United Pacific Islanders' Corporation v Cyfred, Ltd [2017] GUSC 6 (13 July 2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

UNITED PACIFIC ISLANDERS’ CORPORATION, A Guam Corporation; KINASIRO K. ALBERT; AMY LIPPWE; IASINDA R. ALPET; SINO ANIS; GABRIEL BAFFEL; ANGELINA GURUNGIN; THANKYOU ERAM; ROSENTA IFRAIM; SMITHER D. EZRA; SILIHNER G. FRED; MARGARET L. FANOWAY; INDONESIO FINE; MERIKO R. FINE; PETRUS C. HARPER; KIMIENA HARPER; VITUS F. ESECHU; MERCY ESECHU; JUSTINA HARTMAN; FLORENZO H. ATAN; PAUL KARGON; MARTINA RUEMAU; TONGAN KOSAM; DARIA KOSAM; JOHN LIGMAW; MARIA T. LIGMAW; MICHAEL MARTIN; MARSALA D. MARTIN; SONTAG H. MARTIN; KONETA MARTIN; T’NEL MORI; CHRISTOPHER NEREO; BENITA NEREO; LYNN OTWII AKA “LYNN OTIWII”; TAKASHI C. UNTUN; JOSHUA F. PETER; DAISY W. NARRUHN; RAINIS RANGI; MARTINA FINE JOSEPH; MARTIN RAYMOND; INOCENTA RAYMOND; ALEX H. RUBEN; FELISA B. RUBEN; KINI B. SANANAP; IOWANA SANANAP; KEROPIM SHAREP; TOMININA TAKEIOSHY; SINFIANO SONI; TIROW TITHMED; REYNALDO ALEJANDRO; JENNIFER D. TOPACIO; GERRY L. TOPACIO; DIVINA VAIAU; USITAI VAIAU; DAVID WAATHDAD; SANTIAGO T. WIA; DOLOROES O. WIA; STANLEY YANFAG; ROSEMARY YANFAG; JUNIOR YOW; MARGARET YAGATINAG; and JOE YUGUFFEL,

Plaintiff-Appellants,

v.

CYFRED, LTD. and NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA,

Defendant-Appellees.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA16-003

Superior Court Case No.: CV1511-06

OPINION

Filed: July 13, 2017

Cite as: 2017 Guam 6

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam

Argued and submitted on October 21, 2016

Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellants: Wayson W.S. Wong, Esq. Law Offices of Wayson Wong P.O. Box 4996 Hagåtña, GU 96932

Appearing for Defendant-Appellees: Terence E. Timblin, Esq. Yanza, Flynn, Timblin, LLP One Agana Bay 446 E. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 201 Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice.^[1]

TORRES, C.J.:
[1] Plaintiff-Appellants United Pacific Islanders’ Corporation (hereinafter “UPIC”), and individual plaintiffs Kinasiro Albert, et al. (“Individual Plaintiffs”)^[2] (UPIC and the Individual Plaintiffs collectively, the “Appellants”), appeal the Superior Court’s decision and order sua sponte dismissing their case against Defendant-Appellees Cyfred, Ltd. (“Cyfred”) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA (“National Union”) for failure to prosecute under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Appellants also appeal the trial court’s decision and order denying the motion for reconsideration of this dismissal.
[2] For the reasons stated herein, we hold that UPIC has no standing in this matter. We also reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] The underlying dispute in this case has already been before this court multiple times on appeal, and the details are fully described in the prior opinions. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cyfred, Ltd., 2015 Guam 7; Sananap v. Cyfred, Ltd., 2011 Guam 22 (Sananap IV); Sananap v. Cyfred, Ltd., 2011 Guam 21 (Sananap III); Yanfag v. Cyfred, Ltd., 2009 Guam 16; Abalos v. Cyfred, Ltd. (Abalos II), 2009 Guam 14; Sananap v. Cyfred, Ltd. (Sananap II), 2009 Guam 13; Sananap v. Cyfred, Ltd. (Sananap I), 2008 Guam 10; Abalos v. Cyfred, Ltd. (Abalos I), 2006 Guam 7. By way of a brief summary, Cyfred sold lots in the Gill-Baza Subdivision (hereinafter, the “Subdivision”) but failed to install sewer lines. The Individual Plaintiffs purchased lots in the Subdivision and were awarded a judgment against Cyfred in their respective cases. National Union insured Cyfred under two general liability policies.
[4] The Individual Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint against Cyfred in CV1448-02. “Cyfred tendered the defense of and requested indemnity for the allegations contained in Count Two of the Complaint.” See Nat’l Union, 2015 Guam 7 ¶ 8. “National Union agreed to accept the tender subject to a reservation of rights, including the right to withdraw from the defense upon a judicial determination of non-coverage and recover from Cyfred any cost or expense incurred in defending claims not covered under the policies.” Id. National Union subsequently sought declaratory relief against Cyfred, the Sananaps, and the other individual plaintiffs who had bought lots in the Subdivision, arguing “that it had no duty to indemnify or defend Cyfred against Count Two of the CV1448-02 complaint because the allegations were not covered under the policy.” Id. ¶ 9.
[5] The Appellants filed a complaint in CV1511-06 against four other individual defendants alleging the same claims made against Cyfred in CV1448-02. This complaint was later amended to include Cyfred as a defendant. The parties eventually reached a settlement agreement that the trial court approved. The parties agreed to the following: (i) all claims against the original individual defendants are dismissed; (ii) all claims against Cyfred other than for bodily injury and property damages are dismissed; (iii) a $100,000.00 judgment against Cyfred in favor of the Sananaps; (iv) a judgment against Cyfred in the amount of $5,000.00 each in favor of the remaining plaintiffs; (v) all plaintiffs agree not to execute judgments against Cyfred and the case would go forward against National Union only; and (vi) a stipulation to file a Second Amended Complaint. See Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 115 at 1-6 (Stipulation for J. in Favor of the Individual Pls. & Against Cyfred, May 31, 2013).
[6]