vo; ii 9 |. »=-"- }is?"& 2'.12§.n??. \ 1; a >&i he au-' §»'3t%»¢g*;
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
SUGUMI GUAM, LLC and WANG-CHIEH C IVIL C ASE no. CV0507-24 sU, P laint if f s/ C ount er claim- D ef endant s, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE v s. DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM S
CHAO-CHUN SU aka DAVID SU and DOES 1-10, INCLUSWE, .r
D ef endant s/ C ount er claim- P laint if f s.
I n t his par t it ion act ion, t he C our t consider s P 1aint if f s/ C ount er claim- D ef endant s Sugumi
Guam, LLC and Wang- C hieh "R onald" Su's mot ion seeldng t o dismiss and st r ike def enses and
count er claims f iled by D ef endant s/ C ount er claim- P laint if f C hao- C hun "D avid" Su. H aving
r eview ed t he br ief s, t he C our t f inds D avid' s count er claims t o be t ime- bar r ed. M or eover , D avid' s
af f ir mat ive def ens es ar e neit her applic able, nor , even if t r ue, s er ve t o def eat t he par t it ion c laim.
The Motion is therefore GRANTED.
I. PR OC ED U R AL BAC KG R OU N D
P laint if f s init iat ed t his act ion seeking t o par t it ion t w o par cels in Tamuning. C omal.
P ar t it ion R eal P r op. ( O ct . l, 2024) . D avid answ er ed and alleged, among ot her af f ir mat ive
def enses, unclean hands, equit y, and f ailur e t o r ecor d a lie r endens. D e£' s Answ er at 4- 5 ( N ov.
5, 2024) . D avid also aver r ed count er claims f or an account ing, br each of f iduciar y dut y, unj ust
enr ichment , and f or punit ive damages. I d. at 6- 10.
L, .'r:" CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND Page 2 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
In response, Plaintiffs move to dismiss all counterclaims for being outside the applicable
statutes of limitations and further argue that David has not stated a claim for the existence of a
fiduciary duty. As for David's affirmative defenses, Plaintiffs assert they must be stricken for
not being adequately pled. The motion was hilly briefed and taken under advisement at the
motion hearing on January 29, 2025.
11. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties agree that David and Ronald each hold an undivided 16.66% interest in
certain property and have held such interests as co-tenants since 1995. Comal. Partition Real
Prop. W 10, 11, Def.'s Answer at 7.1 The property is a leased commercial retail and warehouse
building. De£'s Answer at 7.
However, according to David, Ronald solely receives the rental income. Id David
iixrther alleges that Ronald has assumed sole control of management of the income, and is the
"co-tenant with exclusive control" of the Property. Id Finally, David claims that Ronald has
assumed a position of trust and confidence in the management of the income, and has not
produced any accountings to David. Id.
1. LAW AND DISCUSSION
A . Applicable statutes of limitations bar David's claims.
Guam law imposes a four-year statute of limitations for an accounting action, and three
years for claims involving a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. 7 GCA §§ 11305(a),
(d), 11312. Since Ronald has held an interest in the property jointly with David since 1995 and
since Plaintiffs allege Sugumi has held an interest in the property four years and three months
1 Ronald alleges that Sugumi has held the majority interest in the Property since August 2020. Comal. Partition Real Prop. 119. David denies this. De£'s Answer 1]9. CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND Pa g e 3 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
before the counterclaims were filed, the counterclaims appear to be outside the relevant statutes
of limitations.
When a complaint shows on its face that the applicable statutes of limitations bar the
cause of action, the claimant must plead facts showing an excuse, tolling, or some other basis for
avoiding the statutory bar. Amsden v. Yamon, 1999 Guam 14 1112. However, David's pleading
fails to mention any facts to justify excusing the limitations bar. Instead, in his Opposition
Memorandum, David asks the Court to apply the "continuing violations doctrine" and cites in
support Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, 202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 414 (Ct. App.
2016)-a case involving lapsed child sexual abuse claims. This case is of limited use,
particularly because the Guam Supreme Court has already commented on the continuing claims
doctrine in Bautista v. Tories, 2020 Guam 28-a case more akin to the present as it dealt with
property, rent, and fiduciary duty issues. In Battista, the plaintiffs argued that the continuing
claims doctrine applied a new statute of limitations expiration date to each payment they claimed
their family attorney owed them.
Th e Guam Supreme Court rejected this argument. "That doctrine appears almost
exclusively in cases involving periodic compensation claims against the federal government."
Id. 1]21. Moreover, to apply the doctrine, "(1) the case must tum on pure issues of law (or
specific issues of fact to be decided by the court for itself), (2) any facts involved must be 'sharp
and nalTow', and (3) no discretionary agency decision can be at issue." Id ii 22. Breaches of
fiduciary duty, however, do not qualify as sharp and narrow issues. Id.
