Waathdad v. Cyfred, Ltd.

Opinion

Y

q

2 iL..§,Ell3 SUFEEIUR s:0uRT GFEUM

2025 DEC i2u25 DEC23 to: 25 AH 101 23 AH 25 CLERK UF OF COURT COUflT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM GUAM t~---- By: _ _ Na By=

DAVID WAATHDAD, ET AL., CIVIL CASE NO. no. CV0735-18

Plaintiffs, DECISION DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDER RE SECOND vs. MOTION MOTION FOR FOR RELIEF RELIEF FOR FRAUD UPON UPON THIS THIS COURT COURT OR OR FOR CYFRED, LTD., EQUITABLE EQUITABLE RELIEF Defendant. Defendant.

For the the second second time, time,Plaintiffs Plaintiffs move to setaside the the Judgments Judgments issued in this case on

equitable grounds and andon on account accountof of alleged alleged fraud committed by Defendant Cyfred, Ltd. Ltd. and and its

counsel. counsel. Upon Uponreview reviewofofthis thismotion motionand andthe therecord recordininthis thiscase caseand and related related cases, cases, the Court

finds finds that that Plaintiffs Plaintiffshave havefailed failedtotodemonstrate demonstrateaabasis basistotoset setaside asidethe the Judgments Judgments issued by this

Court and and the Supreme Court of Guam. Supreme Court

I. FACTUAL AND AND PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

A. Chronology Chronology of of Proceedings

This case concerns concernsthe thenonjudicial nonjudicialforeclosures foreclosuresof of"second "second lots" lots" in the the Gill-Baza

Subdivision. The The Court Courtincorporates incorporates the the "Factual "Factual and and Procedural Background" detailed detailed by the

Guam Supreme SupremeCourt Court in in its its first Hist opinion opinion on on this matter, Waathdad u this matter,Waathdad v. Cy/red, Cyfred, 2021 2021 Guam 2411 Guam24 'l1'l1

4~10. 4-10. In In that that opinion, opinion, the the Guam Guam Supreme Court affirmed Supreme Court affirmed this this Court's ruling ruling granting granting Cyfred Cyfred

summary judgment. Under summary judgment. Under aa Mandate, Mandate, the the matter matter returned to this Court, where the parties

litigated litigated attorney's attorney's fees fees and and a stay. stay. This This Court Court also also declined declined to stay enforcement of the

ORIGINAL CV0735-18 DECISION AND ORDER RE SECOND DECISION SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF FOR Page Page 2 FRAUD UPON THIS COURT OR FOR EQUITABLE EQUITABLE RELIEF

Judgment. Judgment. Order Den. Appl. Relief Relief(Sep. (Sep. 19, 19, 2023). Plaintiffs Plaintiffsagain againappealed, appealed, and and the the Guam

Supreme Court affirmed Supreme Court affirmed the denial of ofthe the stay. stay. Waathdad Waathdadv.u Cy/red, Cyffed, 2024 Guam 6.

Upon Upon the the issuance of the Guam issuance of Guam Supreme SupremeCourt's Court'ssecond secondMandate Mandateon onAugust August11, ll, 2025,

this Court reviewed reviewed and and denied denied Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs'first firstmotion motiontotoset setaside asidethe theJudgments Judgments based on

alleged fraud upon the Court committed by by Cyfred's 's attorney, Curtis Van Van de dhVeld. Veld. Dec. Dec. & & Order

Den. Pis.' Pls.' First Mot. Relief Relief for Fraud Upon This This Ct. Ct. (Aug. (Aug. 11, 11, 2025). 2025). In this second Motion,

Plaintiffs contend that for good good conscience conscience and and equity, equity, the JudgmentslI should the Judgments should be be set set aside. aside. They

allege allege that at the time Cyfred moved for partial summary judgment judgment (in (in 2019), 2019), Cyfred and its

counsel Mendiola had executed a deed counsel knew that Stephanie Mendiola deedtransferring transfening her interests to to Cyfred Cyfred

but concealed that deed from the Court and from Plaintiffs. That That alleged alleged concealment, they

contend, amounts amounts to to a fraud fraud on the the court court and and warrants warrants vacatur vacate of ofthe the Judgments, reinstatement of Judgments, reinstatement of

the prior prior preliminary preliminary injunction, injunction,and andsetting settingaside aside subsequent subsequent nonjudicial foreclosure foreclosure sales. sales.

