424558) 424558)ininconsideration for the sum of consideration for of
Id., Ex. $3,633,368.00. ld., N.. Ex. n
III. 111. LAW AND DISCUSSION C IO
Sandcastle moves for for dismissal dismissal under Guam Guam Rules of Civil Rules of CivilProcedure Procedure12(b)(1) 12(b)(l) and and (6)
of jurisdictionover for lack ofjurisdiction overthe thesubject subjectmatter, matter, insufficiency insufficiencyofofprocess, process, and and failure failure to to state state a
claim upon claim upon which which relief reliefcan can be be granted, granted, respectively. respectively. For For motions brought under under Rule Rule 12(b)(6), l2(b)(6),
the Court Court accepts well-pleaded facts as well-pleaded facts as true, true, construes the the pleadings pleadings in a light favorable to light favorable to the
plaintiff, and plaintiff, and resolves resolves all doubts doubts in in the Cruz v. the non-movant's favor. Cruz v. Cruz, 2023 2023 Gu Guam 20 11 a 20 ,i 10.
5 ORIG!t~AL \
U @Hal\ t | I I
CV0140-24 DECISION AND ORDER DECISION AND ORDER RE RE MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS Page4 Pa ge
The parties do not offer offer aa standard standard to to view the allegations view the allegations under under aa jurisdictional attack under jurisdictional attack under
Rule l2(b)(l), Rule 12(b)(l);thus, thus,the theCourt Courtapplies appliesthe the general general federal federal standard standard that thataaRule Rule 12(b)(l) l2(b)(1) motion motion
should be should granted if be granted if it appears appears certain certain that thatthe theplaintiff cannot prove plaintiff cannot prove any any set setof of facts factsentitling entitling him him
th See Wagstaffv. to relief. See Wagsmjfv. US. Dept. ¢2fEduc., US Dept. 663 (5 ofEduc., 509 F.3d 661,663 (5"' Cir. Cir. 2007).
A. The Courtfinds The Court finds there there are grounds toto dismiss dismissLeon LeonGuerrero's Guerrero's Complaint Complaint for lack of lack of subject matter matter jurisdiction. jurisdiction.
To have standing To have standing for for aa quiet quiet title title action, action, the the moving movingparty party must must have have an an interest interest in in the 2 property. Chao property. Inc. v. Chen, 141 Chao Fun, Inc. 141 Cal. Cal. Rptr. Rptr. ad 3d 381, 381,389 389 (Ct. (Ct. App. App. 2012).2 Sandcastle
argues that that Leon Guerrero does Leon Guerrero does not not have have standing standing for for aa quiet quiet title title action action and as such and as such his
complaint should complaint should be be dismissed dismissed under under Rule 12(b)( 1)given Rule l2(b)(1) giventhat that standing standing is is aa threshold
jurisdictional matter. jurisdictional Guam Imaging matter. Guam Imaging Consultants, Consultants, Inc. Inc. v. Guam Mem Mem 'I'l Hosp. Hosp. Auth., 2004 2004 Guam Guam
15 ~1]7. 7. Leon Guerrero asserts Leon Guerrero asserts that he he has has standing standing as asan anheir heirof ofhis hisfather fatherVicente Vicente Leon Leon
Guerrero. Resp. Guerrero. Resp. in Opp'nto in Opp'n to Def.'s Def.'s Mot. Mot.Dismiss Dismissatat25. 25. Sandcastle Sandcastleresponds responds that that Leon Guerrero
standing as his late father does not have standing father "transferred "transferred away all interest interest he had in the property
through a warranty warranty deed deed in in 1982" and that l982" and that regardless, Leon Leon Guerrero does not allege to be acting
in aa representative in representative capacity capacity for for his his late late father. father. Def. Defy Sandcastle, Sandcastle,Inc.' s Mot. lnc.'s Mot. Dismiss at 8-9. Dismiss at
For aa person For person to to have have an an interest in property, he cannot have transferred away the entirety
of their interest. Jacobsen v. of their v. Aurora Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 661 Fed.Appx. Loan Serve., Fed.Appx. 474, 474,476 (9th Cir. 2016).
WhileLeon While LeonGuerrero Guerreromight mightbe bean an heir heir to to his his late late father's father's estate, estate, Vicente Vicente Leon Leon Guerrero
transferred the transferred entirety of the entirety of his his interest interestin inthe theSubject SubjectLots Lots through throughInstrument InstrumentNo. No.326501. 326501. Once Once
this interest interest was was transferred, transferred, Vicente Vicente Leon Guerrero no Leon Guerrero no longer longerhad had standing as it related to the standing as
2 2 21 GCA 21 GCA §§ 25101 25101 details details that that a quiet title action can be brought against against another another who who claims claims an interest in property that is is adverse adverse to to them. them. The Court interprets The Court interprets this to mean mean that under under Guam Guam law both law both parties parties must must claim claiman an interest interest in in the the property property for for adequate adequate standing to exist.
