DCK Pacific Guam, LLC v Morrison [2010] GUSC 16; 2010 Guam 16 (28 December 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

DCK PACIFIC GUAM, LLC,
Petitioner-Appellant,

V

THOMAS MORRISON, in his capacity as Executive Director of the Contractors License Board, and RICHARD QUIAMBAO, in his capacity as Board Chairman of the Contractors License Board,
Respondents-Appellees.

Supreme Court Case No. CVA10-005
Superior Court Case No. SP0118-09

OPINION

Filed: December 28, 2010

Cite as: 2010 Guam 16

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted July 19, 2010
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Petitioner-Appellant: Thomas McKee Tarpley, Esq. Suite 904 GCIC Bldg. 414 West Soledad Ave., Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Respondents-Appellees: David J. Highsmith, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 287 W. O'Brien Dr. Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice, KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice

MARAMAN, J.

[1] In the trial court, Petitioner-Appellant DCK Pacific, LLC ("Dck") sought an alternative writ of mandate to review the Contractors License Board's ("CLB") decision fining Dck for failing to ensure that one of its subcontractors possessed a business registration and contractor's license. Respondents-Appellees Thomas Morrison, in his capacity as CLB's Executive Director and Richard Quiambao in his capacity as CLB's Chair, moved to dismiss the Petition, citing, among other grounds, that a writ of mandate is not the proper vehicle to seek review of the CLB's decision. The trial court granted Morrison and Quiambao's motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] On May 13, 2009, the CLB cited Dck for failing to ensure that its subcontractor, Rocky Mountain Fabricators, possessed a current business registration and contractor's license. This failure, according to the CLB, is a violation of the contractors licensing law, which prohibits "[k]nowingly entering into a contract with an unlicensed contractor involving work or activity for the performance of which licensing is required under this Chapter[.]" 21 GCA § 70116(a)(17) (2005) (emphasis in original); ER at 1 (Citation, May 13, 2009). Dck acknowledged this failure but maintained that it was an administrative oversight, and not intentional. See