U.L.G., Inc v. Leon Guerrero

Opinion

. H , c,

202%MAY—6 Mill:

1 CLER: c COURT

2

3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

4

5 Civil Case No. CV0776-20 U.L.G., INC., a Guam Corporation, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, DECISION AND ORDER

7 vs. (Defendants Mary and Collin Leon Guerrero’s Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Cutoff $ Deadline)

9 MARY $.N. LEON GUERRERO, et al.,

Defendant.

11 INTRODUCTION

12 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on February 8, 2022, for a 13 hearing on Defendants Mary and Collin Leon Guerrero’s Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion 14 Cutoff Deadline. Present at the hearing were: Attorney Joseph McDonald for Defendants Mary

15 and Collin Leon Guerrero, Attorney Anita Arriola for Columbus, Attorney Richard Johnson for

16 Defendants Philip Scharge and Alex Lim, Attorney Bill Mann for Defendants Lourdes San

Nicolas and Pacific American Title Insurance and Escrow Company (“PATICO”), and 17 Attorney Delia Wolff for Plaintiffs. At the hearing Attorneys Arriola, Mann, and Johnson took 18 no position on the motion, and the Court took the matter under advisement. Having considered 19 the arguments and the applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants Mary and Collin 20 Leon Guerrero’s Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Cutoff Deadline.

Page 1 of4

1 BACKGROUND

The extensive background of this case was previously set forth in the Court’s January 4, 2 2022, Decision and Order. This background section contains the facts relevant to the instant 3 motion.

This case arises from Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed on October, 19, 2020. On May 7,

5 2021, the Court ordered that all dispositive motions be filed by December 17, 2021, as

6 reflected in the Courts Order Re: Trial Schedule.

On May 28, 2021, Mary and Collin filed their Amended Motions to Dismiss Court I, II,

III, IV, and pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Plaintiffs filed their Opposition 8 on July 12, 2021. The Court held a hearing on the motion on September 9, 2021.

9 On January 4, 2022, the Court issued a Decision and Order in which it dismissed all the 10 claims against Defendants Pamela Sahagun and Anthony Leon Guerrero, but denied the motion

11 to dismiss with respect to all the other Defendants. V

12 All Defendants, except for Mary and Collin, filed their dispositive motions before the

dispositive motion cutoff date of December 17, 2021.

13 On December 16, 2021, Mary and Collin filed the instant Motion to Extend Dispositive 14 Motion Cutoff Deadline. A hearing on the motion was held on february 8, 2022, and the Court

took the matter under advisement.

16

17

18

19

V

1 DISCUSSION

The Guam Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 6(b) governs the enlargement of time for 2 filing briefs and papers, and states in relevant part:

3 When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is 4 required or allowed to be done at or within a specfled time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally 5 prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made afier the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was 6 the result of excusable neglect[.]

Guam R. Civ. P. 6(b)(emphasis added). the Local Rules further provide:

A deadline established by a Scheduling Order may be extended only upon a good cause $ finging by the Court ...A motion to extend the deadline in a Scheduling Order must demonstrate a specific need for the requested extension, and should be accompanied by 9 a detailed proposed amendment to the previously entered Scheduling Order... The court, in its discretion, may order that the client consent in writing to any continuance proposed by counsel.

10 Super. Ct. Guam CVR 16.5.

11 Here, Mary and Collin argue that their specific need for an extension is to preserve the 12 opportunity to file an appropriate dispositive motion upon being made to answer a complaint.

13 Mot. p. 4 (Dec. 16, 2021). Mary and Collin further express that their request for extension

14 derives from the Court’s decision on the pending motions in the instant cases that may affect

15 the claims against all Defendants. Id. p. 5. In the interest ofjudicial efficiency and the Court’s

obligation to consider the merits of the case before it, especially when a motion may be 16 dispositive, the Court is satisfied that the for cause exception applies.

17

1$

.

1 CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Mary and Collin’s Motion 2 to Extend Dispositive Motion Cutoff Deadline.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED

5

6 C- --)

HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam

8

9

10

11

12

13 SERVCE VA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 14 copy of the or inal was emaiIed to:

/ %u-f y ,3L4r

15

Date:

16 Joseph Bamba, Jr.

Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam

17

1$