2023 FEB 28 PM 4: I 2
6 In The Superior Court Of Guam 7
s ROBERT P. SALAS, Case No.: CV0422-22
9 Plaintiff, 10 v. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 11 B-7, LLC, CATHERINE B. ANDERSON, as SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION TO Trustee of the CATHERINE B. ANDERSON STRIKE/DISMISS THIRD-PARTY 12 TRUST, and as Successor Trustee of the COMPLAINT 13 BRYAN B. BENAVENTE TRUST.
14 Defendants.
15 B-7, LLC, 16 Third Party Plaintiff, 17 V. 18 LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, 19 INC. 20 Third Party Defendant. 21
22 INTRODUCTION
23 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 1st day of December, 24 2022, for a scheduling conference and hearing on the Motion to Strike/Dismiss Third Party 25 Complaint (''Motion") brought by Third-Party Defendant Landscape Management Systems, Inc 26
27 ("LMS"). Attorney Mitch Thompson represented Plaintiff Robert Salas ("Salas'') and Third-
28 Party Defendant LMS, attorney Pat Civille represented B-7, LLC ("B-7), and attorney John
Robert P. Salas v. 8-7. LLC, CA1HERIXE B. AXDERSO.V. as 1i-11stee of the CATHER/XE B. AXDERSO.V TRL'.W, and as Successor Trustee of the BRYA.\' B. BE.\'EI 'E.\TE TRL'S7~ CV0422~22 DECISION & ORDER Page I of 5 Ramos represented Catherine Anderson ("Anderson"). The Court now issues the following 2 Decision and Order on the Matter. 3 BACKGROUND 4
This action was filed by Salas seeking to partition real property in which he owns an 5
6 undivided interest. He filed his Complaint for Partition on August 3. 2022. Comp!., at 2-3.
7 Anderson filed and Answer stating that the Court should "order the partition of the Subject 8 Property according to the respective rights and interest[ s] of the parties hereto" but denies that 9 the costs should be borne by the defendants but rather solely by the Plaintiff. Answer at 2-3 10
11 (Aug. 29, 2022). Subsequently, B-7 filed an Answer and Counterclaim, and Third-Party
12 Complaint ("Third-Party Complaint") on Sept. 14, 2022. The Third-Party Complaint alleged 13 two causes of action against LMS, trespass onto the subject real property and rent for LMS' 14 occupation of the real property. Answer and Counterclaim and Third-Party Comp!. at 6-8. 15 LMS filed a Motion to Strike/Dismiss Third-Party Complaint based on the notion that 16
17 they are an improper third party defendant under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure ("GRCP")
18 Rule 14. Mot. To Strike/Dismiss Third-Party Comp!. at 2 (Oct. 14, 2022). 1 B-7 replied arguing 19 against the Motion to Strike that LMS can be joined as a party under GRCP Rule 19 or Rule 20, 20 and therefore dismissal of the complaint would not be appropriate. Opp. Mot. Strike/Dismiss 21 Third-Party Comp!. (Nov. 14, 2022). Additionally, B-7 requests leave to amend the Third-Party 22
23 Complaint should the Court find in favor of LMS. Id. at 7. The Court held a hearing on
24 December 1, 2022 and subsequently took the matter under advisement. 25
28 1 LMS moved the Court to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint in a footnote without providing additional analysis
on the relevant I 2(b )(6) standard and as it applies to the claims asserted by B-7. The Court therefore declines to consider LMS' Motion to Dismiss, and examines the Motion to Strike. Robert P. Salas v. 8-7. LLC. CATI/ER/SE B. AXDERSO:\'. as Trustee of the CAT/JERI.VE B. A:YDERSO.V TRI '.W. and as Successor Trustee of the BR)A.V B. BE:VEIE\TE TRC'ST. CV0422-22 DECISION & ORDER Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION 2 I. Third-Party Claims Must be Derivatively Based on the Plaintiff's Claim 3 Against the Third-Party Plaintiff. 4 Third-party claims and complaints are governed by the provisions of GRCP Rule 14. 5 Rule 14(a) provides. in relevant part: 6 At any time after the commencement of the action a defending party, as a third- 7 party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person 8 not a party to the action, who is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the third-party plaintiff. 9 GRCP I 4(a). GRCP Rule 14 is analogous to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IO
II and Guam relies on federal precedent as highly persuasive when interpreting the GRCP. Ukau v.
