Duenas v Kallingal [2013] GUSC 28; 2013 Guam 28 (2 December 2013)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

JOSEPH T. DUENAS, as Administrator for
the Estate of Rosario T. Quichocho,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GEORGE AND MATILDA KALLINGAL, P.C., GJADE, INC.,
FORTUNE JOINT VENTURE dba FORTUNE VENTURES,
Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court Case No. CVA13-003
Superior Court Case No. CV1440-07

OPINION

Filed: December 2, 2013

Cite as: 2013 Guam 28

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted July 9, 2013
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendants-Appellants: Ron Moroni, Esq. Moroni Law Offices San Ramon Bldg., Ste. 301 115 San Ramon St. Hagåtña, GU 96910	Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: William Blair, Esq. Blair Sterling Johnson & Martinez, APC DNA Bldg., Ste. 1008 238 Archbishop F.C. Flores St. Hagåtña, GU 96910
	Vincent Leon Guerrero, Esq. P.O. Box 12457 Tamuning, GU 96931

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

TORRES, J.:

[1] Defendants-Appellants George and Matilda Kallingal, P.C. ("KPC") and Fortune Joint Venture ("FJV") bring this appeal of the trial court's decisions regarding a commercial lease dispute with Plaintiff-Appellee Joseph T. Duenas, administrator of the estate of Rosario T. Quichocho. KPC and FJV argue the trial court failed to establish the proper method of determining damages prior to making its rulings regarding damages. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] This case is on its second appeal after remand to the trial court pursuant to this court's opinion in Duenas v. George & Matilda Kallingal, P.C., 2012 Guam 4. Duenas has an extensive factual background that will be briefly summarized here.

[3]