. f; I•~ FlFf'! F1! -- ---
L;18 1l.}{i _;1,a;
COURT;
N : rT I 4 bSUPC:RiOH
SF Quell OF GUhM
ZUZSAUSZZ PM 25 ZN
cLEm CLERt{OF
OFCGURT
COURT
OF GUAM
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM awf-
JEFFREY s. MOYLAN, JEFFREYS. MOYLAN, AS CIVIL CASE CASE NO.
no. CV0760-16
ADMINISTRATOR ADMINISTRATOROFOF THE THE ESTATE
ESTATE OF
OF
RICHARD E.
E. MOYLAN,
MOYLAN,
DECISION GRANTING DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PlaintiWCounterclaim Plaintift7Counterclaim Defendant, MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT TORT CLAIMS JUDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS vs.
AXE AXE MURDERER MURDERER TOURS GUAM, ET AL., AL.,
Defendant/Counterclaimants. Defendant/Counterclaimants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND AND
THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS CLAIMS.
The Court considers considerswhether
whetherDefendants
DefendantsE.C.
E.C.Development,
Development,LLP
LLP(ECD)
(ECD) and Paseo.View
and Paseo _View
Properties, Inc.
Inc. (PVP) engaged in
in tortuous activitiesagainst tortious activities againstRichard RichardE.E.Moylan.
Moylan. The tort claims
alleged by RichardoI include the Second Second and
and Third
Third Causes of
ofAction
Action(trespass), and Fifth (trespass), Fourth and Fifth
Causes of Action Causes of Action (conversion/trespass of chattels), conversion/trespass of chattels), and andEighth
EighthCause
CauseofofAction
Action((civil
civil
conspiracy). Having Havingreviewed
reviewedthe
theparties'
parties'arguments,
arguments,the
theCourt
Courtdetermines
determinesthat
that Richard
Richard has
has not
raised genuine issues of ofmaterial
material fact regarding
regarding ECD
ECD and
andPVP's
PVP's involvement
involvement in
in the alleged
tortuous activities. tortious activities. Further, Further, the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
thatadequate
adequate discovery
discovery has
has occurred on this matter
and that that Richard's Richard's Counsel's Rule 56(d) Declaration fails fails to
to meet requirements to meet the requirements toallow allow for a
11 Richard Richard E.
E. Moylan
Moylan passed
passed away after filing
filing this
this Motion.
Motion. The
TheAdministrator
Administratorofofhis
hisEstate
Estate has
has
substituted in his substituted in his place placeasasPlaintiff.
Plaintiff. Order Granting Rule 25 Mot. (July (July 7,
7, 2025).
D
F
CV0760-16 DECISION AND AND ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
PARTIAL Page 2 Page
SUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT AS
AS TO TORT CLAIMS
TO TORT CLAIMS
judgment proceedings. 2 Therefore, continuance of summary judgment herefore, the the Court
Court GRANTS
G RANT ECD and
and
PVP's PVP's Motion Motionfor forPartial
PartialSummary
SummaryJudgment
Judgmentasasititrelates
relates to
to the
the tort claims.
I. 1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
A. TThis h i s Motion
oti
On July 27, 2018, 2018, ECD
ECD and PVP
PVP moved
moved for partial summary judgment judgment on
on both tort and
contract claims and requested requested injunctive
injunctive relief,
relief, a constructive
constructive trust,
trust, and
and punitive
punitive damages.
damages. Here,
the Court considers considers solely
solely the tort claims, specifically, specifically, trespass
trespass to Lot
Lot 105 l, trespass
I 051, to Dela
trespass to
Carte Corte Street, conversion/trespass conversion/trespass toto chattels, chattels,and
andcivil
civilconspiracy.
conspiracy. Richard
Richard filed his opposition to
the Motion Motion on 3 on February 22, 2022,
February 22, 2022, and
andECD/PVP
ECD/PVP replied
replied on March 4,
4, 2022.
2022.3 The case was re-
assigned before the assigned before the Court Court could issue
issue aa decision
decision on
on the
themotion.
motion. Upon
Upon another
another reassignment
reassignment to
this Court in 2025, the Motion Motion was
was taken
taken under
under advisement
advisement on July 29, 2025.
B. Oth er Decisio Other n s Ren Decisions d ered b y th e Co u rt Rendered
This This Court Court has
has made other rulings on the issue issue of
of Richard's
Richard's tort claims. This This case
case
pertains to to a Lease Lease Agreement
Agreement between Richard's relatives relatives (his
(his co-tenants)
co-tenants) and
and third parties.
parties. In
In a
May May 13, 13, 2022 2022 Decision Decision and
and Order, the Court
Court found
found that
that while
while Richard
Richard did
did not
not have
have exclusive
possession of Lot Lot 1051,
1051, the
the Lease
Lease did
did not
not specify
specifywhat
whatrights
rightsthe
theco-tenants
co-tenants retained
retained or
or what
what
22 Richard Richard titled his Counsel's Declaration as a GRCP GRCP Rule 56(f) Declaration Declaration of
of Counsel.
Counsel.
However, Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 56 has since been amended, However, Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 56 has since been amended; the contents of Rule of Rule 56(f)
are now now under Rule 56(d).
33 Briefing Briefing on this Motion Motionwaswas stayed
stayed under
under the
the parties' stipulation on August 28, 2018, and pending resolution of of the the Citizens
Citizens Participation
ParticipationininGovernment GovernmentAct Act(CPGA)
(CPGA) issues.
issues. Stip.
Stir. & &
Order Re:
Re: Def. PVP PVP &&ECD's
ECD'sMot.Mot.Parti al Summ.
Partial Summ.J.J. (Aug.
(Aug. 28,
28, 2018).
2018). After
Afterthe
the Court
Court i issued
ssued
decisions on the CPGA CP G A issues in 20
issues in 2018
I and 2020, the decisions were were appealed and then affirmed by the Guam Guam Supreme Court o in 2021. Moylan Moylanuv.AxeAxeMurderer
MurdererTours
ToursGuam,
Guam, one.,
Inc., 2021 Guam
25. Once the CPGA issues were resolved, the Court set a briefing Once the CPGA issues were resolved, the Court set briefing schedule schedule on the July 2018 Motion Motion for for Partial
Partial Summary
Summary Judgment.
Judgment. Order
OrderRe RePending
Pending Mots.
Mots. atat 1I (Jan. 25, 2022).
(Jan. 25, 2022). This
explains why it took four years to to brief brief this
this Motion.
Motion.
\ FCIWRL
CV0760-16 CV0760-I6 DECISION DECISION AND
AND ORDER
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL Page 3 Page
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS SUMMARY nJDGMENT AS TO
TO TORT
TORT CLAIMS
CLAIMS
rights rights the Lessees acquired as Lessees acquired asitit relates relatestotoLot
Lot 1051
1051prior
prior to
to Richard's
Richard's consent.
consent. Dec. Order Re
Dens.' Defs.' Mot. Sums.
