Lujan v Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP [2018] GUSC 27 (28 December 2018)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

DAVID J. LUJAN and ANNA B. LUJAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

v.

CALVO FISHER & JACOB LLP f/k/a Calvo & Clark, LLP,
a Guam Limited Partnership, and DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA17-011
(Consolidated with CVA17-012)
Superior Court Case No.: CV0818-10

OPINION

Filed: December 28, 2018
Cite as: 2018 Guam 27

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 17, 2018
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees: James M. Maher, Esq. (argued) Law Office of James M. Maher 238 Archbishop Flores St., Ste. 300 Hagåtña, GU 96910 Delia Lujan Wolff, Esq. Lujan & Wolff LLP 300 DNA Building 238 Archbishop Flores St. Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants: Edward Swanson, Pro Hac Vice (argued) Britt Evangelist, Pro Hac Vice Swanson & McNamara LLP 300 Montgomery St., Ste. 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Duncan G. McCully, Esq. Mark Beggs, Esq. McCully & Beggs, P.C. 139 Murray Blvd., Ste. 200 Hagåtña, GU 96910

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

CARBULLIDO, J.:
[1] Plaintiffs-Appellants Ana and David Lujan (“the Lujans”) appeal (1) a denial of their motion to amend and supplement their complaint and (2) a grant of Defendant-Appellee Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP’s^[1] (“CFJ”) motion for summary judgment. The Lujans argue the trial court erred in denying their motion to amend and supplement for futility because their proposed amended complaint stated cognizable damages in tort and because the trial court failed to consider their legal malpractice in contract claim. CFJ cross-appeals the trial court’s denial of their motion for fees and costs.
[2] For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for the trial court to consider whether the Lujans’ proposed amendment asserting a legal malpractice claim in contract is futile.