12 Wang, 2016 Guam 26, 28. 13 "[A] third-party claim may be asserted only when the third party's liability is in some 14 way dependent on the outcome of the main claim and the third party's liability is secondary or 15
16 derivative. It is not sufficient that the third-party claim is a related claim; the claim must be
17 derivatively based on the original plaintiffs claim." United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 18 708 F.2s 444, 452 (9111 Cir. 1983). A "crucial characteristic" of a Rule 14 action is "that [a] 19 defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted against [the 20 defendant] by the original plaintiff." Stewart v. Am. Int'/ Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196,200 (9111 21
22 Cir. 1988). The rule provides that the third-party defendant must be derivatively liable to the
23 claims made by the plaintiff against the third-party plaintiff. 24 Here, Salas' original claims is for partition of undivided property between Salas, 25 Anderson, and B-7. Comp I. at 2-3. B-7 asserts two claims against LMS in the Third-Party 26 Complaint, trespass onto the subject real property and rent for LMS' occupation of the real 27
28 property. Answer and Counterclaim and Third-Party Com pl. at 6-8. The claim against LMS is
Robert P. Salas v. B-7. LLC'. CA11/ERI.VE B A.\'DERSO.\', as Trustee of the CATHERI.\E B. A.VDERSO:V TRl 'ST and as Successor Trustee c~(the BRYAS B. BESEl'EXTE IRC'ST CV0422-22 DECISION & ORDER Page 3 of5 not derivatively related to the claim for partition originally made by Salas as they are not related 2 to partitioning the property based on the respective rights and interest of the parties. Therefore, 3 LMS is not a proper third-party defendant under GRCP Rule 14(a), and the Court grants LMS' 4
Motion to Strike. The Court notes the B-7 argues in their Opposition that they never brought the 5
6 action under GRCP Rule 14(a), but the form of the Third-Party Complaint clearly complies with
7 GRCP Rule 14 rather than GRCP Rule 13 to properly bring Counterclaims and Cross-claims. 8 II. Leave to Amend Should Always be Liberally Granted. 9 B-7 in the alternative requested that the Court grant them leave to amend the Third-Party 10
11 Complaint. B-7 argues that LMS was properly brought based on the counterclaim by B-7
12 against Salas, but the form of the answer dictated that LMS would be pied in under a third-party 13 claim. Opp. Mot. Strike/Dismiss Third-Party Campi. (Nov. 14, 2022). LMS may be a party to 14 this partition based on their purported use and interest in the property, and would need to be 15 added under GRCP Rule 19 if they are deemed a necessary party, or GRCP Rule 20 as a 16
17 permissive party. ·'[l]n matters of pleading, leave to amend should always be liberally granted."
18 Arashi & Co. v. Nakashima Enters., Inc., 2005 Guam~ 16 (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 19 178, 182 (1962)). Accordingly, the Court grants B-7 leave to amend the Third-Party Complaint 20 to properly plead in LMS to this partition action. 21
Robert P. Solas v. B-7, LLC, CA71/ERl.\'E B. A.VDERSO.V, as Trustee of the CATIIERJ.\'E B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2023 FEB 28 PM 4: I 2
6 In The Superior Court Of Guam 7
s ROBERT P. SALAS, Case No.: CV0422-22
9 Plaintiff, 10 v. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 11 B-7, LLC, CATHERINE B. ANDERSON, as SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION TO Trustee of the CATHERINE B. ANDERSON STRIKE/DISMISS THIRD-PARTY 12 TRUST, and as Successor Trustee of the COMPLAINT 13 BRYAN B. BENAVENTE TRUST.