Summ. J.J. at
at 55 (May
(May 13,
13, 2022).
2022). The
TheCourt
Courtstated
stated that
that without
without the
the issue
issue of the intent
being settled, settled, itit could not determine determine ifECD,
if ECD, PVP,
PVP, or
or Defendant
Defendant Axe
Axe Murderer Tours Guam
(AMT) trespassed onto Lot 1051.
1051. Id. at 6.
6. with
Withregards
regardsto
to civil
civil conspiracy,
conspiracy, the Court
determined that the parties failed failed to
to discuss the elements of conspiracy and failed to specify the
underlying underlying tort tortto
to this
this claim
claimand
and therefore
thereforeititwas
was unable
unable to
to determine
determine whether
whether summary
summary judgment
merited. Id.
was merited. Id. at at 7.
7. The
TheCourt
Courtthen
thendenied
denied summary
summary judgment
judgment on
on these tort claims.
The Court
Court now
now reexamines
reexamines these
these issues
issues in
in light
light of
ofthe
the parties'
parties' arguments
arguments in and in
response to the response to theJuly July2018 Motion
Motion for
for Partial
Partial Summary
Summary Judgment relative to Judgment relative to Richard's Richard's tort
claims.
II. 11. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Undisputed Undisputed Facts Facts
The following
following facts
facts are undisputed
undisputed as
as established
established in the December December 13,
13, 2018
I Decision and
Order re Motion to to Dismiss Counterclaims and and Third-Party Claims:
1. I. Richard
RichardMoylan
Moylanisisaatenant
tenant in
in common
commonover
overLot
Lot No.
No. 1051,
1051, Hagatna with other
Moylan relatives.
RichardMoylan's
2. Richard Moylan'srelatives relativesleased
leasedtheir
theirinterest
interestin
inLot
Lot No.
No. 1051
1051 to
to Tessie
Tessie Paraliza
Paraliza
Gracia Altman. Grecia and Pacita Allman.
3. Gracia
Greciaand
andAll ran assigned
Allman assignedtheir
theirinterest
interest in
in Lot
Lot No.
No. 1051
1051 to PVP.
4. PVP
PVPand
andECD
ECOare
areaffiliated
affiliatedentities
entitiesand
andshare
sharecommon
commonmanagement.
management.
5. ECD
ECOororPVP
PVP allows
allows AMT
AMTtotouse
use Lot
Lot 1051
1051 for parking.
6. AMT
AMTleases
leases Lot
Lot No. I058New
l058New from
from ECD.
ECO.
7. AMT
AMTleases
leasesLot
LotNo.
No.1057,
1057,1056,
1056, and
and 1052
1052 from PVP.
1E
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION Page4 Page
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS
AS TO
TO TORT
TORT CLAIMS
CLAIMS
8. Richard RichardMoylan
Moylanalso
alsoowns
ownsLot
LotNo.
No.1040,
1040,Hagatna,
Hagatna, and
and aa portion
portion of
of Dela Carte
Corte Street,
Street,
of which
both of are adjacent which are adjacent to
to Lot
LotNo.
No. 1051
1051.
B. Further FurtherEvidence EvidenceProffered
Profferedby
by Richard;
Richard; ECD/PVP's
ECD/PVP'sResponses
Responses
discussed herein, As discussed herein, in in demonstrating
demonstrating what
what the
the material
material facts
facts are,
are, ECD/PVP and Richard
rely rely on on the the facts alleged and and verified
verified by
byRichard
Richardininthe
the First
FirstAmended
Amended Complaint.
Complaint. He
Healleges
alleges:
I. Lot 1. Lot1051 I 051 could
couldnot
notbe
be leased
leased out
out to
to others
others without
withouthis
his consent,
consent, and
and he has not
consented to any consented to anyof
of the
theDefendants'
Defendants' (ECD,
(ECD, PVP,
PVP,and
andAMT)
AMT) use
useof
ofLot
Lot 1051.
1051, First
Am. Compo. ,i,i 11,
Comp!. W 11, 17,
17, 21
21 (June
(June 28, 2017).
2. Gracia Greciaand
andAll ran assigned
Allman assignedtheir
theirinterests
interests to
to PVP
PVP on
on or
or about October 13,
13, 1989.
1989. Id.
Id
,i 12. PVP leased or orally granted its 1112. its interest interest in
in Lot
Lot 1051
1051 totoECD.
ECD. Id. ,i,i 22-23,
Id W 22-23; see
also PVP Answer
Answer First
First Am.
Am. Comal. ,i,i 12, 23
Comp!.111112, 23(Jul.
(Jul.14,
14,2017)
2017)(admitting).
(admitting). ECD
I 051 to AMT to use as
leased Lot 1051 as commercial commercial parking in exchange exchange for rent on April
11, 2014. IdId.111124-25, ,i,i 24-25; see also ECD
ECD Answer
Answer First
FirstAm.
Am.Comal.
Comp!.1125
,i (Jul. 19,
19, 2017)
(admitting).
3. InIn2014, 2014,Lot
Lot1051
1051 was
was overgrown
overgrown with
with vegetation
vegetation making
making itit unusable for parking, unusable for
use, or occupation. Id. 1]32.
occupation. Id ,i 32. ItItalso alsohad
hadaafence-line
fence-linealong
alongthe
theproperty
propertyline
lineadj agent
adjacent
1058 (northern
to Lot 1058 (northern portion ofLot portion of Lot 1051),
1051), and
and aafence-1ine
fence-line along
along Dela
DelaComte
Corte Street.
,r 33_
Id. 1I 33.
4. InInlate late2014
2014ardor
and/orearly
early2015,
2015,one
oneorormore
moreDefendants
Defendantsplaced
placed debris
debris on Lot 1051,
1051,
cleared the vegetation
vegetation on
on Lot
Lot 1051,
1051, cleared the debris on Lot 1051, and removed all
of the fence-line of the fence-line on
on Lot
Lot 1051.
1051. Id.
Id W,i,i 34,
34, 36-38.
5. InInlate late2014
2014ororearly
early2015,
2015, one
one or
or more
more Defendants
Defendants removed
removed portions
portions of
of his fence-
line line on
on the ocean-side portion of ofDela
Dela Comte Street. Id.
Corte Street. Id 1149.
,i 49. Through his counsel,
_ . 8 : *~~»+1
J r ' M\ I
r In L 'u q _,/ 1 1. 5 lL-.
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION Page 5 Page
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
this removal
Richard notified Defendant AMT of this removal and, and, sometime
sometime afterward,
aiierward, AMT
AMT
replaced the fence. Id. W the fence. ,, 50,
50, 51.
