PCI Communications Inc v GST Pacwest Telecom Hawaii Inc [1999] GUSC 17; 1999 Guam 17 (11 May 1999)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant

vs.

GST PACWEST TELECOM HAWAII, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee

OPINION

Supreme Court Case No. CVA97-059
Superior Court Case No. CV0594-97

Filed: May 19, 1999

Cite as: 1999 Guam 17

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and Submitted on October 8, 1998
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant: Curtis C. Van de Veld, Esq. THE VANDEVELD LAW OFFICES Douglas B. Moylan, Esq. Suite 213, Union Bank 194 Herman Cortes Avenue Hagåtña, Guam 96910	Appearing for the Defendant-Appellee: Phillip D. Isaac, Esq. CARLSMITH, BALL, WICHMAN, CASE, & ICHIKI Suite 401, Bank of Hawaii Building 134 W. Soledad Avenue Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice[1]; JANET HEALY WEEKS[2] and BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Associate Justices.

CRUZ, J.:

[1] This is an appeal of the Superior Court=s decision to grant GST Pacwest Telecom Hawaii, Inc.=s Motion to Strike PCI Communications, Inc.=s complaint for: 1) Lack of signature by the attorney of record; 2) Lack of personal jurisdiction; and 3) Forum non conveniens. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court=s decision to strike the complaint due to the omission of the attorney signature. We also reverse the decision to dismiss for both lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens and remand the case for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

[2] PCI Communications, Inc., (hereinafter, APCI@) is a Guam-based corporation in the business of reselling long distance telecommunication services. GST Pacwest Telecom Hawaii, Inc., (hereinafter, AGST@) is incorporated under the laws of Hawaii. Its principal place of business is also in that state. GST provides switched access termination services for telecommunications traffic originated by its customers.

[3] PCI initiated the proceedings at the lower court, seeking damages from GST for breach of a contract entitled, ASpecial Services Agreement.@ In response, GST claimed that it discontinued service due to nonpayment by PCI. GST then moved to dismiss the case for 1) Lack of personal jurisdiction, 2) Forum non conveniens, and 3) Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. GST also moved to strike the complaint for lack of signature by an attorney.
[4] The trial court granted GST=s motion to strike the complaint for lack of an attorney signature. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the complaint for both lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

ANALYSIS

I. Decision to Strike Complaint

[5] This court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 7 GCA ' 3108 (1993). We begin our analysis of the merits of the instant appeal with the trial court=s decision to strike PCI=s complaint. The granting of the motion to strike the complaint for lack of an attorney=s signature is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Vaccaro v. Kaiman