B. Determinations Determinations in the related action, Peter v.v. Gill, CV0426-18 action, Peter

Portions of this second motion concern development in a related case, Peter v.u Gill,

CV0426-18. CV0426-l InIn that that case, case, in in March March 2020, 2020, the Court examined examined whether whether Mendiola Mendiola intended intended ro to

interests in lots at the transfer her interests the Subdivision. Subdivision. ItIt found found that in April 2014, Mendiola provided a

signed signed Quitclaim Quitclaim Deed Deed to to Van Van de Veld, Veld, who who was was serving sewing as her attorney at the time. Peter,

CV0426-18 (Dec. & Order re Pis.' Pls.' Renewed Mot. Summ. J. at 2 (Mar. (Mar. 13, 13, 2020)). 2020)). The Court

determined that that Mendiola Mendiola intended intended to transfer title title immediately immediately when when sheprovided she provided the deed to

l1 Plaintiffs Plaintiffs ask ask the the Court Court to set aside this this Court's Court's January January 30, 30, 2020 Judgment and and the the May May 31, 2023 Addendum. Addendum. However, However, there there are are other judgments. The The Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court issued Judgments Judgments on onDecember December22, 22,2021, 2021,and andononDecember December5,5, 2024--bothaffirming 2024-both affirming this this Court. Court. When using the term term "Judgments," this Court incorporates the Judgments issued by the Guam Supreme "Judgments," this Court incorporates the Judgments issued by the Guam Supreme Court, even though Plaintiffs Plaintiffs do do not notspecifically specificallymention mentionthe theGuam GuamSupreme Supreme Court Court Judgments. Judgments.

ORIGINAL CV0735-18 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER RE SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF FOR Page 3 Page FRAUD UPON THIS COURT OR FOR FOR EQUITABLE EQUITABLE RELIEF RELIEF

her attorney, even without without giving giving him him instructions instructions or or conditions conditions regarding regarding the transfer of the

deed to Cyfred Cyfred or Plaintiffs. Id. or Plaintiffs. Id. at at 9. 9. "Accordingly, ... ... Mendiola Mendiola has has no no claim claim or or interest interest in any

of of the the 14 14 lots." Id. Id. Then, Then,ininAugust August2021, 2021,the the Court Courtfound foundthat that because Mendiola transferred because Mendiola transferred her

interests, and Cyfred intended to transfer its interest through the Settlement Agreement, Cyfred

has no claim or interest in any of the the fourteen lots. Id. (Dec. fourteen lots. (Dec. & & Order Order re re Mot. Mot. Partial Summ. J.

on Pls.' Ninth Count (Aug. 20, 2021)). Pis.' Ninth

Following Followingaa trial, trial,the the Court Courtissued issued its its Findings Findings of of Fact and Conclusions Conclusions of of Law Law in in

CV0426-18. CV0426-l The The Court Court determined determined that Cyfred Cyfred and Gill did did not not commit commit fraud in in the course course of of

Agreement with the Settlement Agreement with the homeowners homeowners of of the Subdivision, Subdivision, that that there there was no other

contract whereby whereby Cyfred Cyfred or Francis Gill were were bound to assist assist Plaintiffs Plaintiffs with clearing title, and

duty of that the duty of good good faith faith and and fair fair dealing dealing did did not apply. Id. (Finds. not apply. (Finds. Fact Fact & & Concl. Cone!. L. (Aug. 11, 11,

2025)). Plaintiffs Plaintiffsasked askedthe the Court Court to to alter alter or or amend amend its finding; finding, however, however, the Court found that it it

did did not rule erroneously in denying relief relief on the claims involving involving the the duty duty of of good good faith and fair

dealing. dealing. Id. Id. (Dec. (Dec. && Order OrderDenying DenyingMot. Mot. Alter Alteror orAm. Am. J.J. (Dec. (Dec. 2, 2025)).