David fails to address Bautista 's three-part test or any Guam law in his briefing. Bautista
nonetheless provides a conclusive resolution that David cannot utilize the continuing wrongs
doctrine to revive stale claims in the context of an accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, and CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND Page 4 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
unjust enrichment case. The Court therefore dismisses all counterclaims, and the associated
requests for relief, as being time-barred. In turn, the arguments regarding the existence of a
fiduciary duty and punitive damages are moot.
B. Affirmative Defenses
1. The equitable defenses to a partition action are subject to striking.
Ronald next asks the Court to strike David's affirmative defenses of unclean hands and
equity. He claims diesel contentions are not proper defenses to a partition action, which an owner
may bring "as a matter of absolute right." Am, Med Intern., Inc. v. Feller, 131 Cal. Rptr. 270,
273 (ct. App. 1976). The Court first examines the asserted affirmative defense of unclean hands. The Guam
Supreme Court has declared that the unclean hands doctrine may preclude recovery for a quiet
title action, as long as the misconduct directly relates to the cause of action. Hawaiian Rock
Prods. Corp. v. Ocean Hows., Inc., 2016 Guam 4 1] 43. Any u conscientious conduct may give
rise to the defense, but in examining applicability, the court should examine the analogous case
law, the nature of the misconduct, and again, the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed
injuries. Guam Top Builders, Inc. v. Tanota Partners, 2012 Guam 12 1]26.
Here, while Plaintiffs seek a partition of property, a portion of which it claims title, David
alleges as a defense misconduct in the handling of the property and the relationship of the co-
owners: "Plaintiffs have intentionally withheld material financial information about the Subj act
Property, failed to provide a transparent accounting of income and expenses despite requests, and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
vo; ii 9 |. »=-"- }is?"& 2'.12§.n??. \ 1; a >&i he au-' §»'3t%»¢g*;
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
SUGUMI GUAM, LLC and WANG-CHIEH C IVIL C ASE no. CV0507-24 sU, P laint if f s/ C ount er claim- D ef endant s, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE v s. DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM S
CHAO-CHUN SU aka DAVID SU and DOES 1-10, INCLUSWE, .r
D ef endant s/ C ount er claim- P laint if f s.
I n t his par t it ion act ion, t he C our t consider s P 1aint if f s/ C ount er claim- D ef endant s Sugumi
Guam, LLC and Wang- C hieh "R onald" Su's mot ion seeldng t o dismiss and st r ike def enses and
count er claims f iled by D ef endant s/ C ount er claim- P laint if f C hao- C hun "D avid" Su. H aving
r eview ed t he br ief s, t he C our t f inds D avid' s count er claims t o be t ime- bar r ed. M or eover , D avid' s
af f ir mat ive def ens es ar e neit her applic able, nor , even if t r ue, s er ve t o def eat t he par t it ion c laim.
The Motion is therefore GRANTED.
I. PR OC ED U R AL BAC KG R OU N D
P laint if f s init iat ed t his act ion seeking t o par t it ion t w o par cels in Tamuning. C omal.
P ar t it ion R eal P r op. ( O ct . l, 2024) . D avid answ er ed and alleged, among ot her af f ir mat ive
def enses, unclean hands, equit y, and f ailur e t o r ecor d a lie r endens. D e£' s Answ er at 4- 5 ( N ov.
5, 2024) . D avid also aver r ed count er claims f or an account ing, br each of f iduciar y dut y, unj ust
enr ichment , and f or punit ive damages. I d. at 6- 10.
L, .'r:" CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND Page 2 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
In response, Plaintiffs move to dismiss all counterclaims for being outside the applicable
statutes of limitations and further argue that David has not stated a claim for the existence of a
fiduciary duty. As for David's affirmative defenses, Plaintiffs assert they must be stricken for
not being adequately pled. The motion was hilly briefed and taken under advisement at the
motion hearing on January 29, 2025.
11. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties agree that David and Ronald each hold an undivided 16.66% interest in
certain property and have held such interests as co-tenants since 1995. Comal. Partition Real
Prop. W 10, 11, Def.'s Answer at 7.1 The property is a leased commercial retail and warehouse
building. De£'s Answer at 7.
However, according to David, Ronald solely receives the rental income. Id David
iixrther alleges that Ronald has assumed sole control of management of the income, and is the
"co-tenant with exclusive control" of the Property. Id Finally, David claims that Ronald has
assumed a position of trust and confidence in the management of the income, and has not
produced any accountings to David. Id.
1. LAW AND DISCUSSION
A . Applicable statutes of limitations bar David's claims.
