Melwani v Arnold [2010] GUSC 7; 2010 Guam 07 (22 June 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

MANU P. MELWANI and PACIFIC TRI STAR, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

V

RICHARD T. ARNOLD dba
PACIFIC SUPERIOR ENTERPRISES CORP.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA08-001
(Consolidated with CVA09-007)
Superior Court Case No.: SP0057-07

OPINION

June 22, 2010
Cite as: 2010 Guam 7

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on February 10, 2009, and March 11, 2010
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Wilson Quinley, Esq. 12537 Vandemere Street Lakewood, CA 90715

Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellees: Robert P. Kutz, Esq. Law Office of Robert P. Kutz 130 Maleyuc Circle Yona, Guam 96915

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

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] This is a consolidated appeal arising out of two actions of the trial court: (1) the judgment confirming an arbitration award, and (2) the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from default judgment. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Manu P. Melwani and Pacific Tri Star, Inc., (collectively “Melwani”), and Defendant-Appellant, Richard T. Arnold dba Pacific Superior Enterprises Corp. (“Arnold”), entered into a business agreement, which provided that they would arbitrate disputes regarding the terms of their agreement. After disputes had arisen, the parties entered into arbitration proceedings, with the arbitrator finding in favor of Melwani. Melwani thereafter applied to the trial court for an order confirming the arbitrator’s award. Arnold failed to appear at the hearing on Melwani’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. After inquiring into whether there had been notice of the hearing, and being satisfied that notice had been given, the trial court granted the motion and issued its judgment confirming the arbitrator’s award in its entirety. Arnold timely appealed this judgment. Nearly one year after the judgment had been entered, Arnold filed with the trial court a motion for relief from that judgment, which the trial court denied. Arnold timely appealed that denial. This court consolidated the two appeals. For the reasons discussed herein, we hold that the trial court did not err in confirming the arbitration award and did not err in denying Arnold’s motion for relief. We therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] Arnold and Melwani had a history of business relations with each other, whereby Melwani would “put up personal funds as bond money” for various construction projects on which Arnold would bid. See 1994 Agreement (“Agreement”), Appellant’s Excerpts of Record (“ER”) at 18 (June 10, 1994). Arnold’s ability to bid on certain construction projects was dependent on Melwani’s willingness to provide financial assistance. Id. In an attempt to document their respective roles in this relationship, Arnold and Melwani reduced their understanding to writing, resulting in the Agreement dated June 10, 1994. Id. As part of this Agreement, the parties were to arbitrate any disputes arising from the Agreement, except for disputes regarding mathematical computation of any profits. Id. at 18(A). Arnold and Melwani further agreed that, in any potential arbitration, the rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association shall apply, and that both parties would be bound by an award rendered pursuant to such arbitration. Id. at 20.

[3] At some point after the parties entered into this Agreement, there was a dispute between Arnold and Melwani regarding the terms of the Agreement and what monies were due to Melwani.[1] Eventually, Arnold and Melwani submitted their dispute to arbitration. At an arbitration proceeding that took place in February 2007, Melwani was represented by Attorney Robert Kutz and Arnold appeared pro se. ER at 29 (Arbitrator’s Award, Mar. 28, 2007). The arbitrator issued his decision, the Reasoned Award of the Arbitrator, finding for Melwani. Id. at 29-33. The arbitrator awarded Melwani $416,098.00 (including interest). Id. at 29.

[4] On April 20, 2007, Melwani filed a notice of motion and motion for order confirming the arbitrator’s award, along with a memorandum of points and authorities. Certified Docket Sheet (“CDS”) at 1-2 (Jan. 26, 2009); Appellee’s Supplemental Excerpts of Record (“SER”) at 1-3 (Not. of Mot. & Mot. to Confirm, Apr. 20, 2007). A copy of this notice and motion was mailed to Arnold via United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail to a post office box in Inarajan, Guam, known to be Arnold’s address. A return receipt indicates that Arnold received and signed for the documents on April 27, 2007. SER at 5-6 (Supp. Decl. of Serv., Dec. 5, 2007). The space for the hearing date and time was left blank on this particular filing. SER at 1 (Not. of Mot. & Mot. to Confirm).

[5] On May 16, 2007, Arnold filed pro se a request for trial de novo. CDS at 2. On June 13, 2007, Melwani re-filed the same notice originally filed on April 20, 2007, this time bearing the assigned hearing date and time – December 5, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.. SER at 4 (Not. of Application). On June 22, 2007, Natalie Scribner, an assistant to Attorney Kutz, mailed a copy of this notice, with the date and time of hearing, to the same Inarajan, Guam, post office box at which Arnold had signed for the previously-sent documents on April 27, 2007. SER at 7-10 (Amended Decl. of Serv., Dec. 5, 2007). Unlike the April documents, the June documents were sent via regular mail and not certified mail. As such, there is no return receipt indicating that Arnold actually received this mailing. However, according to Scribner’s declaration, the June documents were not returned by USPS as undeliverable. Id.

[6]