El; *»\ ORIGINt\L t CV0140-24 DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER RE RE MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS PPage 5 age 5
Subject Lots. Subject Accordingly,his Lots. Accordingly, alsodoes sonalso hisson doesnot nothave have sufficient sufficientstanding standing to to bring bring an an action action to to
quiet title. quiet title. The Court therefore thereforeGRANTS Sandcastle's Motion GRANTS Sandcastle's Motionto to Dismiss Dismissunder under Rule Rule 12(b)(1) 12(b)(l) a
for lack for of standing lack of standing leading leading to to lack lack of ofsubject subject matter matter jurisdiction. jurisdiction.
B. Th B. The Court finds e Cou finds there there are are grounds to dismiss grounds to dismiss Leon Leon Guerrero's Guerrero's Complaint Complaint for for failure to to state state aa claim claim upon upon which relief relief can be granted.
Next the Next the Court Court assesses assesses Sandcastle's Sandcastle's claim claim that thatLeon Leon Guerrero's Guerrero's Complaint Complaint should be
dismissed under Rule dismissed l 2(b )( 6) for Rule l2(b)(6) forfailure failureto to state state a claim upon which claim upon which relief reliefcan canbe be granted. granted.
Sandcastle argues Sandcastle argues that thatLeon Leon Guerrero's Guerrero's claim should be claim should be dismissed dismissed under under Rule Rule 12(b)(6) 12(b)(6) because because
he fails he fails to to state state a claim claim to title and his claims claims are are time-barred.
1. 1. Lackof Lack ofInterest Interest
Under Rule Under Rule12(b)(6) l 2(b)(6) aa complaint complaintmay maybe be dismissed dismissed"if "ifititappears appears beyond beyonddoubt doubtthat that the
[non-moving party] [non-moving party] can can prove prove no no set of facts set of facts in in support of of his his claim claim which which would entitle him to
rrelief." v. Calvo l i e f Taitano v. Calve Finance Finance Corp., 2008 Guam 12 1219. 1] 9. Sandcastle Sandcastle argues that that when when
recorded chain of considering the full recorded title, Sandcastle of title, Sandcastle is the the superior title title holder. Further it holder. Further
argues that argues Sandcastle is that Sandcastle is aa bona bona fide fide purchaser purchaser and and is is protected protected under underthe theRegistration Registration law. law.
The Court has The Court has reviewed reviewed how how Leon LeonGuerrero Guerrero lacks lacks standing standing to to bring bring this this claim as he, claim as he, and
his late his late father, father, no no longer have an interest interest in in the the Subject SubjectLots. The same Lots. The same facts facts that that the the Court Court
considered in considered in arriving arriving at at that that determination are used in determination are in the the Court's determination that Court's determination that Sandcastle
the superior title is the title holder. of title shows chain of holder. The chain shows that that Vicente Leon Leon Guerrero Guerrero transferred transferred the
entirety of his interest interest in in the the Subject SubjectLots. Lots. Def. Sandcastle, Sandcastle, Inc. 's Req. Inc.'s Req. Jud. Jud. Not., Not., Ex. Ex. F.
Because this interest was transferred, transferred, Leon Guerrero does Leon Guerrero does not not have have an an adequate adequate interest to
support his his quiet quiet title title claim. The chain claim. The of title chain of title is is documented through records records at at DLM and DLM and
illustrates that Sandcastle holds illustrates entirety of holds the entirety of the the interest interestin in the theSubject SubjectLots. Lots. Def. Sandcastle,
\ J CV0140-24 AND ORDER DECISION AND ORDER RE RE MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS Page 6 Pa
3 Inc.'s Req. Inc.'s Req. Jud. Jud. Not., Not., Ex. Ex. N. LeonGuerrero's N. Leon Guerrero'slack lackofofinterest interestsubjects subjectsthis this case case to to dismissaLs dismissal.
