C\ I \ SUPER\ OF
lfi\3 \6 PJ. · 07 l\:
CLERK Of (GUI'\1 2
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
6 FRANCISCO QUICHOCHO and CARMEN ) Civil Case No. CV0275-90 7 QmrnocHo, ~ 8 ) Plaintiffs, ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 ) vs. ) 10 ) ) II TED UNTALAN and RADHI P. HEMLANI, ) ) 12 ) ) 13 Defendants. )
14 _______________________________ )) 15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on January 22, 2018 17 upon a hearing concerning a Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Petition to Re-open Civil 18
19 Proceedings and for Judgment ("Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Petition") filed on June 23,
20 2017 by Diego Mendiola ("Mr. Mendiola"), in his capacity as Special Administrator of the 21 Estate of Radhi Hemlani. Attorney Jon R.C. Ramos represents Mr. Mendiola and Attorney John 22 C. Terlaje represents Benigno F. Quichocho ("Mr. Quichocho"), who is the Administrator for 23 the Estates of Francisco Quichocho and Carmen F. Quichocho. Ted Untalan ("Mr. Untalan"), 24
25 who is a co-defendant, has not made an appearance in this matter. Having duly considered the
26 parties' arguments, the record, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following 27 Decision and Order and GRANTS the Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Petition. 28
ORIGINAL Decision and Order CV0275-90, Quichocho eta!. v. Untalan eta!.
BACKGROUND
2 On March 23, 1990, Francisco and Carmen F. Quichocho ("Plaintiffs")' filed a
3 Complaint to Quiet Title and for Declaratory Relief ("Complaint") against Mr. Untalan and 4 Radhi P. Hemlani ("Defendants"f The Complaint concerns a dispute over title to real property, 5 which is identified as follows: Lot Number 15, Block Number 2, Tract 109, Municipality of 6
7 Barrigada, Territory of Guam, Estate 12035, Suburban, as marked and designated on map
8 drawing number D4-64T 205, recorded on September 1, 1969 in the Department of Land
9 Management under document number 57025. 10 Following the failure to plead, answer, or defend the case, default was entered on May 11 11, 1990 against Defendants. (Entry of Default, May 11, 1990.) After the entry of default, 12
13 Plaintiffs did not attempt to obtain a default judgment and the case remained completely
14 dormant for almost eight (8) years. 15 On March 13, 1998, the Court filed a notice informing the parties of a Status Hearing 16 scheduled for November 17, 1998 in the above-captioned matter. (Notice of Hearing, Mar. 13, 17 1998). During the hearing, the Court ordered the case closed. (See Minute Entry, Nov. 17, 18
19 1998.) The Minute Entry to the Status Hearing does not indicate that either party appeared
20 before the Court. (ld.) Thereafter, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal closing and dismissing 21 the case. (Order for Dismissal, Feb. 2, 1999.) 22 No activity occurred for more than sixteen (16) years until the Administrator for the 23 Plaintiffs' estates, Mr. Quichocho, filed a Petition to Re-open Civil Proceedings and for 24
25 1 26 Based on representations made in the Petition to Re-open Civil Proceedings and for Judgment, Plaintiffs are both deceased. (See Pet. to Re-Open Civil Proceedings and for Judgment at Ex. 4, Oct. 20, 27 2016.) 2 The Court is aware that Radhi Hemlani is deceased. (Def.s Mot. at Ex. A, June 23, 2017.) The status of 28 Mr. Untalan is unknown, however, Mr. Mendiola alleges in his Motion that he is also deceased. (Def.'s Mot. at 5.) Page 2 of 6 Decision and Order CV0275-90, Quichocho et al. v. Untalan et al.
Judgment on October 20, 2016 ("Petition"). Mr. Mendiola, as Special Administrator of the
2 Estate of Radhi Hemlani, opposed the reopening of the above-captioned matter and filed the
3 current motion on June 23, 2017. Mr. Quichocho filed an opposition to the motion on December 4 1, 2017, which Mr. Mendiola replied to on January 12, 2018. The Court heard oral arguments 5 and took the matter under advisement on January 20, 2018. 6
7 DISCUSSION
8 In deciding whether to reopen the underlying civil proceedings, the Court should
9 consider the same factors used to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. See Townsend v. Keller 10 Williams Realty, Inc., Civil No. 05CV1697-L(JMA), 2008 WL 2224527 *1 (S.D. Cal. May 29, 11 2008); Chance v. PAC, 233 Fed. Appx. 27, 29-30 (2nd Cir. 2007). As laid out in Santos v. 12
13 Carney, 1997 Guam 4
14 resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 15 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 16 availability of less drastic sanctions. See also Guam Dep't of Educ. v. Guam Civil Serv. 17 Comm'n, 2017 Guam 8
19 them under the facts and circumstances of this case?
