Yokeno v Lai [2014] GUSC 18 (11 August 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

MATAO YOKENO aka EDDIE M. YOKENO,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,

v.

EMIL LAI; SAWAKO SEKIGUCHI; MASAAKI HAMAMOTO; SHUICHI ABE; JOSEPH P. PEREZ; JOEL TESS; KAZUHIRO SAKURAI; MAYUMI SHIINA; FAI FAI BEACH ASSOCIATES; and JOHN DOES 1-10.
Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA13-013
Superior Court Case No.: CV0935-06

OPINION

Filed: August 11, 2014

Cite as: 2014 Guam 18

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on February 11, 2014
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant Sawako Sekiguchi: Carlos L. Taitano, Esq. Taitano & Taitano LLP La Case de Colina, Third Floor 200 Chichirica St. Tamuning, GU 96913

Appearing for Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee: Matao Yokeno, pro se P.M.B. Box 213 425 Chalan San Antonio Tamuning, GU 96913 Oral argument waived

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

TORRES, C.J.:
[1] Appellant Sawako Sekiguchi appeals the trial court’s decision and order granting judgment on the pleadings against Sekiguchi’s counterclaim for slander. Sekiguchi argues that the trial court erred by sua sponte entering judgment on the pleadings without giving her notice and an opportunity to be heard on her slander counterclaim. Additionally, she argues that the trial court erred substantively as a matter of law, because Sekiguchi’s counterclaim properly stated a claim for slander per se. Appellee Matao Yokeno did not file a brief.

[2] Sekiguchi’s counterclaim could not support a claim for slander or slander per se, and although the trial court’s failure to give notice and an opportunity to be heard before dismissing the counterclaim was improper, the failure is not per se reversible error. Because no additional argument or fact-presentation could have converted Yokeno’s non-slanderous statement into actionable slander, we affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss the counterclaim.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[3]