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