5 I.
6. InInlate late2014
2014or
orearly
early2015,
2015, one
one or
or more
more Defendants
Defendants cleared
cleared the vegetation
vegetation upon Dela
Carte Corte Street and
and they
they continue to
to cut
cut vegetation
vegetation along
along Richard's
Richard's fence on Dela Corte Carte
Street. Id. Street. ,, 52, 56
Id W
7. InInearly early2015,
2015, after
after Lot 1051 's's fence-line fence-line was
was removed and the vegetation was
cleared, one or more Defendants placed placed coral
coral upon
upon the
the surface of
of Lot 1051. Id. 1160.
1051. Id ,
8. On Onororabout
aboutFebruary
February 25,
25, 2015,
2015, Richard's
Richard's counsel
counsel notified
notified AMT
AMT about its
unauthorized use of
of Lot
Lot 1051, which AMT
1051, upon which AMT erected erected a yellow tape barrier to
prevent prevent its customers and and others from using Lot 1051.
I Id
Id. 1]61.
,
9. One Oneor
ormore
more Defendants
Defendants then
then informed
informed AMT
AMTthey
theycould
coulduse
use Lot
Lot 1051,
I 051, upon which
AMT removed AMT removed the yellow
yellow tape barrier.
barrier. ld
Id.1162.
,
10. An An attorney
attorney for
for ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP informed AMT that ECD/PVP or he himself himself would
indemnify AMT indemnify AMT for
for using
usingLot 15 I.Id.Id.,,
Lot151. 111]63-64.
11. One or or more
more Defendants
Defendants painted
painted yellow
yellow lines on Lot 1051 identify commercial I 051 to identify
parking parking stalls. Id.1], 65.
stalls. Id
12. Around April 2015, 12. Around 2015, one or more Defendants Defendants erected
erectedparking
parkingsigns
signsfor
forAMT'
AMT's
business on the fence-line separating Lot 1051 separating Lot from Dela I 051 from Dela Corte
Corte Street.
Street. Id.
Id 1]70.
,
Around Around May
May2015,
2015, one
one or
ormore
more Defendants
Defendants erected
erected a sign precluding anyone but
of AMT from using Lot 1051.
customers of I Id , 71.
Id. 1]71
13. On or or about
about October
October 26,
26, 2025,
2025, Richard
Richard erected
erected aa "No
"No Trespassing"
Trespassing" sign in the center
of of Lot 1051
1051 and alleges that
that within
within a day or
or so, one or more Defendants covered up
this sign and moved it to the side of Lot Lot 1051
1051 and
and subsequently removed or destroyed
F"
*S L L -xi
M Ei L u M?-
CV0760-16 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL Page 6 Page
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
it. Id iJ
Id 1173-75.
14. On or or about
about October
October 26,
26, 2015,
2015, Richard
Richard erected
erected several
several "No
"No Trespassing"
Trespassing" signs on the
fence-line between fence-line between Lot
Lot1051
I 051 and
andDela
DelaComte Street, and
Corte Street, and one
one or
or more Defendants
covered these signs. Id
ld W
,i,i 77-8.
77-8. One
One or
or more
more Defendants
Defendants subsequently
subsequently erected
AMT's AMT' s sign
sign stating,
stating, "Parking
"Parking for Customers and and Guests."
Guests." Id 1]79.
,i
15. On or about about February
February I,
1, 2017,
2017, one
one or
or more
more Defendants
Defendants installed
installed concrete parking
separators on
on Lot
Lot 1051.
I 051. Id
Id.'H,i 84.
ECD/PVP ECD/PVP admit admit most
most allegations
allegations regarding
regardingthe
thestate
state of
ofLot
Lot1051
I 051and
andDela
DelaComte
Corte Street,
however, they either deny or do not admit to to their
their specific
specific involvement
involvement in
in activities.
activities. For
example, example, ECD/PVP ECD/PVP admits
admits that
that conditions
conditionsexisted
existedregarding
regardingLots
Lots1051
I 051and
andDela
DelaComte
Corte Street,
such asthe such as theovergrowth overgrowth of
of vegetation,
vegetation, the
the existence
existenceof"No
of "No Trespassing" signs, the Trespassing" signs, theremoval removal of
of
these signs, and so forth. PVP Answer Answer First Am. Con pl. ,i,i Comp!. W 32, 73-5,
73-5; ECD Answer First Am.
Comal. Comp!. 111132, 73-5.However, ,i,i 32, 73-5. However,they theyexplicitly
explicitly admit
admit that
that "one
"one or more Defendants" were
involved in the allegations presented by Richard and do not admit that ECD/PVP were involved.
Id. Id.
III. III. LAW AND DISCUSSION
Summary judgment judgment may be granted if the movant movant shows
shows no genuine
genuine dispute
dispute as
as to any
material fact, and the movant is entitled to to judgment
judgment as
asaamatter
matteroflaw.
of law. GRCP 56(a).
56(a). The
pleadings and and the
the substantive
substantivelaw
lawdetermine
determinethe
the"materiality"
"materiality" of
of particular facts.
facts. Anderson v.
u
Liberty Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 Lobby, Inc., 77 US 242, 248 248 (1986).
(1986). Materials
Materials ininthe
therecord
record must
must support
support the
the facts,
facts,
including including "depositions, "depositions, documents, electronically stored documents, electronically stored information, information, affidavits
affidavits or
or declarations,
declarations,
stipulations[], stipulations [], admissions, admissions, interrogatory interrogatory answers,
answers, or
or other
othermaterials." 56(c)(1)(A). "If materials." GRCP 56(c)(l)(A). "If
the movant can demonstrate demonstrate that
that there are no genuine issues of of material fact,
fact, the non-rnovant
non-movant
K
¢:~ v q.
I ~11H~.§m <=- .
L. . .
F
II Q,
~=a
/I
re
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL Page 7 Page
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
cannot merely rely rely on
on allegations
allegationscontained
contained in
inthe
thecomplaint,
complaint,but
butmust
must produce
produce at
at least
least some
some
significant probative probative evidence
evidence tendingto
to support
support the complaint." liuka IizukaCorp.
Corp. vv. Kawasho
Kawasho
Intern. Intern. (Guam) Inc., 1997 Guam 10 (Guam) Inc., IO ,i118. The Court 8. The Court must
must view
view the evidence and draw inferences
in in the the light light most favorable favorable to the non-movant. Edwards v.u Pacu'ic Fin. Corp., Pacific Fin. Corp., 2000 Guam Guam 27
27 1]
,i
7.
C. Sufficiency Sufficiencyof ofFacts
Facts Presented
Presented for
for Claims
Claimsof
ofTrespass
Trespass and Conversion
Richard alleges that that ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP were
were engaged
engaged in
in trespass
trespass to
to Lot
Lot 1051,
I 051, trespass to Dela
Corte Street, Comte Street,and andconversion/trespass
conversion/trespasstotochattels.
chattels. Trespass
Trespass occurs
occurs when a tortfeasor
tortfeasor intentionally
intentionally
enters land in possession of another possession of or causes a third person to enter. Guerrero v. DLB Const.
another or Const.