Within Within CV0426-18's CV0426-l 8 's Findings Findings of ofFact Fact and and Conclusions of Law, the Court found by a

preponderance of preponderance of the the evidence evidence that that "[o]n April 23, "[o]nApril 23, 2024, 2024, Mendiola Mendiolasent senttoto Van Van de de Veld, her

as attorney attorney at at the the time, aa signed Quitclaim Quitclaim Deed and Affidavit Affidavit of ofConsideration. Consideration. EX. Ex. 37 37 at at P886. P886."

Id. (Finds. Fact & Cone!. Concl. L. L. at at 8). 8). Evidence admitted in CV0426-18 also indicates that Mendiola

informed Wayson Wong (attorney for Plaintiffs) of the the deed deed in in April April 20 20 II4: 4: "Wayson, I provided

the signed deed .... to Curtis." CV0426-18 CV0426-18 (Tr. at P756). (Tr. Ex. 6 at P756). Wong himself himself confirmed this

information information with with Van de De Veld: Veld; "Curtis, "Curtis, Thank Thank you you for for advising advising me last month that you hold a

firm Stephanie recordable deed from Stephanie Mendiola Mendiola that that I had asked her to sign sign and have notarized." notarized." Id. at

P758 (Aug. 5, 2014 2014 email). email).

ORIGINAL ORIGENAL CV0735-18 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER ORDER RE SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF FOR Page4 Page FRAUD UPON THIS COURT OR FOR FOR EQUITABLE EQUITABLE RELIEF RELIEF

II. 11. LAW AND DISCUSSION

of Civil Guam Rule of Civil Procedure Procedure 60 allows courts courts to grant relief relief from judgments judgments and

orders. orders. Litigants Litigants traditionally traditionally seek relief under Rule 60(b)'s seek relief 60(b)'s conventional conventionalbases-mistake, bases-mistake,

excusable neglect, neglect, newly newly discovered evidence, evidence, fraud, Rand,or or60(b)(6)'s 60(b)(6)'s "catch-all" "catch-all" basis, most most of of

carry a one-year which carry one-year deadline. deadline. GRCP 60(b 60(b). ). Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, however, however, primarily primarily ask ask the the Court to

apply a rare section section of of Rule 60(b 60(b): ): "This "Thisrule rule does does not not limit limitthe the power power of ofaa court court to to entertain entertain an

independent action to relieve a party from from a judgment, order, order, or proceeding, proceeding, or or to to grant grant relief relief to a

defendant not actually personally notified notifiedas as required required by by law, law, or or to to set set aside a judgment judgment for for fraud fraud

upon the court." Plaintiffs Plaintiffs claim claim that that through this motion they have initiated an "independent

action" or or alternatively, alternatively, raised raised grounds grounds demonstrating demonstrating a fraud upon the Court, for which there is

no deadline.

A. Independent Action

The Court first first reviews reviews whether whether Plaintiffs Plaintiffshave have demonstrated demonstrated relief reliefunder under an an independent

action. In In analyzing analyzingthe the independent independent action action provision provision under under the the comparable comparable Federal Rule of of

Civil CivilProcedure Procedure 60, 60, the the United United States States Supreme Court reserved Supreme Court reserved its its application application "for "for those those cases of cases of

'injustice 'injustice which, which, in in certain certaininstances, instances, are deemed deemed sufficiently sufficiently gross gross to demand demand aa departure' departure' from from

rigid rigid adherence adherence to the doctrine doctrine of judicata." United ofresjudicata." UnitedStates States u v. Beggarly, Beggerly, 524 524 U.S. U.S. 38, 47

(1998) ("an ("an independent independent action should be available only to prevent a grave miscarriage miscarriage of of

justice"). justice"). One Onesuch such case case is Hazel-Allas Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. Co. v.u Hartford-Empire Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), U.S. 238

overruled overruled on other grounds grounds by Standard Standard Oil Oil Co. Co. of offal Cal.11v.United UnitedStates, States, 429 U.S. 17, 17, 18 n.2

(1976). In In that that case, case, Hartford-Empire Hartford-Empire applied applied for for aa patent patent and and arranged arranged for for an article to be

published published in in aa trade journal, which praised the invention. This article was used to persuade the

Patent Office to grant the patent and Patent Office and later later to to influence influence the the Circuit Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the

ORIGINAL ORIQQNAL CV0735~l8 CV0735-18 DECISION AND ORDER RE SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF FOR FOR Page 5 Page FRAUD UPON THIS COURT OR FOR FOR EQUITABLE EOUITABLE RELIEF

patent's validity and infringement. Nine Nine years years after after the the Third Circuit upheld the patent's validity,