20 A. The Public's Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation and the Court's Need to Manage Its Docket 21
22 The Supreme Court noted that the first two factors may be considered together. Park v.
23 Kawashima, 2010 Guam 10
27 3 28 Mr. Mendiola does not dispute that these are the factors the Court is to consider in determining whether to reopen the underlying proceedings. Page 3 of6 Decision and Order CV0275-90, Quichocho et al. v. Untalan et al.
cumulative length of delay attributable to the plaintiff and examining whether the plaintiff failed
2 to pursue the case diligently and did so for reasons that do not amount to good cause").
3 Here, the delay was lengthy and Mr. Quichocho concedes that a significant amount of 4 time has passed given that the matter was completely devoid of any activity by Plaintiffs for 5 more than twenty-six (26) years. 4 (Opp. to Defs.' Mot. at 2, Dec. 1, 2017.) For events during 6
7 this timeframe, Mr. Quichocho offers no valid reason why a default judgment in Plaintiffs'
8· favor was never requested or entered in the eight (8) years between the entry of default in May
9 1990 and a status hearing in November 1998. During this period, the Court awaited action by 10 either party before appropriately filing its Order of Dismissal in February 1999. Mr. Quichocho 11 has also brought forth no sufficient reason why the case was not reopened soon after the 12
13 dismissal in 1999 or even immediately after probate proceedings began for Plaintiffs' estates.
14 Mr. Quichocho's argument that he "never knew that this case had not been resolved in 15 his favor let alone dismissed" is unavailing and lacks any specifics concerning the prior 16 representation of Plaintiffs. (Opp. to Defs.' Mot. at 2.) Although much of the delay may not be 17 specifically attributed towards Mr. Quichocho (or his current counsel), he stands in the place of 18
19 Plaintiffs who had the onus of pushing the case through to judgment and thereafter taking any
20 corrective or curative actions necessary in a timely and reasonable matter after the case had been 21 dismissed. Unfortunately, Mr. Quichocho has to suffer from the effects of Plaintiffs' 22 dilatoriness, unreasonable delay, and inability to pursue the case in a diligent manner. The 23 Court's docket, meanwhile, was and is filled with cases that are actively prosecuted, and its 24
25 need to manage that docket is paramount considering the caseload and the time standards for
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
C\ I \ SUPER\ OF
lfi\3 \6 PJ. · 07 l\:
CLERK Of (GUI'\1 2
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
6 FRANCISCO QUICHOCHO and CARMEN ) Civil Case No. CV0275-90 7 QmrnocHo, ~ 8 ) Plaintiffs, ) DECISION AND ORDER 9 ) vs. ) 10 ) ) II TED UNTALAN and RADHI P. HEMLANI, ) ) 12 ) ) 13 Defendants. )
14 _______________________________ )) 15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on January 22, 2018 17 upon a hearing concerning a Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Petition to Re-open Civil 18
19 Proceedings and for Judgment ("Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Petition") filed on June 23,
20 2017 by Diego Mendiola ("Mr. Mendiola"), in his capacity as Special Administrator of the 21 Estate of Radhi Hemlani. Attorney Jon R.C. Ramos represents Mr. Mendiola and Attorney John 22 C. Terlaje represents Benigno F. Quichocho ("Mr. Quichocho"), who is the Administrator for 23 the Estates of Francisco Quichocho and Carmen F. Quichocho. Ted Untalan ("Mr. Untalan"), 24
25 who is a co-defendant, has not made an appearance in this matter. Having duly considered the
26 parties' arguments, the record, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following 27 Decision and Order and GRANTS the Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff's Petition. 28
ORIGINAL Decision and Order CV0275-90, Quichocho eta!. v. Untalan eta!.
