Sablan v. Samurai Guam, LLC

Opinion

c ! ~ __ ::= [}

~, 11'--' - 'j~'!_~r:T

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM TERRITORY OF GUAM ,-,~ .-.~, , ':' '. '::!l ,I ;' -" •

. J

2 ~) j- CO 0 f\ T

3 ANTHONY M. SABLAN, FRANCISCA C. )

4 SABLAN, MICHAEL C. SABLAN, )

THERESA P. SABLAN, C.J.S. AND N.A.S., ) CIVIL CASE NO. CV1393-07 5 )

Plaintiffs,)

6 )

7 vs. )

)

8 SAMURAI GUAM, LLC, YOSHIKATSU ) DECISION TOSHIOKA, NATIONAL UNION FIRE )

9 INSURANCE CONWANY OF )

10 PITTSBURGH, PA., AND DOES 1 )

THROUGH 10, )

11 )

Defendants.)

12

13 On January 10, 2012 the HONORABLE ELIZABETH BARRETT-ANDERSON!

14 canceled oral arguments on Defendants' Motion for a New Trial ("Motion") and detennined 15 that the Court would render its decision on the basis of the materials on file. This Court having 16 considered all the briefs and arguments filed herein now renders the following decision.

17 DISCUSSION

18 This Court held a jury trial in this matter, and on April 4, 2011, the jury rendered a 19 verdict in favor of the Plaintiff Francisca C. Sablan, collectively in the amount of $403,405.60;

20 Plaintiff Anthony Sablan, collectively in the amount of $90,000.00; Plaintiff Michael C. Sablan, 21 collectively in the amount of $50,000.00; Plaintiff Theresa P. Sablan, collectively in the amount 22 of $50,000.00; Plaintiff Noah A. Sablan, collectively in the amount of $50,000.00; and Plaintiff 23 Connor J. Sablan, collectively in the amount of $15,000.00. Sablan v. Samurai Guam, LLC, et.

24 a/., CV1593-07 (Jun. 15, 2011). Costs for the Plaintiffs were also awarded. [d. On June 24, 25 2011, Defendants filed the Motion requesting that this Court grant "a new trial on the issue of 26

27

28 t After taking this matter under advisement, Judge Barrett-Anderson retired and became Judge Pro Tempore.

Page 1 of3

damages on the grounds that the jury's damage awards are grossly excessive and the result of

2 passion and prejudice. Defendants do not contest the jury's finding of liability." Mot. For New

3 Tr., p. 1 (Jun. 24, 2011). The Motion is based upon Rule 59(a) of Guam's Rules of Civil

4 Procedure and Title 7 Guam Code Annotated section 21501(4) (2010).

5 The Court notes that 7 GCA § 21502 requires that a motion for new trial must be made

6 within five (5) days of Judgment. The Motion was filed nine (9) days after Judgment, hence this

7 Motion is untimelr, and therefore, the Court will not grant a new trial based upon 7 GCA §

8 21501(4). However, under GRCP 59(a), a motion for a new trial may be made within ten (10)

9 days after the entry of Judgment; therefore, the Court will consider the Motion based upon

10 GRCP 59(a). 11 "When reviewing the denial of a motion for a new trial, the inquiry is 'whether the 12 verdict is either supported by substantial evidence or whether the jury's decision is against the 13 clear weight of the evidence.'" Guam Top Builders, Inc. v. Tanota Partners, 2011 Guam 30 ~ 14 8(quoting B.M Co. v. Avery, 2002 Guam 19 ~ 10); Park v. Mobil Oil Guam, Inc., 2004 Guam 15 20. "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person may accept as sufficient 16 to support a conclusion, even if inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence."

17 B.M Co. v. Avery, 2002 Guam 19 ~ 13(citations omitted). "A jury has substantial discretion in 18 determining the amount of damages, but a new trial may be awarded if the ... award bears no 19 reasonable relation to the loss suffered." Craigmiles v. Egan, 618 N.E.2d 1242, 1248 (Ill. App.

20 Ct. 1993)(quoted by B.M. Co., 2002 Guam 19 ~13).

21 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not met the burden for this Court to grant a new 22 trial on damages. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs and Defendants agree with the concept that even if 23 a court would have granted a different amount of damages, it cannot substitute its judgment for 24 the jury's and that the jury's verdict must be upheld unless it was unreasonably excessive so as 25

26

27 2 Plaintiffs did not raise this point or object to the Motion on this basis. Further, the Court notes that the Plaintiffs'

28 Opposition to Motion For New Trial was filed late, but the Defendants did not object or request it be stricken from the record. CVR 7.1(d). See also CVR 7.1(f), (k).

Page 2 of3

. .

to "shock the judicial conscience." Cabassa v. American Transport, Inc., 58 F.DR.D. 200,204 2 (D.C.P.R. 1972); Wright, Miller & Kane, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2807 (2d ed.). 3 The physical injuries in this case were not extensive, nonetheless, the jury determined, 4 after being properly instructed and considering the substantial evidence, that each of the 5 Plaintiffs were entitled to some amount of past and future non-economic damages. Sablan v. 6 Samurai Guam, LLC., CV1393-07 (Sup. Ct. Guam Aug. 24, 2009). See also Jury Instruction D8 7 (Apr. 4, 2011). In the Court's opinion, the jury did consider each Plaintiff individually and 8 awarded a reasonable amount of damages based on the evidence and the jury's common sense. 9 The differences in amounts for each Plaintiff individually provides this Court with support to 10 uphold the jury's verdict because the jury was not swayed by passion and prejudice, but instead 11 properly considered each Plaintiff's different amount of physical injuries and the fear and 12 anxiety experienced as a result of the incident. The amount awarded by the jury was less than 13 what the Plaintiffs requested; but more than the Defendants think is reasonable. Both parties 14 attempt to sway the Court with summarizing the evidence the jury considered. This Court will 15 not substitute its judgment based on the evidence, but rather finds that the jury awarded a 16 substantial amount of damages to Plaintiffs; however, the amounts awarded bear a reasonable 17 relation to the loss suffered. Furthermore, the Court determines that the jury's decision is not 18 against the clear weight of the evidence. 19

20 CONCLUSION 21 For all of the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion.

22

23 SO ORDERED this 13 th of April 2012. 24

25

26 , do hewD}! f:BrUfv th'1t the fOiB'{jQ!ng 1i s full iflJe ant) corr.·,.r:'( f;(\FY of ~;H:'I 27 g$~~~\ri~l J;lgf}l~ot/(L~,~~~l~~ G~;~~

28 APR 1 '{ 2017

Page3 of3