Song v. Kim

Opinion

;::::- I!~ L!:'...... n f g ~_,,.

282§f3U.5 2025 AUG 20 29NiPi I:#QL

44

1 Ci ERR P? CLER;, ePi§3Ll?<T COURT 2

3 Y: 4 IN THE IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUA!Y=---~.......,..,--

GUAM

5 HOJIN SONG, HOJINSONG, CIVIL CASE NO.

NO. CV0220-24 CV0220-24 6

7 Plalntiff, Plaintiff,

8 v.

V.

DECISION AND ORDER Re: Defendant's 's Motion Motion to to Amend Amend Answer to 9 Include Include Counterclaim Counterclaim DAE HYUN KIM, 10 Defendant.

II 11

12 12

in 13 This matter came before matter came before the Honorable Arthur the Honorable Arthur R.Barcinas Barcinas on on June June 12, 12, 2025, 2025, for a

14 hearing on Defendant hearing on DefendantDae DoeHyun HyunKim's Kim's ("Defendant")

("Defendant") Motion to Amend Amend Answer Answer to to Include Include 15 15 Counterclaim ("Motion"), filed Counterclaim ("Motion"), filedon onApril April8,8,2025.

2025.Present Present at at the the hearing hearing were Attorney Jon Jon R.

16 16 Ramos Ramos for Plaintiff Plaintiff Hojin Hojin Song Song ("Plaintiff")

("Plaintiff') and and Attorney Attorney Georgette Georgette Conception Concepcion for for 17 17

18 18 Defendant. Defendant. Upon review of ofthe therecord recordand and the the parties'

parties' arguments, arguments, the the Court Court hereby hereby DENIES

19 19 the Motion for the following following reasons.

reasons.

20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff Plaintifffiled filedthis this action action on on April April19, 19, 2024, 2024, seeking seeking quiet quiet title title and and declaratory relief in declaratory relief 22 22 connection with a mortgage and promissory note and promissory note recorded recorded against againsthis hisproperty.

property.Plaintiff Plaintiff alleges 23 23

24 24 that Defendant fraudulently fraudulently induced him to to execute the documents underthe documents under thepretense pretenseof of selling selling

25 25 a separate property in Piti, separate property Pity, Guam.

Guam. On On June June17, 17,2024, 2024,Defendant Defendantfiled filed their their Answer responding 26 to the allegations, asserting numerousaffirmative asserting numerous affirmative defenses defenses and andalleging alleging that thatPlaintiff Plaintiff owed him 27 27 at least least $l66,000.00.

$166,000.00. On On July July 23, 23, 2024, 2024, the the Could Court issued issued aa Scheduling Scheduling Order, Order, stating stating that that

Decision Decision and and Order Civil Case Civil Case No.

No. CV0220-24 CV0220-24

motions to amend pleadings were due amend pleadings due by October October 17, 17, 2024.

2024. Discovery Discovery closed closed on onJanuary January 23, I

2 2025, after a stipulated extension.

2025, extension.

3 In the the instant instant Motion, Defendant Defendant now seeks seeks leave leave to to amend amend his his Answer Answerpursuant pursuant to 4 Guam Rule Rule of of Civil Procedure Procedure ("GRCP")

("GRCP")l 6(b)(4)

16(b)(4)and andassert assertaacounterclaim counterclaim for for approximately approximately 5 $300,000.00 allegedly owed to him by Plaintiff. $300,000.00 allegedly Plaintiff.Defendant Defendantargues argues that that the factual factual basis for the 6

counterclaim only became counterclaim only became apparent apparentupon uponreceipt receiptof of Plaintiffs Plaintiffs deposition deposition transcript transcript on March 7

8 21, ,2025.

2025.On May6,6,2025, OnMay 2025,Plaintiff Plaintiff filed asserting that filed his opposition, asserting that Defendant was was aware aware of of

9 the factual basis for factual basis for the the counterclaim counterclaimsince sincethe theoutset outsetof of litigation litigation but but failed failed to to act act diligently.

10 10 On May 20, 20, 2025, Defendant filed 2025, Defendant filed a reply reiterating that he he acted acteddiligently diligently upon receiving receiving the II transcripts, alleging deposition transcripts, alleging that that he he could could not not have have anticipated anticipatedPlaintiffs admission that Plaintiffs admission that the 12

113 funds received were funds received were for forrenovation renovationpurposes purposes rather rather than than for for personal personal reimbursement.

reimbursement.

14 14 On On June 12, 2025, June 12, 2025, the the Court Court took took the matter under advisement.

15 15 DISCUSSION _SION 16 16 Generally, under Guam Generally, under Guamlaw, law, "[a]

"[a] party party may may amend amend the party's pleading pleading once once as aa 17 matter of course at at any any time time before before a responsive responsive pleading pleading is is served served or, or, if the pleading is one to 18 18

19 which no responsive responsive pleading is is permitted permitted and and the the action action has has not been been placed placed upon upon the trial

20 calendar, theparty calendar, the mayso partymay soamend amendititatatany anytime timewithin within20 20days daysafter afterit itisisserved."

served."GRCP GRCP15(a).

l5(a).

21 If the If the motion motion to to amend amend is is tiled after the filed after the proscribed proscribed time, time, aa party party "may "may amend amend the the party's party's 22 pleading pleading only by leave leave of ofcourt court or or by bywritten written consent consent of ofthe the adverse adverse party, party; and and leave shall shall be 23 23

freely given given when when justice so requires." Id.

requires." Id.

24

25 However, the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court has held that has held that when a party party seeks seeks to amend amend a 26 pleading pleading after the pretrial pretrial scheduling scheduling order's deadline for for amending amending the the pleading pleading has has expired, 27 the moving party must satisfy satisfy the the good cause standardunder cause standard underGRCP GRCP16(b)(4), l6(b)(4), not notthe thestandard standard 28 28 under GRCP 15(a)." under GRCP l5(a)." Palmer Palmer v.

v. Mariana Mariana Stones Stones Corp., Corp., 2021 Guam 55 ,i1 22.