BACKGROUND
2 On March 23, 1990, Francisco and Carmen F. Quichocho ("Plaintiffs")' filed a
3 Complaint to Quiet Title and for Declaratory Relief ("Complaint") against Mr. Untalan and 4 Radhi P. Hemlani ("Defendants"f The Complaint concerns a dispute over title to real property, 5 which is identified as follows: Lot Number 15, Block Number 2, Tract 109, Municipality of 6
7 Barrigada, Territory of Guam, Estate 12035, Suburban, as marked and designated on map
8 drawing number D4-64T 205, recorded on September 1, 1969 in the Department of Land
9 Management under document number 57025. 10 Following the failure to plead, answer, or defend the case, default was entered on May 11 11, 1990 against Defendants. (Entry of Default, May 11, 1990.) After the entry of default, 12
13 Plaintiffs did not attempt to obtain a default judgment and the case remained completely
14 dormant for almost eight (8) years. 15 On March 13, 1998, the Court filed a notice informing the parties of a Status Hearing 16 scheduled for November 17, 1998 in the above-captioned matter. (Notice of Hearing, Mar. 13, 17 1998). During the hearing, the Court ordered the case closed. (See Minute Entry, Nov. 17, 18
19 1998.) The Minute Entry to the Status Hearing does not indicate that either party appeared
20 before the Court. (ld.) Thereafter, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal closing and dismissing 21 the case. (Order for Dismissal, Feb. 2, 1999.) 22 No activity occurred for more than sixteen (16) years until the Administrator for the 23 Plaintiffs' estates, Mr. Quichocho, filed a Petition to Re-open Civil Proceedings and for 24
25 1 26 Based on representations made in the Petition to Re-open Civil Proceedings and for Judgment, Plaintiffs are both deceased. (See Pet. to Re-Open Civil Proceedings and for Judgment at Ex. 4, Oct. 20, 27 2016.) 2 The Court is aware that Radhi Hemlani is deceased. (Def.s Mot. at Ex. A, June 23, 2017.) The status of 28 Mr. Untalan is unknown, however, Mr. Mendiola alleges in his Motion that he is also deceased. (Def.'s Mot. at 5.) Page 2 of 6 Decision and Order CV0275-90, Quichocho et al. v. Untalan et al.
Judgment on October 20, 2016 ("Petition"). Mr. Mendiola, as Special Administrator of the
2 Estate of Radhi Hemlani, opposed the reopening of the above-captioned matter and filed the
3 current motion on June 23, 2017. Mr. Quichocho filed an opposition to the motion on December 4 1, 2017, which Mr. Mendiola replied to on January 12, 2018. The Court heard oral arguments 5 and took the matter under advisement on January 20, 2018. 6
7 DISCUSSION
8 In deciding whether to reopen the underlying civil proceedings, the Court should
9 consider the same factors used to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. See Townsend v. Keller 10 Williams Realty, Inc., Civil No. 05CV1697-L(JMA), 2008 WL 2224527 *1 (S.D. Cal. May 29, 11 2008); Chance v. PAC, 233 Fed. Appx. 27, 29-30 (2nd Cir. 2007). As laid out in Santos v. 12
13 Carney, 1997 Guam 4
14 resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 15 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 16 availability of less drastic sanctions. See also Guam Dep't of Educ. v. Guam Civil Serv. 17 Comm'n, 2017 Guam 8
19 them under the facts and circumstances of this case?
20 A. The Public's Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation and the Court's Need to Manage Its Docket 21
22 The Supreme Court noted that the first two factors may be considered together. Park v.
23 Kawashima, 2010 Guam 10
27 3 28 Mr. Mendiola does not dispute that these are the factors the Court is to consider in determining whether to reopen the underlying proceedings. Page 3 of6 Decision and Order CV0275-90, Quichocho et al. v. Untalan et al.
cumulative length of delay attributable to the plaintiff and examining whether the plaintiff failed
2 to pursue the case diligently and did so for reasons that do not amount to good cause").
3 Here, the delay was lengthy and Mr. Quichocho concedes that a significant amount of 4 time has passed given that the matter was completely devoid of any activity by Plaintiffs for 5 more than twenty-six (26) years. 4 (Opp. to Defs.' Mot. at 2, Dec. 1, 2017.) For events during 6
7 this timeframe, Mr. Quichocho offers no valid reason why a default judgment in Plaintiffs'
8· favor was never requested or entered in the eight (8) years between the entry of default in May
9 1990 and a status hearing in November 1998. During this period, the Court awaited action by 10 either party before appropriately filing its Order of Dismissal in February 1999. Mr. Quichocho 11 has also brought forth no sufficient reason why the case was not reopened soon after the 12
13 dismissal in 1999 or even immediately after probate proceedings began for Plaintiffs' estates.
