Smau v. Wong

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: April 3, 2012
• Docket: CV1139-07
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

J T ritorial Law Library ORIGINAL

3 ,---\ ;' ;-~; . ,-_jL _." COUR1

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 YOPPONG SMAU, ) CIVIL CASE NO. 1139-07 7 Plaintiff, ) ) 8 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 9 SUSAN T. WONG, ) 10 ) Defendant. ) II ) 12 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III, on April 2, 2012, on 13 Defendant's motion to reconsider this Court's order issued on March 30,2012. In that Order,this 14 Court ruled that because Defendant had not responded within thirty days to Plaintiff's Requests 15 for Admissions, served on April 22, 2008, the contents of the requests for admission would be 16 deemed admitted at trial under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a). 17 After this Court issued its Order, Defendant informed this Court that it had, in fact, 18 submitted answers to the requests for admission on June 6, 2008. Defendant also highlighted the 19 fact that that Judge Unpingco issued a revised scheduling order on July 23, 2012, in which Judge 20 Unpingco noted that the parties had been diligent in discovery and in which the Judge 21 acknowledged that Defendant had provided answers to the requests for admission. (Stipulated 22 Extension of Scheduling Order, CVl139-07, July 23, 2008). 23 Although a party must generally respond to a request for admission within thirty days, the 24 court has wide discretion to lengthen or shorten this deadline. GUAM R. CIV. P. 36(a). In light of 25 these newly considered facts, this Court finds that although Defendant failed to answer within 26 thirty days, Defendant did ultimately submit answers to Plaintiffs requests and Judge 27 Unpingco's acceptance of Defendant's answers constituted an extension under Rule 36. Under 28 the doctrine of issue preclusion this Court could not revisit an issue that had already been

ORIGINAL Decision and Order ORIGlNAL Case No. 1139-07

determined by Judge Unpingco. Given Judge Unpingco's prior order, this Court rules that it 2 could not thereafter deem Plaintiff's requested admissions admitted. Reconsideration and relief 3 from this Court's Order After Hearing dated March 30, 2012, is proper under Rule 60(b)(6) of 4 the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure l and this Court hereby rescinds that prior Order. 5

6 It is SO ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2012. 7

10 LAMORENA, III rt of Guam II

24 ORIGlNAL 25 Plaintiff asserts that she will suffer prejudice if this Court were to vacate its prior order. 26 However, this Court fails to see any prejudice suffered by Plaintiff and even if there were prejudice, Plaintiff has failed to raise her arguments in a timely and appropriate manner. Plaintiff 27 had ample time to file a written motion requesting of the court that the requests for admissions be deemed admitted and asserting any issues of prejudice relating to Judge Unpingco' s implied 28 ruling that the delayed answer was acceptable; nothing in the record indicates that Plaintiff has moved for such an order in writing as required by CVR 7.1 and GRCP 7(b)(1).

-2-