Co., 1999 Guam Co., 1999 ,i 6.6. Conversion Guam991] Conversion isis"the "thewrongful
wrongful exercise
exerciseof
of dominion
dominion over the
the property
property of
of
another and is established by 1)
I) ownership or a right to possession possession of the defendant's of property, 2) the defendant's
conversion by wrongful act act or
or disposition
disposition of
ofproperty
propertyrights,
rights, and
and 3)
3) damages."
damages." Jack!
Jacot v.
v. Miller,
Miller,
No. 16-00074, 2017 WL 4320322 at *4 (D.
(D. Guam
Guam App. Div. Sept.
Sept. 28,
28, 2017).
2017). Trespass to chattel
requires "injury "injury to the plaintiffs plaintiffs personal
personal property
property or
or legal
legal interest therein." Casillas interest therein." Casillas v.
v.
Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins.
Ins. Co., 294 Cal. Rptr.
Rptr. 3d
ad 841, 843
843 (Ct.
(Ct. App.
App. 2022).
2022). ECD/PVP
make the same arguments for granting summary summary judgment
judgment on
on the
the claims
claims of
of trespass
trespass to Lot 1051,
I
trespass to Dela Dela Corte Street,
Street, and
and conversion/trespass
conversion/trespass to chattels:
chattels: that
that Richard
Richard provides mere
allegations without without sufficient
sufficientevidence,
evidence, and
and these allegations
allegations are
are insufficient
insufficient to withstand
summary judgment.
judgment.
The Court starts its analysis by reviewing reviewing the
the guiding
guiding jurisprudence
jurisprudence in
in Guam
Guam on the
requirement of allegations allegations to withstand summary summary judgment.
judgment. In
Ki lizuka
u k a Corp.
Corp. V.ll Kawasho Intern.
Intern.
(Guam), Inc., 1997 Guam 10, the Guam Supreme Court stated that summary (Guam), Inc., summary judgment judgment is proper
under Rule 56 "if "if the
the pleadings,
pleadings, depositions,
depositions, answers to
to interrogatories, and admissions admissions on
on file,
file,
9. ¢ m 15
5
v,
F""'\
4
la
n [Hz 'I
A 1H
"T l | I'4 \ I|
H
;, I
£. a h 11 m
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL Page 8 Page
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT AS
As TO TORT CLAIMS
CLAIMS
together with the affidavits, affidavits, ififany,
any,show
showthat
thatthere
thereisis no
no genuine
genuine issue
issue as to any material fact." ma
Id Id 1]7.
,i 7. ItItstated statedthat
that"there
"thereisis aa genuine
genuine issue,
issue, if there is 'sufficient 'sufficient evidence'
evidence' which
whichestablishes
establishes a
factual dispute factual dispute requiring requiring solution
solution by fact-finder." Id.
by aa fact-finder." "Ifthe Id. "If the movant
movant can
can demonstrate
demonstrate that
no genuine
there are no genuine issues of material material fact,
fact, the
the non-movant
non-movant cannot
cannot merely
merely rely on allegations
contained in in the complaint, but must produce at at least
least some
somesignificant
significant probative evidence
tending to support the complaint. ,i Id. 118.
complaint. Id.
The Court also also notes the United States Supreme SupremeCourt's
Court's decision
decision in
inAnderson v. Liberty
v. Liberty
Lobby, Lobby, Inc.
Inc. to guide its determination determination of
of sufficiency of evidence.
evidence. 477
477 U.S. 242
242 (1986).
(1986). The
Supreme Court stated Supreme Court statedthat thatthe
theinquiry
inquiry for
for determining whether evidence is sufficient sufficient at
at the
summary judgment judgment stage stage is
is "whether
"whether the evidence presents presents aasufficient
sufficient disagreement to require disagreement to require
as
submission to a jury jury or whether itit is
is so
so one-sided
one-sided that one party must prevail prevail as a matter
matter oflaw."
of law.
Id. at 243. In coming 243. In coming to to this
this decision,
decision, "the
"the movant
movant has
has the
the burden
burden of
of showing
showing that
that there is no
genuine issue issue of of fact,
fact, but
but the
theplaintiff
plaintiff is not thereby
thereby relieved of his own burden of of producing in
tum evidence that turn that would would support
support aajury
jury verdict."
verdict." Id.
Id. The
TheSupreme
Supreme Court
Courtfurther
furtherstated
stated that
that the
summary judgment judgment standard standard "provides
"provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual factual dispute
between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary
judgment, judgment; the the requirement
requirement is
is that
that there
there be no genuine issue of of material fact."
fact." Id.
Id. at 247-8. "The
at 247-8.
plaintiff plaintiffmust must present
present affirmative
affirmative evidence
evidence in
in order to defeat
defeat a properly supported motion motion for
summary judgment" (emphasis summary judgment" added). Id. at 257.
emphasis added).
Throughout his opposition, opposition, Richard argues that that the
the allegations
allegations in
in aaverified
verified complaint
constitute "proof and testimony" to to defeat
defeat a summary judgment motion.
summary judgment motion. He cites cites to Sears
Sears v.
Roberts to support this argument.
argument. However, the Court inSears Sears held a plaintiff "may not rest plaintiff"may
upon the mere allegations or denials of his his pleading, but must set set forth
forth specific facts showing
, » r11 1% 1 ll 4\ 3 i ELgt f l n; F( ""i
11
1 . :I
2 m we .
CV0760-I6 CV0760-16 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL Page 9 Page
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TIJDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
that there there isis aagenuine genuineissue
issuefor
fortrial,"
trial," which
which supports
supportsthe
thejurisprudence
jurisprudenceininJizuka
liuka Corp.
C01p. and
Anderson. 922 922 F.3d
F.3d 1199, 1207 (I
1199, 1207 (nth
Ith Cir.
Cir. 2019).
2019).
Trespass to
1. Trespass to Lot Lot 1051
1051
The Court starts with the claims of trespass of Lot 1051.
1051. ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP state
state that
that there "is
"is no
allegation allegation that that either
either ECD
ECD or
or PVP
PVP has
has entered
entered onto
onto Lot
Lot 1051,
I 051, to occupy it,
it, to remove a fence, or
to clear it.
it. Instead, all that is alleged is that ECD/PVP ECD/PVP 'allowed'
'allowed' Defendant
Defendant Axe
Axe Murderer
Murderer Tours
to enter onto the enter onto lot." Mem.
the lot." Mem. P.
P. & A.
A. in
in Supp.
Supp. Defs.' ECD
ECD &
& PVP
PVP Mot.
Mot. Partial
Partial Sums.
Summ.J.J. at
at 55
(Jul. 27, 2018). ECD ECDcites
citestotothe
thefact
factthat
thatititwas
wasan
anassignee
assigneeofofthe
theLessees
Lessees and
and as
as such
such had the
right to enter onto onto Lot
Lot 1051.