14 Mr. Quichocho's argument that he "never knew that this case had not been resolved in 15 his favor let alone dismissed" is unavailing and lacks any specifics concerning the prior 16 representation of Plaintiffs. (Opp. to Defs.' Mot. at 2.) Although much of the delay may not be 17 specifically attributed towards Mr. Quichocho (or his current counsel), he stands in the place of 18
19 Plaintiffs who had the onus of pushing the case through to judgment and thereafter taking any
20 corrective or curative actions necessary in a timely and reasonable matter after the case had been 21 dismissed. Unfortunately, Mr. Quichocho has to suffer from the effects of Plaintiffs' 22 dilatoriness, unreasonable delay, and inability to pursue the case in a diligent manner. The 23 Court's docket, meanwhile, was and is filled with cases that are actively prosecuted, and its 24
25 need to manage that docket is paramount considering the caseload and the time standards for
4 28 This is calculated as the period of time between the entry of default in May 11, 1990 and the time Mr. Quichocho filed his Petition on October 20, 2016. Page 4 of6 Decision and Order CV0275-90, Quichocho eta!. v. Untalan eta!.
adjudicating cases. Accordingly, both of these factors weigh strongly against reopening this
2 civil proceeding.
3 B. The Risk of Prejudice to Defendants 4 Mr. Mendiola argues that "Defendants will categorically and unequivocally be 5 prejudiced if this case is re-opened." (Def.'s Mot. at 5.) A party need not show actual prejudice, 6
however, where the court has determined that the delay is unreasonable. Park, 2010 Guam 10
8 21. In such cases, as is the case here, prejudice is presumed because the delay was unreasonable.
9 ld. Even absent this presumption, Mr. Mendiola would suffer significant prejudice in litigating 10 this case as many of the original parties to this action are now deceased and documents and 11 other potential evidence concerning the allegations in the Complaint may be missing or 12
13 unavailable given the amount of time that has passed since the case was filed. Accordingly, this
14 factor weighs strongly against reopening this civil proceeding. 15 C. Public Policy Favoring the Disposition of Cases on the Merits 16 Although this factor should ordinarily weigh against dismissal, the question for courts is 17 instead "whether the policy of determining cases on their merits justifies the delay and prejudice 18
19 caused by [Plaintiffs'] actions." Park, 2010 Guam 10
20 determination of the first three factors makes clear that Plaintiffs have ignored their 21 responsibilities in prosecuting the action and that Defendants will suffer prejudice as a result 22 thereof. Mr. Quichocho has also not sufficiently demonstrated how the public policy favoring 23 disposition on the merits "outweighs the expeditious resolution of litigation and the court's need 24
25 to manage its docket." Id. at 23. Rather, the policy would not be served because Mr. Quichocho
26 seeks to reopen the case for the expressed purpose of entering a default judgment. Therefore, 27 this factor weighs against reopening this civil proceeding. 28
Page 5 of 6 Decision and Order CV0275-90, Quichocho et al. v. Untalan et al.
D. The Availability of Less Drastic Sanctions
2 In assessing this factor considering the posture and circumstances of this case, the Court
3 must look to the presence of other alternatives to reopening the matter. Here, the case was not 4 explicitly dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Quichocho therefore has the option to file a separate 5 complaint against the necessary parties to attempt to quiet title to the subject property. In filing a 6
7 new complaint, Mr. Quichocho may cite to the case herein or to other evidence that may be
8 relevant or available. The Court believes this option is a more viable alternative than reopening 9 the current proceedings given the significant passage of time and the different parties and 10 interests that may now be involved. Accordingly, this factor weighs against reopening this civil 11 proceeding. 12
13 As all the factors weigh against reopening this civil proceeding, the Court believes it is
14 appropriate to grant Mr. Mendiola's motion. 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Mr. Mendiola's Motion in Opposition 17 to Plaintiff's Petition to Re-open Civil Proceedings and for Judgment. In so doing, the Court also 18
19 DENIES the Petition to Re-Open Civil Proceedings and for Judgment.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED on this 16th day of April, 201 22
25 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 26
Page 6 of6