Turner International Construction v. Lee

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: November 16, 2011
• Docket: CV1870-09
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 , IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

2 3

4 TURNER INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION,

Plaintiff, l CIVIL CASE NO. CV1870-09

5 vs. 6 JIMMY J. LEE and NANCY B. LEE, 7 DECISION & ORDER Defendants, 8

9 vs. 10 CHONGWEI GUO, DAVID T. GIVENS 11 and YING FANG,

12 Third-Party Defendants. 13

14 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on May 20,2011 0 15 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Attorney David Lujan represented Defendants. Attorney Joyc 16 Tang represented Plaintiff who was not present. The Court took the motion under advisement 17 After having heard the Parties' arguments, considering the Parties' pleadings and the record, th 18 Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Defendants' Motion for Dismissafhas been granted by this Court with prejudice. No 21 Defendants brings a claim for sanctidns against the Plaintiff. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Standard 24 The Guam Supreme Court put forth the standard for applying sanctions in Trans Pacific 25 Export Co., v. Oka Towers Corp., 2000 Guam 3 ~37-40. A court abuses its discretion in 26 imposing sanctions when it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly 27 erroneous assessment of the evidence. 28

Turner International Construction v. Jimmy J. Lee and Nancy B. Lee, Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV1870-09 - Page I of 3 - .._ II. '{ ,,- ..

1 The Ninth Circuit has observed "[T]hat the theme of the Rule discourages wasteful, 2 costly litigation battles by mandating the imposition of sanctions when a lawyer's position, after 3 reasonable inquiry, will not support a reasonable belief that there is a sound basis in law or in 4 fact for the position taken. Golden Eagle Distributing Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 5 1538 (9th Cir.1986). "If, judged by an objective standard, a reasonable basis for the position 6 exists in both law and in fact at the time that the position is adopted, then sanctions should not be 7 imposed." Id. (citation omitted). See alSo Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 8 1140 (9th Cir.1990); Zalvidar v. City ofLos Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 828-32 (9th Cir.1986). 9 In the case In re Grantham Brothers, 922 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir.199l), the Ninth Circui 10 affirmed the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions upon a plaintiff who had filed a collateral attac 11 upon the earlier judgment of a bankruptcy court's sale order. Id. at 1442. The court held that th 12 plaintiff's complaint contained an impermissible collateral attack upon the bankruptcy court' 13 order. It found that the failure of the plaintiffs to seek any review, reconsideration, or stay of th 14 bankruptcy court's order precluded the collateral attack contained in its complaint, and that th 15 district court did not abuse its discretion in assessing sanctions for it. Id. 16 Motion for Sanctions 17 Defendants request that sanctions be assessed against Plaintiff for a failure to prosecute 18 The Court has already found Plaintiff responsible for failing to prosecute this case. Yet, 19 Plaintiff's attorney has mentioned at hearing for the Motion to Dismiss, he in unable to con 20 his client because Plaintiff is potentially terminally ill. The Court believes that at the tim 21 Plaintiff filed the dismissed complaint, he did so reasonably in both law and fact and did not fil 22 this claim maliciously. Plaintiff's pleadings contained exhibits and documents supporting hi 23 claim and requested liens. This Court fins that those documents sufficiently provided Plainti 24 with a reasonable belief that his claim was valid. Thus, under 9th Circuit persuasive preceden 25 which is cited by the Guam Supreme Court, the case law simply does not support sanctions . 26 this matter. Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.1990) 27 Zalvidar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 828-32 (9th Cir.1986); See also Trans Pacifi 28 Export Co., v. Oka Towers Corp., 2000 Guam 3. The Court does not believe imposing sanction

Turner International Construction v. Jimmy J. Lee and Nancy B. Lee, Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV1870-09 - Page 2 of3 - on someone that may potentially be physically unable to answer Defendants' Motions and 0 2 explain his failure to prosecute is appropriate. The Court will allow the dismissal with prejudic 3 to stand as adequate sanctions in this matter. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. 6 So ORDERED this _ day of November, 2011. 7 NOV 1 6 tp~1ina.us~~~ HO . 1V1',n~ 8 HO ORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ 9 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 10

11 , Il" tere"" eNtIty that the roregoing I. ~ ie I! tro,e .. nd CM~("t copy 0( the vff;,I.,.j ,>II file in tbe orrtu of the .1<1 k ,,( Ii. ' . lor C"uft 01 GUIlD 12

20 21

26 27

Turner International Construction v. Jimmy J. Lee and Nancy B. Lee, Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV1870-09 - Page 3 of 3 -