1051. Reply
Reply Mem.
Mem. at
at 55 (Mar. 4, 2022).
2022). ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP state
state that
that the
allegations that all Defendants have have "acted
"acted jointly
jointly and
and in
in concert
concertin
inentering
enteringLot
Lot1051"
l05l" are
simple simple allegations allegations that that are
are insufficient as a matter oflaw.
law. Men. A. in
Mem.P.P. && A. in Supp.
Supp. Dens.'
Defs.' ECD &
Mot. Partial PVP Mot. Partial Summ. J. at 5. Ultimately, Sums. J. Ultimately, ECD/PVP ECD/PVP emphasize
emphasize that
that Richard
Richard repeatedly "cites
to various various conclusory allegations allegations in
in his
his pleading,
pleading, rather than point to specific specific facts which support
his claims." Reply Reply Men.
Mem.InInSupp.
Supp. Dens.'
Defs.' ECD & PVP Mot.
Mot. Partial
Partial Summ.
Sums. J.
J. at
at I.
l.
While the Court previously While previously found found that
that itit could
could not
not determine
determine whether ECD/PVP
trespassed ontoLot trespassed onto Lot 1051 1051 without
without knowing the Lessees'
Lessees' intentions, the Court Court is now faced
faced with
with
ECD/PVP's assertions ECD/PVP's assertions that that Richard
Richard failed
failed to
to raise
raise facts
facts that indicate that any trespass was
committed committed by by them
them at
at all. The
TheCourt
Court starts
starts by
by Iooldng
looking at
at the assertions made by Richard in the
First Amended Complaint, Complaint, especially
especially the
the ones
ones identified
identified by Richard in his Opposition Opposition as
sufficiently sufficiently meeting burden of meeting the burden of proof.
proof Opp'n
Opp'nPVP/ECD
PVP/ECD7/27/18
7/27/18 Mot.
Mot. Sums.
Summ.J.,
J., Ex.
Ex. A (Feb.
(Feb.
22, 2022).
2022). Most Mostof
ofthese
these statements
statements allege that "one or more" Defendants Defendants have
have committed
tortuous acts,however tortious acts, however there there is
is no
no specific
specific mention
mention as to which
which Defendant
Defendant committed
committedthese
these acts
acts
or how the the Defendants Defendants acted
acted in
in a concerted action to commit these acts.
acts. These allegations
r 2""w 3 .=;F\ n l _. I
II'RF » nl
`<. L l: 5
CV0760-I6 CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL Page 10 Page 10
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
include that "one or more Defendants" removed portions of of the fence line, cleared vegetation, vegetation,
cleared Richard's Richard's portion portionofofDela
DelaComte Street, placed Corte Street, placed coral coral on
on the
the lot,
lot, painted parking
parking stalls,
placed parking signs for customers customers and
and guests,
guests, and
and removed
removed Richard's
Richard's "no
"no trespassing"
trespassing" sign.
sign. Id.
There are allegations specific specific ro
to AMT
AMT that
that ECD and
and PVP are not mentioned in, such as erecting
a "yellow "yellow tape tape barrier" in
in Lot
Lot1051
1051 and
and AMT
AMT exercising
exercising "complete,
"complete, total,
total, and exclusive control
over Lot 1051." iJiJ 62, 105.
l05l." IdId.111]62, 105. The The only specific allegations ofECD/PVP ofECD/PVP committing
committing an
an action
are that ECD/PVP's 's attorney
attorney informed
informed AMT
AMT that
that itit would
would be
be indemnified
indemnified for
for the
the use
use of
of Lot 1051
I
by either ECD/PVP ECD/PVP or the attorney himself and an an allegation
allegation that
that ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP intentionally
intentionally
allowed allowed AMT AMTtotouse use Lot
Lot1051.
1051.Id.
Id.1],i 63,
63, 64,
64, 102.
102. He
Heargues
argues that
that ECD/PVP's
ECD/PVP's actions
actions amount to
acting as a co-trespasser as they "instigate, command, command, encourage,
encourage, advise,
advise, ratify,
ratify, or condone the
commission ofaa trespass."
trespass." Opp'n PVP/ECD 7/27/18 7/27/18 Mot.
Mot. Summ. 7, Wiggins v. City of Sums. J. at 7; of
Burton, 805 N.W.2d 517, 805 N.W.2d 517: 534 534 (Mich.
(Mich. App. 2011).
For this trespass claim, the Court looks to ifECD/PVP ECD/PVP intentionally
intentionally entered Lot 1051 1051 or
caused AMT to enter Lot 1051. caused AMT I Richard Richard does
does not provide
provide specific
specific facts
facts to indicate that
ECD/PVP ECD/PVP committed actions actions related
relatedtotoLot
Lot 1051.
1051. In fact,
fact, Richard fails
fails to provide facts that
ECD/PVP even entered entered Lot 1051,
1051, let alone intentionally intentionally entered
entered Lot
Lot 1051,
1051, in furtherance of
of the
of trespass.
tort of trespass. The Court finds finds that
that Richard's
Richard's allegations stating that "one or more Defendants"
committed tortious tortuousacts
actsrelated
relatedtotoLot
Lot1051
1051isisnot
notsufficient
sufficientto
tofind
find that
that ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP were
wereinvolved
involved
in in any action. Additionally, Additionally,the
theCourt
Courtdoes
does not
not believe
believe Richard
Richard has
has provided sufficient
sufficient evidence
to create a genuine genuine issue
issueof
of material
material fact
fact regarding
regarding whether
whether ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP caused
causedAMT
AMT to commit
to Lot trespass to Lot 1051.
1051. The allegation
allegation that ECD/PVP and its attorney would indemnify AMT for
its actions does not translate to acting to authorize, "instigate, "instigate, command,
command, encourage, advise,
ratify, ratify, or orcondone condone the
the commission of a trespass" by AMT, trespass" by AMT, just that they would compensate compensateAMT
AMT
., .. " ° ; i t
X » > 1. *.» ll
I;
51
1
lll: \ i
ll:\:@'T;
-"i *_' 1
r
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL PARTIAL Page 11 Page 11
SUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT AS
AS TO TORT CLAIMS
for any harm or loss. Further, Further, the
the only
onlyclaim
claim Richard
Richard makes
makes of
ofaa joint
joint effort
effort between
between the parties
to commit commit trespass in in the First Amended
Amended Complaint
Complaint is
is the
the allegation
allegation that "all Defendants have
acted jointly jointly and in in concert in
in entering
entering Lot
Lot 1051
1051 and
and using
using Lot
Lot 1051
1051 without
without Plaintiffs
Plaintiff's consent." as
Id. at 106.
I 06. This This allegation,
allegation, however,
however, is
is not
not supported
supported by
by additional
additional facts
facts of
of how
how the
the parties
parties acted
jointly and jointly and in inconcert
concert to
to trespass
trespass Lot 1051-
I it is
is a stand-alone allegation.