2. 2. Time-Bar Under Time-Bar Underthe the Statute Statute of of Limitations
Next, the Next, the Court Court assesses assesses Sandcastle's argument that thatLeon Leon Guerrero's Guerrero's claims are time claims are
barred by barred by the statuteof the statute oflimitations. Under Rule limitations. Under Rule l2(b)(6), 12(b)(6),ififaacomplaint complaintisisbarred barredby bythe the statute statute
of limitations, of limitations, the the complaint complaint may may be be dismissed dismissed as as there there is a failure failure to to state stateaaclaim claim upon upon which which
relief can relief can be be granted. granted. Levy v. Paramount Levy v. 104 F. Supp. Paramount Pictures, 104 Supp. 787, 787, 788-89 788-89 Q\I.D. (N.D. Cal. 1952); Cal. 1952),
Cruz v. Cruz Cruz, 2023 Guam v. Cruz, Guam 20 20 1141 'II 41 (citing Amsden v. Yamon, 1999 Gu (citing Amsden Guam a 141112). 12). 'II There There is a three-year three-year statute statuteoflimitations of limitations for for claims grounds of claims brought on the grounds of fraud Eaud or
mistake and mistake and there there is is aa five-year five-year statute statuteof oflimitations limitations for for claims claims to recover possession possession of real real
property for seizin. property for seizin. 77 GCA GCA § § 1l305(d), l 1305(d); 7 GCA §§ 11205. 11205. Relative Relative to to fraud, fraud, the statute of the statute of
limitations limitations begins begins at discovery of at the discovery of the the alleged alleged facts factsconstituting constitutingthe thefraud. fraud.77GCA GCA § l1305(d). 1305(d).
When aa complaint When complaintshows showson onits itsface face that that the the applicable statutes of applicable statutes of limitations bar the limitations bar
of action, cause of action, the the claimant claimant must must plead plead facts facts that show an excuse, tolling, or some tolling, or some other other basis
for avoiding avoiding the the statutory statutory bar. Amsden v. 1999 Guam 141112. v. Yamon, 1999 ,i 12. However, Leon Guerrero Leon Guerrero
mention any fails to mention any facts facts to to excuse excuse the the limitations limitationsbar. bar. Instead, Instead,he heargues arguesthat that there there isis no no statute statute
of limitations of on challenges limitations on challenges to to the the validity validity of a deed of a void ab initio for is void that is deed that for fraud. fraud. Hancock Hancock v. v.
Kulana Partners, LLC, 452 P.3d 371, Partners,LLC, 371,374 374 (Haw. 2019). The Court 2019). The Court however however notesthat notes-that the the
authority cited authority cited by by Leon Guerrero is specific specific to Hawai 'iand to Hawai'i and has has not not been been adopted by Guam.
Under Guam Under Guam law, law, the the relevant relevant statute of limitations statute of limitations for forfraud, fraud, even evenas as itit relates relates to to deeds, deeds, is three
3 Sandcastle 3 Sandcastle claims it is claims it is a bona fide purchaser; to the contrary, tide purchaser, contrary, Leon Leon Guerrero contends Sandcastle is not a bona bona fide fide purchaser purchaserbecause becauseitit"knowingly "knowingly participated participated in in the thewrongdoing" wrongdoing" and has has unclean unclean hands handsby byparticipating participatingininthe thecontract contractwith withI&F I&FCorporation. Corporation. Resp. Resp. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Def.'s Mot.Dismiss Dismissatat12, 12,15. 15.He Hefurther furthercites citesauthorities authoritiesthat thatstate state that that bona bona tide fide purchasers purchasers do not have protected not protected interests interestswhen when aadeed deedisisaaforgery forgeryand andvoid voidab abinitio. initio. Id. at 42. The Id at The Court it isis unnecessary finds it unnecessary to engage in a determination of Sandcastle's determination of Sandcastle's status status as a bona bona fide fide purchaser given given that Leon Guerrero has Leon Guerrero has no no interest interest that can can be be impacted impacted by by this this determination. determination.
/L CV0140-24 DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER RE RE MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS PPage 7 age 7
years. Taitano, 2008 years. Taitano, 2008 Guam Guam1] '1144; Burkhart v. 44, Burkhart v. Miranda, Miranda, 2013 2013 Guam ,i 25. As Guam 22 1]25. As established established by
the Guam Supreme the Supreme Court this statute Court this statute of of limitations limitations begins to to run run when when the the"claimant, "claimant, exercising exercising
as reasonable diligence, reasonable obtains information diligence, obtains information that that would would put put aa reasonable reasonable person person on on inquiry. inquiry."
Burkhart, E ,i Guam 22 1]26. l k h a r t 2013 Guam
The deed conveying The deed conveying the the Subject SubjectLots Lots from fromVicente Vicente Leon Leon Guerrero Guerrero to to Rice Rice and and Balajadia Balajadia
was executed was executed and andrecorded recordedinin1982---over 42 years 1982-over 42 years ago. The deed ago. The deed conveying the the Subject Lots Lots
from I&F from Corporationtoto Sandcastle I&F Corporation Sandcastle was was executed executed and and recorded in 1989-over recordedin 35 years 1989-over 35 years ago. ago.
