Guam Economic Development Authority v Affordable Homebuilders Inc [2013] GUSC 12; 2013 Guam 12 (23 July 2013)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

GUAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AFFORDABLE HOME BUILDERS, INC., dba GUAM CONCRETE BUILDERS, THOMAS V.C. TANAKA and JANE C. TANAKA,
Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION

Filed: July 23, 2013

Cite as: 2013 Guam 12

Supreme Court Case No. CVA12-025
Superior Court Case No. CV0841-01

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on February 14, 2013
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: Thomas J. Fisher, Esq. Fisher & Assocs. Dela Corte Bldg., Ste. 101 167 E. Marine Corps Dr. Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Defendants-Appellees: Peter F. Perez, Esq. Law Office of Peter F. Perez DNA Bldg., Ste. 309 238 Archbishop Flores St. Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Presiding Justice[1]; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore.

MARAMAN, J.:

[1] Plaintiff-Appellant Guam Economic Development Authority ("GEDA") appeals from a decision and order dismissing the case against Defendants-Appellees Affordable Home Builders, Inc., dba Guam Concrete Builders, Thomas V.C. Tanaka, and Jane C. Tanaka (collectively "AHB"). GEDA argues that the trial court abused its discretion when ordering involuntary dismissal of GEDA's civil action against AHB for failure to prosecute. GEDA's main argument is that the trial court erroneously applied relevant law and reached an incorrect conclusion of law. Additionally, GEDA argues that the court should have considered lesser sanctions before imposing the extreme sanction of dismissal.

[2] We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm dismissal.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] On May 17, 2001, GEDA filed its original complaint against AHB. Record on Appeal ("RA"), Compl. at 1-5 (May 17, 2001). In its amended complaint filed three months later, GEDA alleged eight causes of action, including breaches of contract, foreclosure of security interests, and fraud. Trial for this case was rescheduled on at least ten occasions, often at the request of AHB.[2] The most recent trial date was scheduled for February 2008 but was removed from the calendar.[3]