The Court finds that even looking at the evidence and drawing inferences in the light
most favorable to Richard, he has failed to produce evidence tending to support his allegation of most
trespass against trespass againstECD/PVP ECD/PVP relative
relative to Lot
Lot 1051
I 051 and
and as such
such there
there isis no
no genuine
genuine issue
issueof
of material
material
facts as to facts as to this this claim.
claim. Accordingly,
Accordingly, the
the Court
Court GRANTS
GRANTS ECD/PVP's
ECD/PVP's motion for summary summary
judgment relative relative to trespass of Lot 1051.
trespass of 1051.
2. Trespass Trespass of Dela Corte
Corte Street
Court now Tums
The Court turns to to Richard's allegation that ECD/PVP were engaged in trespass to
Dela Dela Comte Street. Richard Corte Street. Richard argues that he has has alleged
alleged that
that the
the "Defendants
"Defendants trespassed into his trespassed into
of Dela Carte portion of Corte Street to tortiously (i) cut toniously (i) cut his
his fence
fence down
down and
and (ii)
(ii) were
were tortuously
tortiously clearing
jungle vegetation the jungle vegetationwithout withouthis
hispermission."
permission." Opp'n
Opp'n PVP/ECD
PVP/ECD 7/27/18
7/27/18 Mot.
Mot.Summ.
Sums. J. at 7.
7. He
argues that that the the allegations
allegations can
can be
beused
usedtotoprove
proveaamaterial
material fact
fact exists
exists to
to defeat
defeat aamotion
motion for
for
summary judgment judgment and and that
that there
there isis aagenuine
genuineissue
issueof
ofmaterial
material fact
fact in
in dispute as
as to
to if
if ECD/PVP
trespassedupon trespassed uponhis hisportion
portion of
of Dela Corte
ComteStreet.
Street.Id.
Id. Again, ECD/PVP state that that Richard
Richard fails
fails to
ECD/PVP entered
"plead and prove that ECD/PVP entered on to [sic.] the property or are otherwise liable for
trespass as to this this property." Mem.
Mem. P.
P. & A. in
& A. in Supp.
Supp. Dens.'
Defs.' ECD
ECD & PVP Mot.
& PVP Mot. Partial
Partial Sumer.
Summ. J.
at 6.
6. They They state the only state that the only allegation is that ECD/PVP ECD/PVP "were
"were aware
aware that
that Plaintiff
Plaintiff owned Dela
Corte Street."
Street." Id.
Id.
'|
in " 5 fs.\ I.!L\
ix
. s E:
l\ 1 J u L 5 a..-..»
CV0760-16 I6 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION Page 12
12
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
The Court again finds that Richard relies on the the mere
mere allegations in his First Amended
Complaint and Complaint and has failed to produce "at least some significant probative evidence tending to
support the the complaint."
complaint." liuka
Jizuka Corp.
Corp. v.
v. Kawasho
Kawasho Intern. (Guam),
(Guam), Inc.,
Inc., 1997 Guam
Guam 10 'I) 8.
10 1]
Richard Richard has failed to provide provide evidence
evidence that ECD/PVP were involved involved in
in cutting
cutting down
down the
the fence or
tortuously clearing the jungle tortiously jungle vegetation vegetation and thus fails fails to establish issues of of genuine fact
regarding the elements elements of
of his trespass
trespassclaim.
claim. Additionally,
Additionally, he again fails to provide provide evidence
that ECD/PVP caused caused AMT
AMT to
to commit
commit trespass
trespass toto Dela
DelaComte
Corte Street.
Street. Therefore, the Court
GRANTS GRANTS summary summary judgment judgment for
forECD/PVP
ECD/PVPon
onthe
theclaim
claimofoftrespass
trespasstotoDela
DelaComte
Corte Street.
Street.
3. Conversion/Trespass Conversion/Trespass to Chattels
Next, the Court analyzes the claims of conversion/trespass to to chattels. Richard states that chattels. Richard
he has alleged that a conversion of the Lot conversion and trespass to chattels occurred through the removal of
1051 1051 fence-line and the fence-line on his portion portion of
ofDela
DelaComte Street. Opp'n PVP/ECD 7/27/18 Corte Street.
Mot. Mot. Summ. J. at Summ. J. at 8.
8. ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP argue that
that all
all Richard has done
done isis allege
allege that
that they
theywere
were"aware
"aware of
of
Plaintiffsright Plaintiffs righttoto the the fence-line
fence-line on
on both Lot 1051 and Plaintiffs alleged interest Plaintiffs alleged interest in in aa portion
portion of
of
Dela Dela Comte Street." Mem.
Corte Street." P. && A.
Mem. P. A. in
in Supp.
Supp. Defs.' ECD & PVP Mot. Partial Sums.
Defs.' ECO Summ. J.
J. at 7.
Further, they state that Richard again fails to offer proof that that ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP disposed
disposed Richard from
of the chattels in question or that they any of they removed removed the fence-line
fence-line or
or interfered
interfered with
with Richard's
Richard's
right right to the fence-line in question.
question. Id.
Again, Richard Richard fails
fails to
to present
present at least some
some significant
significant probative
probative evidence that
ECD/PVP were involved involved in
in the
the removal
removal or
or caused
caused the
the removal
removal of
of the
the Lot
Lot 1051
I fence-line or the
removal of ofthe the fence-line
fence-lineon
onhis
hisportion
portionofof
Dela
DelaComte
CorteStreet
Street such
such that they have engaged in
conversion/trespass to chattels. For For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS GRANTS summary
judgment judgment for ECD/PVP on the claims of conversion/trespass to chattels.
1 1>=»,1 n 5 ;
EE? h
M
ii .. ' 5. lg » i 5;
1
% * I L L t 4~~*rL ;..;»
CV0760-!6 CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL DECISION Page 13 Page 13
SUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
D. Separate Separate Cause Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy Conspiracy
The Court next assesses the final final tort
tort claim
claim of
of civil
civil conspiracy.
conspiracy. The elements of of civil
conspiracy are "1)
"1) the formation
formation and
and operation
operation of
ofthe
the conspiracy,
conspiracy, 2) the wrongful wrongful act
act or
or acts
acts
pursuant thereto, and 3) the damage resulting from such act and acts." Moylan v. Citizens Sec.
the damage
Bank, 2015 Guam 336 Bank, 6 ,1]72. no separate 72. There is no separatetort tort of
of civil
civil conspiracy and no
no action
action for
for
conspiracy to commit commit aa tort unless the underlying tort is committed and damage results
therefrom. Prakashpalan Prakashpalan v.
v. Engslrom,
Engstrom, Lqascomb
Lipscomb and Lack,
Lack, 2023 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1105, 1136 (Cal.
APP- 2014). App. 2014).