14 Defendants.
15 B-7, LLC, 16 Third Party Plaintiff, 17 V. 18 LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, 19 INC. 20 Third Party Defendant. 21
22 INTRODUCTION
23 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 1st day of December, 24 2022, for a scheduling conference and hearing on the Motion to Strike/Dismiss Third Party 25 Complaint (''Motion") brought by Third-Party Defendant Landscape Management Systems, Inc 26
27 ("LMS"). Attorney Mitch Thompson represented Plaintiff Robert Salas ("Salas'') and Third-
28 Party Defendant LMS, attorney Pat Civille represented B-7, LLC ("B-7), and attorney John
Robert P. Salas v. 8-7. LLC, CA1HERIXE B. AXDERSO.V. as 1i-11stee of the CATHER/XE B. AXDERSO.V TRL'.W, and as Successor Trustee of the BRYA.\' B. BE.\'EI 'E.\TE TRL'S7~ CV0422~22 DECISION & ORDER Page I of 5 Ramos represented Catherine Anderson ("Anderson"). The Court now issues the following 2 Decision and Order on the Matter. 3 BACKGROUND 4
This action was filed by Salas seeking to partition real property in which he owns an 5
6 undivided interest. He filed his Complaint for Partition on August 3. 2022. Comp!., at 2-3.
7 Anderson filed and Answer stating that the Court should "order the partition of the Subject 8 Property according to the respective rights and interest[ s] of the parties hereto" but denies that 9 the costs should be borne by the defendants but rather solely by the Plaintiff. Answer at 2-3 10
11 (Aug. 29, 2022). Subsequently, B-7 filed an Answer and Counterclaim, and Third-Party
12 Complaint ("Third-Party Complaint") on Sept. 14, 2022. The Third-Party Complaint alleged 13 two causes of action against LMS, trespass onto the subject real property and rent for LMS' 14 occupation of the real property. Answer and Counterclaim and Third-Party Comp!. at 6-8. 15 LMS filed a Motion to Strike/Dismiss Third-Party Complaint based on the notion that 16
17 they are an improper third party defendant under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure ("GRCP")
18 Rule 14. Mot. To Strike/Dismiss Third-Party Comp!. at 2 (Oct. 14, 2022). 1 B-7 replied arguing 19 against the Motion to Strike that LMS can be joined as a party under GRCP Rule 19 or Rule 20, 20 and therefore dismissal of the complaint would not be appropriate. Opp. Mot. Strike/Dismiss 21 Third-Party Comp!. (Nov. 14, 2022). Additionally, B-7 requests leave to amend the Third-Party 22
23 Complaint should the Court find in favor of LMS. Id. at 7. The Court held a hearing on
24 December 1, 2022 and subsequently took the matter under advisement. 25
28 1 LMS moved the Court to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint in a footnote without providing additional analysis
on the relevant I 2(b )(6) standard and as it applies to the claims asserted by B-7. The Court therefore declines to consider LMS' Motion to Dismiss, and examines the Motion to Strike. Robert P. Salas v. 8-7. LLC. CATI/ER/SE B. AXDERSO:\'. as Trustee of the CAT/JERI.VE B. A:YDERSO.V TRI '.W. and as Successor Trustee of the BR)A.V B. BE:VEIE\TE TRC'ST. CV0422-22 DECISION & ORDER Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION 2 I. Third-Party Claims Must be Derivatively Based on the Plaintiff's Claim 3 Against the Third-Party Plaintiff. 4 Third-party claims and complaints are governed by the provisions of GRCP Rule 14. 5 Rule 14(a) provides. in relevant part: 6 At any time after the commencement of the action a defending party, as a third- 7 party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person 8 not a party to the action, who is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the third-party plaintiff. 9 GRCP I 4(a). GRCP Rule 14 is analogous to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IO
II and Guam relies on federal precedent as highly persuasive when interpreting the GRCP. Ukau v.