2021 Guam 22. "Unlike Rule

Page Z2 of Page of4

Decision and Decision and Order Civil Case Civil Case No. CV0220-24

15(a)'s 15(a)'s liberal liberal amendment policy which amendment policy which focuses focuses on on the the bad bad faith faith of the the party party seeking seeking to I

2 interpose an amendment interpose an amendmentand andthe theprejudice prejudicetotothe theopposing opposingparty, party,Rule Rule16(b)'s l6(b)'s good good cause cause

3 standard primarilyconsiders standard primarily considersthe thediligence diligence of of the the party party seeking seeking the the amendment.

amendment. [...]

[...

4 Amendment should Amendment shouldnot notbe bepermitted permittedifif the themoving moving party party cannot cannotshow showdiligence."

diligence." Id.

Id. But even 5 if if good good cause cause is is shown shown under under GRCP l6(b), 16(b ),the theCourt Courtmust muststill stillevaluate evaluatethe therequest request under under 6

GRCP l5(a), 15(a),which whichdirects directs courts courts to to freely freelygrant grantleave leavetotoamend amend when when justice justice so so requires, requires, 7

8 unless there is unless there is undue unduedelay, delay,prejudice, prejudice,bad badfaith, faith,or orfutility."

futility." Foman v. Davis, 371 371 U.S. 178, 178,

9 182 (1962).

182 (1962).

10 Upon review, review, the the Court Court finds findsthat thatDefendant Defendant has has not notdemonstrated demonstrated the the required required 11 II diligence diligence to to amend amend his his Answer Answerat at this this late latestage.

stage.Defendant Defendantadmitted admitted as as early earlyas as June June 2024 in 12

13 his Answer that Plaintiff Plaintiff owed owed him him at at least least $l66,000.00, $166,000.00, aha and Defendant's Defendant's discovery discovery responses responses

14 14 in October 2024 asserted asserted that thatPlaintiff Plaintiff owed him up to $250,000.00. These figures $250,000.00. These figures reflect reflect the 15 same basis basis as as Defendant's Defendant's proposed counterclaim, demonstrating that Defendant demonstrating that Defendant was was aware aware of of 16 the relevant theories well before beforethe the October October2024 2024 amendment amendment deadline.

deadline.

17 Moreover, Moreover, the the alleged alleged "new "new information"

information" discovered discovered in in Plaintiffs PlaintiffsJanuary January 2025 2025 18 18

19 deposition, i.e., that Plaintiff Plaintiff received received $90,000.00 $90,000.00 ·from Defendant for renovations and and failed to

20 20 account for it, was account for was known known or or reasonably reasonably discoverable discoverable by Defendant Defendant earlier.

earlier. The fact fact that that 21 21 Defendant required assistance from interpreters assistance from interpreters does does not not excuse excuse the the delay, particularly particularly where 22 no no effort effort was was made made to to amend amend within within the the six-month six-month period following Defendant's Defendant's Answer.

23 23 Defendant's Defendant's assertion assertion that that he needed deposition deposition transcripts transcripts to support support his counterclaim is also 24 24

25 25 unconvincing. Defendant waived unconvincing. Defendant waived over two months after Plaintiffs Plaintiff' deposition to to file his motion

26 26 and and received his own deposition transcription on the the same same day day the themotion motionwas wasfiled.

filed. This does 27 27 not reflect type type of of diligence required requiredunder underGRCP GRCP16(b l6(b).

).

28 28

Page 3 of of 4

Decision Decision and Order Civil Civil Case Case No. CV0220-24

Even Even if ifDefendant Defendant did meet the GRCP l6(b)

16(b)good goodcause causestandard, standard, the Court would still 1

2 deny the Motion under deny the GRCP 15(a)

under GRCP l5(a) due due to to undue undue delay delay and prejudicetotoPlaintiff.

and prejudice Plaintiff Trial is

3 impending, and impending, and allowing allowing a new new monetary monetary counterclaim counterclaim at this late stage at this stage would would require require 4 reopening discovery. This would reopening discovery. would disrupt Plaintiffs trial disrupt Plaintiffs trialpreparation, preparation, particularly as Plaintiff particularly as 5 refrarne his strategy would have to reframe strategy to respond respond to to the the new new claim.

claim. Additionally, the the record does does 6

not support any claim support any claim of bad bad faith faith or or concealment concealment by by Plaintiff, Plaintiff, as as the the records records and and receipts receipts 7

8 referenced by Defendant referenced by Defendant were were produced produced months months earlier, earlier, and and Plaintiff Plaintiff has has consistently consistently

9 maintained that thathe heexpended expendedsignificant significant funds funds on on property property renovations.

renovations.

10 Accordingly, the the Court Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Defendant's Motion to Amend for failure failure to show show 11 good good cause underGRCP cause under GRCP l16(b)(4), 6(b)(4), and and for for undue undue delay and prejudice prejudice to to Plaintiff under under GRCP 12 12

13 1 l5(a). 15(a).

14 CONCLUSION

15 15 Based on the the foregoing, foregoing, the the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion Motion to Amend Answer to 16 Include Counterclaim.

Counterclaim.

17 17

18 18 AUG 2 02025 IT IS SO ORDERED 19 19 .,. __

20 H

r

21 HONORABLE HON~OIMB_LE A;RTHUR A;RTHUR R. BARCINAS 22 Judge, Judgi;: Superior _,,.. /, Court of Guam _Court , - -

23 23

24 24

25

26 26

27

28 28

Page 4 of of 4