Richard argues that Guam Guam allows
allows for
for a separate
separatecause
causeof
ofaction
actionfor
for civil
civil conspiracy,
citing Moylan, Moylan, 2015 Guam 36. He He alleges
alleges that
that the three "separate corporations worked together
to convert Plaintiffs property for Plaintiffs property for pecuniary pecuniary gain"
gain" and
and that
that the
the elements of
of conspiracy are met
through his allegations "of "of 1)
1) the
the earlier
earlier notice
notice to
to Defendants
Defendants of
of1989
1989 Lease
Lease[...]
... and Defendants'
exact financial gain
proceeding to exact gain and and profit
profit from
from cutting
cutting Lot 1051 's fence line, clearing the Lot, Lot 1051
occupying the Lot, Lot, then
then ousting
ousting Plaintiff
Plaintiff from
from all occupation
occupation of
of Lot
Lot 1051,
1051; 2)
2) the wrongful acts
acts
done pursuant pursuant thereto;
thereto, and
and 3)
3) the
thedamage
damageresulting
resultingfrom
fromDefendants
Defendantsacts."
acts." Opp'n
Opp'n PVP/ECD
7/27/18 Mot.
Mot. Summ.
Summ. J. at 13-14.
J. at 13-14. ECD/PVP
ECD/PVP argues
argues that Guam law does not recognize an
independent cause causeof
of action for civil
civilconspiracy
conspiracyand
andas
as such,
such, summary judgment should be
granted for them.
The Court starts this this analysis
analysisby
by clarifying
clarifying the law surrounding conspiracy.
conspiracy. The
The Guam
Supreme Court in Supreme Court inMoylan stated that that itit has
has"not
"not yet
yet spoken
spokenon
onthe
thelegal
legaldoctrine
doctrineof
of civil
civil
conspiracy" but conspiracy" but that the doctrine "gives rise to "gives rise to a well-settled well-settled cause
cause of
of action
action in
in both federal and
state law."
law." 2015 2015 Guam
Guam 361]72.
36, 72. This
Thisdecision
decisionestablishes
establishesthe
theelements
elements of
ofconspiracy
conspiracy and
and that a
cause of action cause of does in action does in fact fact exist
exist for
for civil
civil conspiracy,
conspiracy, but
but itit did
didnot
not determine
determine that
that there
there is a
I M
r _j rf 'r . go 11 !, ll wt i i \ L
1:
¢.
L
» if J L _!J \ 1 \.
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL Page 14 Page 14
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
separate tort of separate tort of civil conspiracy without committing the underlying underlying tort. Given that the Court
has determined that Richard has failed to to provide sufficient evidence beyond beyond mere allegations of
ECD ECO and PVP engaging engaging in
in tortuous
tortious conduct, there can be no separate tort of civil conspiracy.
Without of material fact regarding underlying tort claims, the Court does Without finding a genuine issue of
not find find ititnecessary addressRichard's necessary to address Richard's allegations allegations of
of conspiracy.
conspiracy. Thus, the Court GRANTS
summary judgment for summary judgment for ECD/PVP on the the claim
claim of
of civil
civil conspiracy.
E. Request Request for for Additional
Additional Discovery
Discovery
Separately, Richard has argued that summary summary judgment
judgment is inappropriate inappropriate because
because
discovery isis not discovery not complete, complete; he
he states
states that
that discovery was stayed discovery was stayed in
in 2017
2017 and
and has
has yet
yet to
to commence
commence
for the the counterclaims.
counterclaims. Opp'n Opp'nPVP/ECD
PVP/ECD7/27/18
7/27/18Mot.
Mot.Summ.
Summ.J.J. at
at 2.
2. Richard
Richardargues
argues that
that under
Rule 56(d), 56(d), ECD/PVP's ECD/PVP's Motion is premature and that further filvtherdiscovery
discoveryshould continue. Id.
shouldcontinue. Id at
2-3. He 2-3. He states states that that summary
summary judgment
judgment "cannot
"cannot be
be granted
granted when
when an
an absence of evidence
absence of
supporting a claim might be be the
the result
result of
of incomplete,
incomplete, ongoing
ongoing discovery" and
and his Counsel
Counsel
submitted aa mule submitted rule 56( d) Declaration 56(d) Declarationtotosupport support continued
continued discovery
discovery if the Court finds finds the
statements in its its Complaint
Complaint are insufficient. Id.
are insufficient. Id at at 2.
The Court Court agrees
agrees that under Rule 56 there is a requirement to deny summary judgment
where the nonmoving party "has nonmoving party "has not
not had
had the
the opportunity
opportunity to
to discover
discover information
information that
that is essential
opposition." Anderson v.
to his opposition." v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at n.5. However, courts n.5. However, courts must
evaluate whether "adequate "adequate time
time for
for discovery" has elapsed when has elapsed when discovery discovery is
is ongoing
ongoing prior
prior to
ruling on ruling on aa motion for summary summary judgment. What the judgment. Id. What the Court Court prioritizes
prioritizes regarding
regarding discovery at
this point is determining whether the nonmovant nonmovant had
had aafull
full opportunity
opportunity to conduct discovery on
this issue.
issue. Id.
Id. at
at 257.
257. A party may
may file
file a Rule 56(d)
d) declaration
declaration for
for aa continuance
continuance of
of summary
summary
judgment to permit ongoing discovery for evidence essential essential to
tojustify
justify the party's
party's opposition.
Tarl= I:-*.f?-l'¥~
wt. r""; || -*
nL
gp
N
m
.,9a .=. ~_J a
CV0760-I6 CV0760-16 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FOR PARTIAL
PARTIAL Page 15 Page 15
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS
AS TO TORT
TORT CLAIMS
CLAIMS
This This declaration declaration "must "must show
show how additional discovery discovery would
would preclude
preclude summary
summary judgment and
why a party cannot cannot immediately
immediately provide 'specific 'specific facts'
facts' demonstrating
demonstrating aa genuine issue issue of
of
material fact."
fact." US.v.v. One One 1985
1985 Mercedes,
Mercedes, 917 F.2d415, 1990). 4 This declaration 415,418 (9th Cir. 1990).4
must show "1)
"I) that they have set
set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to elicit
from further discovery, 2) that the facts sought exist, and 3) that these sought-after facts are
'essential' to 'essential' resist the summary judgment motion."as to resist
The discovery plan plan in this case was originally originally issued
issued on
on November
November 18,
18, 2016 and
modified modified on on April April21
21 and
and May
May5,5,2017.
20l 7. Sched.
Sched. Order
Order(Nov.
(Nov,.18,
18, 2016),
2016); Ship. & Order Re: Am.
Stip. &
Order (Apr. 21, 2017);
Sched. Order Stip. to 2017), Order Granting Step. to Amend Amend Am. Sched. Order (May 5, 2017).
Discovery Discovery was was ongoing
ongoing until
until aa stay
stay occurred on August
August 2,
2, 2017
2017upon
uponthe
thefiling
filing of
of aa Motion
Motion to
Dismiss. Mem. Dismiss. Mem. Supp.
