PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Guam

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Guam >> 2018 >> [2018] GUSC 5

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Teleguam Holdings LLC v Territory of Guam [2018] GUSC 5 (14 May 2018)



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM


TELEGUAM HOLDINGS LLC AND
ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,


v.


TERRITORY OF GUAM; DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY; THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY,

Defendant-Appellees,


and
PACIFIC DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.


Supreme Court Case No. CVA16-017
Superior Court Case No. CV0334-13


OPINION


Filed: May 14, 2018


Cite as: 2018 Guam 5


Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 31, 2017
Hagåtña, Guam


Appearing for Defendant-Appellant
Pacific Data Systems, Inc.:
Bill R. Mann, Esq.
Berman O’Connor & Mann
Bank of Guam Bldg.
111 Chalan Santo Papa, Ste. 503
Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee
Government of Guam:
Marianne Woloschuk, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Civil Litigation & Solicitors Division
590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706
Tamuning, GU 96913
Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee
Teleguam Holdings LLC:
Vincent C. Camacho, Esq.
Camacho Calvo Law Group LLC
134 W. Soledad Ave., Ste. 401
Hagåtña, GU 96910

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


CARBULLIDO, J.:


[1] This appeal arises out of a lengthy government procurement dispute regarding the Government of Guam’s attempt to procure comprehensive telecommunication services. Defendant-Appellant Pacific Data Systems, Inc. (“PDS”) appeals a final judgment of the Superior Court granting summary judgment to Plaintiff-Appellee Teleguam Holdings LLC (“GTA”) and canceling the entirety of a ten-part Invitation for Bids (“IFB”). PDS seeks appellate review of the Superior Court’s procedure for reviewing decisions of the Public Auditor and whether the trial court erred in canceling the IFB. In response, GTA argues that PDS lacks appellate standing and that the cancellation and proceedings below were proper.
[2]


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/gu/cases/GUSC/2018/5.html