12 Wang, 2016 Guam 26, 28. 13 "[A] third-party claim may be asserted only when the third party's liability is in some 14 way dependent on the outcome of the main claim and the third party's liability is secondary or 15
16 derivative. It is not sufficient that the third-party claim is a related claim; the claim must be
17 derivatively based on the original plaintiffs claim." United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 18 708 F.2s 444, 452 (9111 Cir. 1983). A "crucial characteristic" of a Rule 14 action is "that [a] 19 defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted against [the 20 defendant] by the original plaintiff." Stewart v. Am. Int'/ Oil & Gas Co., 845 F.2d 196,200 (9111 21
22 Cir. 1988). The rule provides that the third-party defendant must be derivatively liable to the
23 claims made by the plaintiff against the third-party plaintiff. 24 Here, Salas' original claims is for partition of undivided property between Salas, 25 Anderson, and B-7. Comp I. at 2-3. B-7 asserts two claims against LMS in the Third-Party 26 Complaint, trespass onto the subject real property and rent for LMS' occupation of the real 27
28 property. Answer and Counterclaim and Third-Party Com pl. at 6-8. The claim against LMS is
Robert P. Salas v. B-7. LLC'. CA11/ERI.VE B A.\'DERSO.\', as Trustee of the CATHERI.\E B. A.VDERSO:V TRl 'ST and as Successor Trustee c~(the BRYAS B. BESEl'EXTE IRC'ST CV0422-22 DECISION & ORDER Page 3 of5 not derivatively related to the claim for partition originally made by Salas as they are not related 2 to partitioning the property based on the respective rights and interest of the parties. Therefore, 3 LMS is not a proper third-party defendant under GRCP Rule 14(a), and the Court grants LMS' 4
Motion to Strike. The Court notes the B-7 argues in their Opposition that they never brought the 5
6 action under GRCP Rule 14(a), but the form of the Third-Party Complaint clearly complies with
7 GRCP Rule 14 rather than GRCP Rule 13 to properly bring Counterclaims and Cross-claims. 8 II. Leave to Amend Should Always be Liberally Granted. 9 B-7 in the alternative requested that the Court grant them leave to amend the Third-Party 10
11 Complaint. B-7 argues that LMS was properly brought based on the counterclaim by B-7
12 against Salas, but the form of the answer dictated that LMS would be pied in under a third-party 13 claim. Opp. Mot. Strike/Dismiss Third-Party Campi. (Nov. 14, 2022). LMS may be a party to 14 this partition based on their purported use and interest in the property, and would need to be 15 added under GRCP Rule 19 if they are deemed a necessary party, or GRCP Rule 20 as a 16
17 permissive party. ·'[l]n matters of pleading, leave to amend should always be liberally granted."
18 Arashi & Co. v. Nakashima Enters., Inc., 2005 Guam~ 16 (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 19 178, 182 (1962)). Accordingly, the Court grants B-7 leave to amend the Third-Party Complaint 20 to properly plead in LMS to this partition action. 21
Robert P. Solas v. B-7, LLC, CA71/ERl.\'E B. A.VDERSO.V, as Trustee of the CATIIERJ.\'E B. A.\'DERSO.V TRI '.'iT, and as Successor Trustee ofthe BRU:\' B BEXEJEXTE TRl'S7: CV0422-22 DECISION & ORDER Page 4 of 5 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Based upon the foregoing reasons, LMS' Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Additionally, 3 the Court GRANTS B-7 leave to amend the Third-Party Complaint and ORDERS that the 4
amended complaint is filed within twenty-one (21) days of this Order. 5
7 ?g SO ORDERED, this - - - - -day - - - - - - - - - · 2022, 8
~ 10
11 ART~UR R. BARCINAS 12 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13
19 Date:-..s:=_Time: 2../z.?/z;, uoseph Bamba, Jr. 20 ----·--- --- Dept..ty Cler%, Si.,perM Court of G,:am
Robert P Salas v. 8-7, LLC. C~THERI.\'E B. A.\'DERSO.\', as frustee of the C4Tl/ERl.\'E B. A.\'DERSO.\' TRCST, and as Successor Trustee of the BR)A.\' B. BE.\'fTEXTE TRliS7: CV0422-22 DECISION & ORDER Page 5 of 5