Supp. Mot,
Mot. Dismiss
Dismiss Counters.
Countercl. &&Third-Party
Third-Party Claims
Claims (Aug.
(Aug. 2,
2, 2017).
2017). Prior
Prior to
to
Richard engaged
the stay, Richard engaged in in discovery
discovery which
which involved serving
sewing Defendants
Defendants at
at least six separate
sets of of requests requests for for production of
ofdocuments,
documents, two sets of
of interrogatories, and a request request for
for
admissions. admissions. Decl.
Deel. Genevieve P. Rapadas Rapadas ,i114-6 (Mar. 4,
4-6 (Mar. 4,2022).
2022). Richard's
Richard's requests
requests resulted in
over over 700 700 pages pages of documents produced and Defendants served responses responsesto
tohis
his interrogatories
interrogatories
and request request for for admissions.
admissions. Id.
Id Richard's
Richard'sCounsel's
Counsel'sRule
Rule56(d)
56(d) Declaration
Declaration provides
provides an
overview of the procedural history of discovery in this case and the following statement: overview of
"Although we "Although we believe believe that
that Movant's
Movant's 7/27/18
7/27/LS summary
summary judgment
judgment should
should either
either be denied or
summary judgment in summary judgment in Plaintiffs Plaintiffsfavor,
favor, ininthe
the event
event that
that the
the Court
Court finds insufficient sworn
statements havebeen statements have beenpresented presentedplacing
placingmaterial
material facts
facts of
of genuine issues
issues into
into dispute,
dispute, then good
44 US US.VS One 195 Mercedes references a Rule v. One Rule 56(f)
56(f) declaration in alignment with the previous version of ofthe the Federal Rules of Civil CivilProcedure.
Procedure. Under
Underthe
theamended
amended FRCP,
FRCP, this would now be
be a
Rule 56(d) declaration.
|,» . r p \ }: J is .
. w ., L * v I A
=_/> I m 1 : N r""'
CV0760-16 DECISION AND ORDER ORDER GRANTING
GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL 16 Page 16 Page
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
cause existsto cause exists toallow allow for
for discovery to continue." GRCP GRCP Rule
Rule 56(f)
56(f)Decl.
Deel. Counsel
Counsel at
at 22 (Feb.
(Feb. 22,
2022).
First, the Court assesses whether"adequate assesses whether "adequatetime timefor
fordiscovery"
discovery" has
has elapsed.
elapsed. Before
Before
discovery was was stayed Richard issued issued six
six requests
requests for
for production of documents, sets of documents, two sets of
interrogatories, and and a request
request for
for admissions.
admissions. Richard's
Richard's Complaint
Complaint centers
centers around ECD/PVP
engaging in tortuous actions, however, even tortious actions; even with with 700
700 pages
pages of
ofdocuments,
documents, responses
responses to two sets
sets
of interrogatories, and a response response to his request for admissions, he is unable to provide any
substantial evidence to support these allegations. The The Court
Court believes
believes that
that Richard
Richard has had an
adequate opportunity to conduct discovery on adequate opportunity on what what the
the Court
Court considers
considers a threshold issue for the
case.
Next, the Court
Court examines
examines Richard's
Richard's Counsel's Rule 56(d) Declaration.
Declaration. His counsel
simply simply states states that that if
if the Court finds
finds the allegations in the Complaint insufficient, then good cause
exists for additional additional discovery.
discovery. The
TheCourt
Courtdoes
does not
notbelieve
believethat
that this
this Declaration
Declarationhas
has adequately
adequately
established how additional discovery discovery would
wouldpreclude
precludesummary
summary judgment
judgment and
and has
has not established
why he cannot immediately provide provide specific
specific facts
facts demonstrating
demonstrating a genuine issue issue of
of material
material fact.
The information information provided provided in
in Richard's
Richard'sCounsel's
Counsel'sDeclaration
Declarationfails
failstotomeet
meetthe
the requisite
requisite standard
standard
for for the the Court Court to
to grant
grant aa continuance of summary judgment to summary judgment to permit permit ongoing
ongoing discovery.
Given that Richard has had sufficient sufficient time
time to
to conduct
conduct discovery
discoveryon
onthese
these issues
issues and his
Counsel's Counsel's Rule Rule 56(d)
56(d) Declaration
Declarationfails
failstotomeet
meetthe
thestandards
standards necessary
necessary to permit
permit a continuance
of ofsummary summary judgment based on aa need based on need for
for additional discovery, discovery, the
the Court
Court concludes
concludes that a
Ending finding of ofsummary summary judgment is
is not
not premature.
premature.
Iv. IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Upon Upon viewing
viewing the
the evidence
evidence in
in the
the light
light most
most favorable
favorable to
to Richard, the Court finds that
:¢"\ ii-'a1 ll \ * . I :
'I » E H i ~*: ' .
v
I. 1 » \, 5 . I
CV0760-16 PARTIAL DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL Page 17 Page 17
SUMMARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ruDGMENT AS TO TORT CLAIMS
Richardhas Richard has failed failed to
to provide
provideevidence
evidenceestablishing
establishing genuine
genuine issues
issues of
of material
material fact regarding the
elements of trespass trespass of Lot 1051,
of Lot I 051, trespass
trespass to Dela
Dela Corte
Corte Street,
Street, conversion/trespass conversion/trespass to chattels,
and civil conspiracy cons pi racy by
by ECD
EC D and
and PVP.
P VP . Accordingly,
y, the
t he Court
C ourt GRANTS
GR ANTS ECD
EC D and PVP's
P VP
motion for partial summary judgment for summary judgment for these tort claims.
SO ORDERED ORDERED this 22 August 2025.
HON. ELYZE M;IIiART Judge, Sup€r.1ol;C'q_ui?f Giiam -%" ./ `°-
_._,§-_:__
.¢ I H-_ ;-
Appearing Attorneys Appearing Attorneys:
Law Offices
William Pole, Esq., Law Offices of ofWilliam
William B. Pole, P.C.,
B. Pole, P.C., for Plaintiff Jeffrey"S.
JeffreylS. Moylan
Moylan as
Administrator of Administrator of the Estate of of Richard E. Moylan
Mitchell F.
F. Thompson, Thompson, Esq.,
Esq., Thompson Thompson &&Alcantara, Thompson Thompson Alcantara, P.C., P.C., for Defendant E.C.
Development, opment LLP and Paseo View PProperties, roperties, Inc.
Law Offices of Cunliffe
Jeffrey Cook, Esq., Law Cunliffe & & Cook,
Cook, for
for Defendant
Defendant Axe
Axe Murderer
Murderer Tours Guam /I
Tours Guam
Beach House Douglas Moylan, Esq., self-represented
f r~
i"\ »
') n ..e
-. x ,.,
I. "A ff 1
W
~l
I. : a B 'l`° .., ' is v H I
21 .5 : Vit E 5 \1;1 <7 *