Hazel-Atlas alleged Hazel-Atlas alleged that that the the article article was was fraudulently fraudulently attributed attributed and and that Hartford's lawyer was the

true author. author. The The Third Third Circuit Circuit Court Court of of Appeals Appeals initially initially denied relief, holding that the fraud was

not newly discovered, discovered, that that the article was was not not the primary basis basis for for the the 1932 1932 decision, and that it

lacked authority to set aside the judgment due to the expiration judgment due of the term. expiration of

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, held that the Circuit Court of Appeals had both the

duty and the power to vacate its own judgment District Court to do the same, given judgment and direct the District

court. The the fraud perpetrated on the court. The Court Court emphasized emphasizedthat that equitable equitablerelief relief against against fraudulent fraudulent

judgments is a judicially devised devised remedy remedy ro to correct injustices, even even after after the the term term of judgment ofjudgment

of the judgment has expired. "[W]here the occasion has demanded, where enforcement of judgment is

'manifestly 'manifestly unconscionable,' [courts] have unconscionable,' [courts] have wielded wielded the thepower powerwithout without hesitation." hesitation."Id. Id at 244-45.

The Court Court found found that that Hartford-Empire's Hartford-Empire'sfraud fraudwas wasaadeliberate deliberatescheme scheme to to deceive deceive both both the the Patent Patent

Office Office and and the Circuit Circuit Court CourtofofAppeals, Appeals, and and that that no no equities equities had had intervened to protect the

fraudulently procured fraudulently procured patent patent or or judgment. judgment. The The Court Court concluded concluded that that the the public public interest interest demanded demanded

the vacation of of the judgments judgments and the denial of of relief relief to Hartford for the the claimed claimed infringement infringement of of

the patent.

According to Plaintiffs Plaintiffs here, here, ififVan Van dh de Veld advised this Court in 2019 that that Mendiola Mendiola had

clearing her signed deeds clearing her from from the title to the lots, the the Court would would not have have granted granted summary

of Cyfred judgment in favor of Cyfred nor nor dissolved the preliminary preliminary injunction. "By "Byhiding hidingthe the clearance clearance

information, Cyfred injured those Homeowners' clear title to the 14 lots Homeowners' rights to have clear lots by by making

itit much more more difficult difficult and and expensive expensivetotoobtain obtainthe thesame. same.... . .. [T]hey never would have risked

losing their second lots by stopping payment payment on their notes and mortgages .... _ ."" Pls.' Pis.' Mem. Mero. P. P. &

Second Mot. Relief A. in Support Second Relieffor for Fraud Fraud at at 9 (Mar. (Mar. 28, 2025).

ORIGINAL CV0735-18 DECISION AND ORDER RE SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF FOR DECISION Page 66 Page FRAUD UPON THIS COURT OR FOR FOR EQUITABLE EQUITABLE RELIEF

Problematically, Problematically, however, the evidence admitted admitted in in CV0426- CV0426-18 showedPlaintiffs' l 8 showed Plaintiffs'

counsel also knew of these deeds counsel also deeds and andnever neverbrought broughtthem themtotothe theCourt's Court'sattention. attention. In 2014,

Mendiola wrote to Plaintiffs' counsel that Plaintiffs' counsel that she she signed signed the the deed deed and and provided provided itit to to her attorney.

(Tr. Ex. CV0426-18 (Tr. Ex. 66 at at P756). P756). Then, Then, Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs' counsel counsel wrote wrote and and confirmed confirmed that that Mendiola's Mendiola's

attorney also informed him that Mendiola Mendiola signed signed the the deed. Id. at deed. Id. at P758. P758. To To the the extent the

existence ofMendiola's of Mendiola's deed deed over the first lots lots would would have have impacted the the Court's Court's ruling ruling on

maintaining maintaining the the injunction injunctionagainst against foreclosure foreclosure of ofthe the second second lots, lots, Plaintiffs Plaintiffshad had the the same same

to inform the opportunity to the Court. Court. Yet Yet this thisinformation-known information-known to toPlaintiffs Plaintiffs since since 201" 2014--is

absent from the pleadings in this case and from Plaintiffs' opposition to Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion for partial

summary judgment. ItIt should should go go without without saying saying that that bringing bringing material material evidence evidence to the Court's

attention is an obligation obligation of of both counsel.