Guam law imposes a four-year statute of limitations for an accounting action, and three
years for claims involving a breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. 7 GCA §§ 11305(a),
(d), 11312. Since Ronald has held an interest in the property jointly with David since 1995 and
since Plaintiffs allege Sugumi has held an interest in the property four years and three months
1 Ronald alleges that Sugumi has held the majority interest in the Property since August 2020. Comal. Partition Real Prop. 119. David denies this. De£'s Answer 1]9. CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND Pa g e 3 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
before the counterclaims were filed, the counterclaims appear to be outside the relevant statutes
of limitations.
When a complaint shows on its face that the applicable statutes of limitations bar the
cause of action, the claimant must plead facts showing an excuse, tolling, or some other basis for
avoiding the statutory bar. Amsden v. Yamon, 1999 Guam 14 1112. However, David's pleading
fails to mention any facts to justify excusing the limitations bar. Instead, in his Opposition
Memorandum, David asks the Court to apply the "continuing violations doctrine" and cites in
support Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, 202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 414 (Ct. App.
2016)-a case involving lapsed child sexual abuse claims. This case is of limited use,
particularly because the Guam Supreme Court has already commented on the continuing claims
doctrine in Bautista v. Tories, 2020 Guam 28-a case more akin to the present as it dealt with
property, rent, and fiduciary duty issues. In Battista, the plaintiffs argued that the continuing
claims doctrine applied a new statute of limitations expiration date to each payment they claimed
their family attorney owed them.
Th e Guam Supreme Court rejected this argument. "That doctrine appears almost
exclusively in cases involving periodic compensation claims against the federal government."
Id. 1]21. Moreover, to apply the doctrine, "(1) the case must tum on pure issues of law (or
specific issues of fact to be decided by the court for itself), (2) any facts involved must be 'sharp
and nalTow', and (3) no discretionary agency decision can be at issue." Id ii 22. Breaches of
fiduciary duty, however, do not qualify as sharp and narrow issues. Id.
David fails to address Bautista 's three-part test or any Guam law in his briefing. Bautista
nonetheless provides a conclusive resolution that David cannot utilize the continuing wrongs
doctrine to revive stale claims in the context of an accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, and CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND Page 4 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
unjust enrichment case. The Court therefore dismisses all counterclaims, and the associated
requests for relief, as being time-barred. In turn, the arguments regarding the existence of a
fiduciary duty and punitive damages are moot.
B. Affirmative Defenses
1. The equitable defenses to a partition action are subject to striking.
Ronald next asks the Court to strike David's affirmative defenses of unclean hands and
equity. He claims diesel contentions are not proper defenses to a partition action, which an owner
may bring "as a matter of absolute right." Am, Med Intern., Inc. v. Feller, 131 Cal. Rptr. 270,
273 (ct. App. 1976). The Court first examines the asserted affirmative defense of unclean hands. The Guam
Supreme Court has declared that the unclean hands doctrine may preclude recovery for a quiet
title action, as long as the misconduct directly relates to the cause of action. Hawaiian Rock
Prods. Corp. v. Ocean Hows., Inc., 2016 Guam 4 1] 43. Any u conscientious conduct may give
rise to the defense, but in examining applicability, the court should examine the analogous case
law, the nature of the misconduct, and again, the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed
injuries. Guam Top Builders, Inc. v. Tanota Partners, 2012 Guam 12 1]26.
Here, while Plaintiffs seek a partition of property, a portion of which it claims title, David
alleges as a defense misconduct in the handling of the property and the relationship of the co-
owners: "Plaintiffs have intentionally withheld material financial information about the Subj act
Property, failed to provide a transparent accounting of income and expenses despite requests, and
misrepresented key financial details, all in bad faith." Def 's Answer at 4. Whether or not
Ronald withheld financial information, failed to provide an accounting, or misrepresented
finances, however, do not directly relate to the partition of the property according to the
h CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND Pag e 5 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
established ownership interests. Moreover, recovery based on any such alleged misconduct is
time-barred.
Other courts find unclean hands to be inapplicable in a partition matter. For example, in
Colorado Korean Ass 'n v. Korean Senior Ass 'n of Colo., the court found that partition is
"absolute and unqualified," unaffected by unclean hands. 151 P.3d 626, 629 (Colo. App. 2006).
Colorado Korean Ass 'n made this finding after reviewing that at least eleven other jurisdictions
reached the same conclusion. Id. Similarly, in A m. Me d In te r n ., In c ., the court recognized only
limited defenses to a partition action such as express or implied waiver to partition by contract.
131 Cal. Rptr. at 273, see also Colorado Korean Ass 'n, 151 P.3d at 630 (only recognized
defenses to partition are waiver, when interests are not contemporaneous, or homestead
property). Because the asserted affirmative defenses are not directly related to partition, and
because generally the doctrine cannot be raised as a defense to partition, the Court finds this
affirmative defense to be subject to striking.
