Moylan v. Axe Murderer Tours Guam

Opinion

. 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 1 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 *