Furthermore, Furthermore, even ififtheir their argument argument has some some merit, merit, Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs' delay impacts impacts the Court's

analysis. The The fact fact that that Mendiola Mendiolasigned signeddeeds deeds in in 2014 2014 could could have have been been raised in in the 2019

summary judgmentbriefs. summary judgment briefs. Additionally, Additionally, in in 2020, 2020, this Court held in CV0426- CV0426-18 that Mendiola l that Mendiola

conveyed conveyed her her interest in the lots by signing the deeds in 2014. 2014, This Court Court issued that ruling early

judgment in this case. in Plaintiffs' appeal from the summary judgment case. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs could could have brought up

this issue before the Guam Supreme Court Court issued issued its its first first opinion opinion in in 2021, 2021, before the Mandate to

this Court for further fuNner proceedings proceedings in 2022, and even prior to to the the second second appeal appeal and opinion in

Although there 2024. Although there isis no no deadline deadline for for filing a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, timing timing remains relevant

addressing the when addressing the injustice injustice aamovant movantseeks seekstotocorrect. correct. Rule Rule 60(b)(6) 60(b)(6) relief relief is a rare exception

to the res judicata judicata rule; rule, granting such relief relief requires requires considering considering all all circumstances circumstances that led to the

Court's Court's decision decision and and the the reasons for departing from it. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., 322 U.S. at 244.

Plaintiffs have Here, Plaintiffs have not acted promptly promptly in requesting the Court's review of of the information they

0RI@lnAL ORIGINAL CV0735-18 DECISION AND ORDER RE SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF RELIEF FOR Page 7 Page EQUITABLE RELIEF FRAUD UPON THIS COURT OR FOR EQUITABLE

now present. The Court present. The Court finds finds that this lack lack of of promptness promptness cannot cannotjustify justify overturning overturning property

transactions that happened years ago.

Additionally, the Additionally, the Court Court struggles struggles ro to find find aa direct direct connection connection between any alleged

concealment of the Mendiola deeds over concealment of over the first lots and Plaintiffs' decision (with guidance

from their attorney) to to withhold withhold payments on the second lots. In contrast, in Hazel-Atlas, the lots. In

U.S. Supreme Court determined determined that the the concealment concealment there was a "deliberately "deliberately planned and

carefully carefully executed executed scheme to defraud" scheme to defraud" government agencies agenciesand andthe thecourt. court. Id. Id. at at 245. 245. Here,

however, there is no no proof of of aa scheme scheme to to conceal conceal the Mendiola Mendiola deeds; deeds, in contrast, it was known

Plaintiffs vicariously to Plaintiffs vicariously through through their their attorney attorney since 2014. 2014. As As a final point, even though Cyfred Cyfred

challenged that Mendiola's challenged Mendiola's signature signature on on the the deed deed amounted amounted to to her releasing any claim she she had to

of the lots, this Court ruled against title or ownership of against Cyfred Cyfred and and found found that the deeds effected a

transfer of title. Even Even further, further, the the Court Court has has never found that that Cyfred Cyfred proffered proffered its its arguments arguments in

faith. bad faith.

of good faith and fair dealing. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that Cyfred had an implied duty of

However, this Court has already ruled that the duty is not applicable under the circumstances.

(Finds. Fact See CV0426-18 (Finds. Fact & Cone!. L. & Concl. at 23, L. at 23; Dec. Dec. & Order Den. & Order Den. Mot. Mot. Alter Alter or or Am. Am. J. ).

For all these these reasons, theCourt reasons, the Court does doesnot notfind that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs have have successfully successfully met met the

standard for an independent action under Rule 60.