Second, the affirmative defense of equity suffers a similar fate i t is not a recognized
defense to a partition action. Furthermore, applying equity in an action is entirely within die
Court's discretion, as described in a case cited by David, Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v.
Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945). In Precision Instrument
Mfg. Co., the U.S. Supreme Court equated the doctrine of equity to unclean hands, and justified a
court's application of equity particularly when there are public interests at stake: " if an equity
court properly uses the maxim to withhold its assistance in such a case it not only prevents a
wrongdoer from enjoying the hits of his transgression but averts an injury to the public. The
determination of when the maxim should be applied to bar this type of suit thus becomes of vital
significance." Id. at 814-15. But the present partition case does not involve public interest
AL I CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND P age 6 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
concerns. Moreover, even if equity can be applied in a private action between private parties, for
the same reasons cited above used to strike the affirmative defense of unclean hands (i.e., not
directly related, time-barred, and partition is an absolute right), the Court here in its discretion
strikes the affirmative defense of equity.
2. The omission of a Lis Pendens does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction.
Finally, the Court considers Plaintiffs' request to strike the affirmative defense of failure
to record a lie rendens pursuant to 7 GCA § 24405. That provision states,
Immediately after filing the complaint in the court having jurisdiction, the plaintiff must record in the Department of Land Management a notice of the pendency of the action containing the names of the parties so far as known, the object of the action, and a description of the property to be affected thereby. From the time of tiling such notice for record, all persons shall be deemed to have notice of the pendency of the action.
7 GCA §24405. Plaintiffs argue that under Guam law, there are no actionable consequences for
failing to record a lie rendens, defying the point of an affirmative defense which is to state a
theory that will defeat the plaintiffs claims. See 7 GCA §24405, M Elem. Corp. v. Phil-Gets
(Guam) Int'l Trading Corp., 2016 Guam 35 'll91 ("an affirmative defense is a defendant's
assertion of facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiffs claim"). David offers no
rebuttal to these arguments.
The Court constnles section 24405 according to its plain language and in the context of
the statute as a whole. Aguon v. Gutierrez, 2002 Guam 14116. The plain language directs the
recording of a lie rendens immediately after filing a partition action. See 7 GCA §24405.
However, it also indicates that the action must be filed in a court already having jurisdiction. Id.
Thus, jurisdiction must already exist, and there is no language indicating that filing of the lie
rendens cements or alters that jurisdiction. CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND Pa g e 7 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
Caselaw appears to agree. In California, from which section 24405 derives, failure to file
a lie rendens does not result in a dismissal of the action unless the defendant has suffered some
prejudice. See Blackburn v. Bucksport & E.R.R. Co., 95 P. 668, 669-70 (Cal. D. Ct. App. 1908),
Rutledge v. Rutledge, 259 P.2d 79, 82 (Cal. D. Ct. App. 1953). Notably, David does not claim to
have suffered prejudice due to Plaintiffs' failure to file a Its rendens.
Moreover, Blackburn determined that the point of the lie rendens is not to establish
subject matter jurisdiction, but rather to effectuate notice.
The purpose of the Legislature was thus to furnish the most certain means of notifying all persons of the pendency of the action and thereby warning them against attempting to acquire a legal or equitable interest in the property concerning which the suit was brought and to bind such persons as might acquire any interest in the property in controversy aler the recording of the notice by any judgment which might be secured affecting said property. This is all that the Legislature intended by the present mode of giving constructive notice of the pendency of such actions, and the legislation does not, as we before observed, nor was it intended that it should, affect in the slightest degree the question of the court's jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit or of the persons of the parties thereto.
95 P. at 670. Based on this persuasive authority, as well as the plain language of section 24405,
the Court does find that the recording of a lie rendens is mandatory to give constructive notice to
other parties, but its omission does not deprive this Court ofjurisdiction nor serves as an
affirmative defense so as to defeat Plaintiffs' claims.
11. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss all of David's counterclaims, and
STRIKES the unclean hands, equity, and its rendens affirmative defenses. The Court lifts the
stay of discovery and sets a Scheduling Conference on May 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. A Proposed
Scheduling Order and Discovery Plan are due no later than April 30, 2025.
~ \ ' ; A I r it 0 CV0507-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND Page 8 STRIKE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
so ORDERED, 14 April 2025.
HON_.j§EY;E.M_` Judgel§.'§_}_1p*gx=li_¢lir Coulffof Guam '/ I "`-6-2;-~ / .r , ',, al K / _, _'m:*,,:;, _1
Appearing Attorneys : Jacques G. Bronze, Esq., Law Offices of Jacques G. Bronze, PC for Plaintiffs Sugumi Guam, LLC and Wang-Chieh Su Jon R. Ramos, Esq., Cabot Mantanona LLP, for Defendant Chao-Chun Su aka David Su
WL