Lujan v. Quinata

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

2 DAVID J. LUJAN. ) CIVIL CASE NO.: CV1472-07 3 Plaintiff,~

4 vs. ) DECISION & ORDER )

5 DEBBIE QUINATA and CORY QUINATA, )

)

6 Defendants.~

7 ---------------------------))

DEBTRALYNNE S. QUINATA, et. al., 8 ) 9 Counterclaim Plaintiff,l

10 vs. )

ll DAVID LUJAN ~ 12 Counterclaim Defendant.~

l3 On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration of the 14 Court's Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law issued February 4, 2013, requesting the Court to clarify 15 or reconsider its ruling at page 9, "C. Litigation Costs." Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant is represented 16 by Attorney Mitchell F. Thompson. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs are represented by Attorney 17 Curtis Vandeveld. No opposition was filed by Defendants, and the matter was taken under advisement 18

19 without oral argument by Senior Judge Pro Tempore ELIZABETH BARRETT-ANDERSON.

20 DISCUSISON

21 This matter came before the Court on concurrent jury and bench trials on the following dates:

22 July 12, 13, 19, 27; August 1, 2, 3, 15, 17, 22, 14; and September 6, 11, 13, 14 and 19. At the conclusion 23 of evidence presented before the jury, verdicts were returned in favor of Lujan, against Quinatas, on 24 counterclaims causes of action for willful trespass and nuisance. On February 4, 2013, the Court issued 25 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the matters presented at the bench trials, easement 26 appurtenant and encroachment, granting: ( 1) Lujan a permanent injunction by ordering The Quinatas 27 from obstructing or interfering with Lujan's access to the 1991 Easement for ingress and egress to Route 28

Page 1 of2

4; and (2) Lujan a permanent injunction, ordering The Quinatas to remove the encroaching portion of

their wooden structure from Lujan's Land and to return it to its prior condition within 30 days. Relevant 2

3 to this motion, the Court ruled "Under the American Rule, each party bears their litigation expenses,

4 including attorney fees. Guam Supreme Court Cases: Mobil Oil Guam, Inc. v. Tendido, 2004 Guam 7;

5 Fleming v. Quigley, 2003 Guam 4.

6 DISCUSSION 7 PlaintiffLujan has no objection to the Court's denial of attorney fees. Rather, he requests the 8 Court to reconsider a denial of costs in accordance with Rule 54(d)( 1) of the Guam Rules of Civil 9 Procedure. GRCP 54(d)( 1) provides:

10 Costs Other Than Attorneys' Fees. Except when express provision ll therefor is made either in a statute of Guam or in these rules, costs other than attorneys' fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party 12 unless the court otherwise directs 13 Lujan is the prevailing party in both actions herein. As such he is entitled to costs as a matter of 14 course. However, no evidence of a sum certain was presented in evidence at trial. There was no 15 bifurcation of damages at trial, therefore, the burden was upon Lujan to present evidence of costs at trial.

16

17 Nowhere in the record can the Court find evidence of an amount attributable to costs of litigation. In the

18 absence of proof of cost of litigation the relief was denied. The Court does not make a ruling on Lujan's

19 motion for reconsideration as his moving papers do not address this clarification.

\2~

20 SO ORDERED this day of April2013.

21

22

23

24 N Senior Pro Tempore Judge, Superior Court of Guam 25

26

27

28

Page 2 ofl