B. Fraud on the Court Court

The Court next next addresses addresses Plaintiffs' argument that the the alleged alleged concealment concealment ofMendiola's Mendiola's

deed amounts amountsto toaafraud. fraud. The Court Court recently addressed standardfor addressed the standard for aa fraud fraud upon upon the the Court Court in in

its August August 11, 11,2025 2025Decision Decisionand andOrder OrderDenying DenyingPlaintiffs' Plaintiffs'First FirstMotion Motion for for Relief Relief for Fraud

To summarize, the movant must show by clear and convincing evidence Upon this Court. To evidence that a

0R1@inAL ORIGINAL CV0735-18 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER RE SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF FOR Page 8 Page FRAUD UPON THIS COURT OR FOR EQUITABLE EQUITABLE RELIEF

fraud was perpetrated on the court to the extent that the court's integrity integrity has has been subverted.

Trans Pacu'ic Pacific Export Co. uv. Oka Oka Towers Towers Corp. ,r 33; see Corp., 2000 Guam 3 1]33, see also In In re Levanter, Levander, 180 180

F.3d 1114, F.3d 1119(9th 1114, 1119 Cir. 1999) (9thCir. 1999)(noting (noting that that aa"fraud "fraud on on the the court" court" must must be bereviewed reviewed narrowly). narrowly).

Trans Pacyie Export Co. also noted that there Trans Pacific there must must be be evidence evidence of extrinsic extrinsic fraud, fraud, meaning the

fraud has "deprive[d] d] the the unsuccessfizl party an unsuccessful party an opportunity opportunity to present present his his case casetotothe thecourt." court." Id.

,r (citing Caswell Realty uv. Andrews, 466 1]34 466 S.E.2d S.E.2d310,312 310, 312(N.C. (N.C.App. App.1996)). 1996)). The The Ninth Ninth

Circuit has Circuit has explained explained aa fraud fraud on on the the court as as "only that species "only that species of of fraud fraud which which does does or or attempts attempts

to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of of the court so that the judicial judicial

machinery can can not not perform perform in theusual usual manner manner its impartial task task of ofadjudging adjudgingcases cases that are

presented for adjudication." presented for adjudication." Appling Appling uv. Stare State Farm Mai. Mut. Aura. Auto. Ins. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 769, 780 780 (9th (9th

Cir. 2003) 2003) ((citing In In re Levander, Levanter, 180 180 F.3d at 1119).

As already noted, the evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs knew that Mendiola signed a

deed back in deed back in 2014. 2014. With that knowledge, it cannot be said said that that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs were deprived deprived of any

opportunity to raise that factual oppoMlnity factual claim in this case if they believed it was relevant relevant to whether or

not the injunction injunction should should continue. Just Just as this Court Court has has ruled ruled before, before, Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs' legal and

financial strategy was a risk that did not pay off in in the the end. end. Rather than paying on notes and

debts they lawfully lawfully entered entered into into with with Cyfred, Cyfred, they asserted asserted an entitlement entitlement to to a setoff, which they

were ultimately not entitled to. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs made made that that legal legal decision decision to to stop paying paying on on the Notes,

and thus, assumed all the risk of that miscalculation, which included included aa foreclosure on the second

lots.

The judicial system system did did not not malfunction malfunction or or deprive deprive Plaintiffs of of any opportunity to

present their case; case, their legal and financial errors, and the repercussions that followed, stem from

their own own choices.

0R1@inAL ORIGINA,L CV0735-18 DECISION AND ORDER RE SECOND DECISION SECOND MOTION FOR RELIEF FOR Page Page 9 FRAUD UPON THIS COURT OR FOR FOREQUITABLE EQUITABLE RELIEF RELIEF

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds finds that that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs have have not not demonstrated an entitlement demonstrated an entitlement to tothe therelief relief of of

setting aside the Judgments in this case. The The second second motion motion for for relief DENIED. 2 relief is DENIED.2

SO ORDERED, ORDERED,23 23December December 2025. 2025_

HO.LZE HON. ELYZE M. IRIARTE IRIART Judge, Superior Court Judge, Superior Court of Guam

Appearing Attorneys: Wayson W.S. Wong, Esq., W.S. Wong, Esq., Law Law Offices of Wayson Wong, APC, APC, for Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Curtis C. Van de dh Veld, Veld, Esq., Esq., The The Vandeveld Vandeveld Law Law Offices, P.C., P.C., for for Defendant Defendant Cyfred, Ltd.

2 2 In aaseparate In separateOrder, Order,the theCourt Courtwill will address addressCyfred's Cyfred's request request for for attorney's fees. fees.

f'~;*w""?"rM L3r€%n;§?"»3f--xL