Macheche Plaza Development v. Chamorro Equities, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2 MACHECHE PLAZA DEVELOPMENT, ) CIVIL CAS~fb~Y193,9-:} ~QT 3 - c_,~, '; '\ '-/ ''-o/'\.-/t"Jl l. i ) 4 Plaintiff, ) ) 5 ) vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER 6 ) 7 CHAMORRO EQUITIES, INC., ) ) 8 Defendant. 9

10 INTRODUCTION

11 On March 5, 2012, this matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on 12 MPD Macheche Plaza Development ("MPD") Motion for Order Authorizing Deposit of Rents, 13 Discharge of Macheche Plaza Development, and for Attorney's Fees. MPD is represented by 14 Attorney Jon A. Visosky. Defendant Chamorro Equities, Inc. ("CEI"), led by the Walter Ulloa 15

16 Faction of CEI Stockholders, is represented by Attorney Rawlen Mantanona. Defendant CEI,

17 led by the Robert Ulloa Faction of CEl Stockholders, is represented by Bill R. Mann. The 18 Court now issues the following Decision and Order dismissing this action in its entirety and 19 denying MPD's Motion as moot. 20

22 BACKGROUND 23 On December 16, 2011, MPD filed Complaint for Interpleader and Breach of Contract. 24 On February 1, 2012, MPD filed Motion for Order Authorizing Deposit of Rents, Discharge 0 25 Macheche Plaza Development, and for Attorney's Fees. The Walter Ulloa Faction of CE 26

27 Stockholders filed an Opposition on February 20, 2012. The Robert Ulloa Faction file

28 Response to MPD's Motion for Order Authorizing Deposit of Rents, Discharge of Machech

Macheche Plaza Dev. v. Chamorro Equities, Inc. Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV 1936-11 Page I of 4 Plaza Development, and for Attorney's Fees, and Motion to Stay or Consolidate on February 20 2 2012. 3 DISCUSSION 4 MPD's Complaint asserts breach of contract and seeks the following relief: to interplead 5

6 or deposit the December 2011 and all future rents with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Guam,

7 be discharged from all liability, and receive reasonable attorney's fees and costs out of rents 8 deposited with the Court. 9 Title 7 of the Guam Code Annotated states that "[ a] civil action arises out of either an 10

11 obligation or an injury." 7 GCA § 1108 (2012). "An injury is either an injury to the person or

12 to property." 7 GCA § 1110(a) (2012). 13 The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. 14 Taitano v. Lujan, 2005 Guam 26 ~ 15 (citation omitted). "[T]he court may sua sponte raise the 15 issue of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss a case if no subject matter 16

17 jurisdiction exists." Mallard Automotive Group, Ltd. v. Us., 343 F.Supp.2d 949, 952 (D. Nev.

18 2004). "Therefore, a 12(b)( 1) motion must be decided before other motions, as they will 19 become moot if dismissal is granted." Orient v. Linus Pauling Institute of Science, 936 F.Supp. 20 704, 706 (D. Ariz. 1996) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and 21 Procedure § 1350 (1990)). 22

23 The Supreme Court of Guam has "held that a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to

24 hear a claim when a party lacks standing." Benavente v. Taitano, 2006 Guam 15 ~ 14 (citation 25 omitted). To obtain constitutional standing, a litigant must not only demonstrate an "actual 26 injury" but also that "the injury or threat of injury [is] both 'real and immediate,' not 27

28 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical.'" Guam v. Tennessen, 2011 Guam 2 ~ 19.

Macheche Plaza Dev. v. Chamorro Equities, Inc. Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV 1936-1 1 Page 2 of 4 Although the parties have not raised the issue of standing, the Court must sua sponte 2 determine whether MPD meets the constitutional standing requirements before considering 3 MPD's Motion. In the present case, MPD alleges that in forcing them to file this interpleader 4 action, CEI has breached the lease and caused them to incur damages. MPD alleges that they 5

6 were forced to file this action due to the conflicting demands and instructions by both CEl

7 factions. Therefore, they assert that due to these conflicting demands, they are unable to 8 determine how, or to whom rent should be paid. 9 The Court determines that MPD has not alleged any facts to show they have suffered 10 injury. CEI has not breached the lease, nor has MPD suffered any harm to any of its rights, 11

12 rights accorded by law or by contract. Based on the terms of the lease, there is no dispute as to

13 whom MPD should pay. Regardless of the outcome of the pending litigation concerning who 14 makes up CEl, MPD will still owe its rents to CEL The pending litigation concerning CEI does 15 not affect MPD concerning its rental payments. MPD has alleged no claim which is to be 16

17 resolved by this Court.

18 This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for failure of MPD to demonstrate an injury 19 that is concrete or actual, or an imminent threat of future injury. The absence of subject matter 20 jurisdiction precludes this Court from reaching the merits ofMPD's Motion. No attorney's fees 21 and costs will be awarded. 22

24 CONCLUSION 25 Based on the foregoing, MPD's cause of action is hereby DIMISSED for lack of subjec 26 matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, MPD's Motion is Moot given the Court's lack of subjec 27

28 matter jurisdiction.

Macheche Plaza Dev. v. Chamorro Equities, Inc. Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV1936-11 Page 3 of 4 SO ORDERED this-=:..:._.__ 2

3 HO ORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ 4 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

Macheche Plaza Dev. v. Chamorro Equities, Inc. Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV 1936-11 Page 4 of 4