Sandcastle argues Sandcastle argues that the the recorded recorded instruments instruments are mattersof are matters ofpublic public record record and, and, as as such, such,Leon Leon
of all Guerrero had adequate notice of all facts facts for for over over35 35 years, years, far far beyond beyond the the three-year three-year statute statute of of
Def. Sandcastle, limitations. Def. Sandcastle, Inc.'s Mot. Dismiss Dismiss at at 11. 11. The The Court Court agrees agrees with with Sandcastle. Sandcastle. As
the Guam Supreme Court has has previously of the fraud does not previously held, discovery of not mean mean actual actual
knowledge, but knowledge, but rather rather "when "when a plaintiff could have plaintiff could have discovered discovered the the wrongful acts acts with reasonable with reasonable
diligence." Gayle v. diligence." Gayle v. Hemlani, Hemlani, 2000 2000 Guam 25 ,i1[25. Guam 25 25. Leon Guerrero could Leon Guerrero could have have discovered discovered the the
allegedly fraudulent allegedly fraudulent acts acts with reasonable reasonable diligence diligence over over 35 years ago ago when the the records records were were
recorded with recorded with DLM and made DLM and made public. public. The The Court Court GRANTS Sandcastle's Motion GRANTS Sandcastle's to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss
under Rule under as Leon l 2(b)( 6) as Rule I2(b)(6) LeonGuerrero's Guerrero's claims claimsare aretime-barred time-barred by by the the relevant relevant statute statute of of
limitations. 4 1imitations.4
Iv. IV- CONCLUSION C L U S I N AND ORDER
The Court The Court finds finds that that Leon LeonGuerrero Guerrerodoes does not not have have an an interest interest in the the Subject Lots, Lots, and
filed an untimely filed untimely action. action. Thus, Thus, the theCourt CourtGRANTS Sandcastle's Motion GRANTS Sandcastle's to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss under Guam
4 Given that the Court has established that Leon Guerrero does not have adequate standing to 4 Given that Court has Leon Guerrero does not have adequate to bring this bring this claim claim and and has has also also exceeded exceeded the the relevant statute statuteof oflimitations, limitations, the the Court Court finds finds it is unnecessary to unnecessary to engage in in his his theory theory of of the the case case as asto tofraud fraudand andififititwas wassufficiently sufficiently alleged, or address the address the incomplete incomplete .service ,service of of process issues.
UR ' L 7 i i CV0140-24 DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDER RE RE MOTION MOTION TO TO DISMISS DISMISS PPage age 8
Rules of Rules ofCivil CivilProcedure Procedure12(b)(1) 12(b)(l)and and (6), (6), with prejudice. 5 with prejudice.5
Because the lack of Because of subject matter matterjurisdiction jurisdiction affects affects Leon Leon Guerrero's Guerrero's claims against
OLM,the DLM, theCourt Courtextends extends dismissal dismissalto to Defendants Defendants Department Department of Land Management, its Director,
and the Government of the Government of Guam. Guam.
A Judgment Judgment of of Dismissal issue. 6 shall issue.6 Dismissal shall
... '< ~:v$;~. ORDERED,66May SO ORDERED, May2025. 2025. '*:\ _~_»_ f:~-
' '-. '~'.=.-
Hon*/ELyzE;;vr IRIARIE Judge, Supéljio_1 CQu;=t of=Guam ' .. . / j r - "
Appearing Parties: Appearing Parties: LeonGuerrero, Daniel V. Leon Guerrero, Pro se Plaintiff Pro Se Plaintiff MichaelA. Michael A.Pangelinan, Pangelinan, Esq., Esq., Calvo Calvo Jacob Jacob &&Pangelinan PangelinanLLP, forDefendant LLP,for DefendantSandcastle, Sandcastle, Inc. A. Guthrie, Chief Joseph A. Deputy AG, Chief Deputy Officeofofthe AG, Office the Attorney Attorney General General for for Defendant Government of Guam
5 5 Sandcastle Sandcastle contends contendsthe theCourt Courtshould shouldimpose imposesanctions sanctionsupon uponLeon Leon Guerrero Guerrero for for frivolous frivolous claims and claims and that that itit reserves its right to seek sanctions sanctions under underGRCP GRCP 11. TheCourt ll. The Courtrefrains refrains from making any malting any determination relevant to to sanctions sanctions absent absentan anofficial official motion motion from Sandcastle.
6 6 Leon Leon Guerrero has has filed filed other motions, motions, all all of which are now deemed moot. which are
- u 5; ,_'=