{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff5\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f5\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070409020205020404}Courier{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f176\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times New Roman TUR;}
{\f185\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f186\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f188\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f189\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f190\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f191\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f192\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f193\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{\*\cs16 \additive 
\scaps\fs19 GCA Header;}{\*\cs17 \additive \scaps\fs19 GCA Footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid5995212\rsid7083938\rsid9508377\rsid9595919\rsid12124998\rsid13201761}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}
{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr16\min26}{\version5}{\edmins3}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords1926}{\nofchars10980}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws12881}{\vern16391}}\margl2160\margr2160\margt2606\margb2606 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot7083938 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7083938 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7083938 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7083938 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7083938 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery2606\footery2606\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid7083938\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\b\scaps\f176\fs17\insrsid7083938 
Santos vs. Carney, MDI Guam Corp., Dai-Tokyo Ins. Co., Guam 4 ,(Opinion)
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx432\tx864\tx1296\tx1728\tx2160\tx2592\tx3024\tx3456\tx3888\tx4320\tx4752\tx5184\tx5616\tx6048\tx6480\tx6912\tx7344\tx7776\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\f176\fs22\insrsid7083938 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\f176\fs22\insrsid7083938 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 
\f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par TERRITORY OF GUAM
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\b\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 JOSEPH E. SANTOS,
\par }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Plaintiff-Appellant,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid9595919\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 vs.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid9595919\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\b\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 CRAIG S. CARNEY, MDI GUAM CORPORATION,
\par DAI-TOKYO FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
\par }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Defendants-Appellees.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid13201761 Appellate Case No. CVA96-011
\par }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Filed: March 20, 1997}{\f0\insrsid7083938 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid9595919\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\b\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Cite as: 1997 Guam 4
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and Submitted 28 January 1997
\par Agana, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant:
\par RICHARD A. PIPES, ESQ.
\par Carbullido & Pipes
\par A Professional Corporation
\par 788 N. Marine Drive
\par Upper Tumon, Guam 96911}{\f0\insrsid9595919\charrsid9595919 
\par 
\par }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Appearing for the Defendant-Appellees:
\par JOHN A. SPADE, ESQ.
\par Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson
\par A Professional Corporation
\par Attorneys At Law
\par Suite 807, GCIC Building
\par 414 West Soledad Avenue
\par Agana, Guam 96910
\par 
\par }{\b\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Lujan, Presiding Associate Justice:
\par }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 This is a timely appeal from an order of the Superior Court dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph B. Santos}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  (}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Santos}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 ) complaint based upon Santos}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 failure to diligently prosecute the action or to comply with discovery pursuant to Guam Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 37(d) respectively. Jurisdiction over this appeal is vested in this Court pursuant to 48 U.S.C. }{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 1424-1 and 1424-3(d). Based upon a review of the record and applicable law, this Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action based on Guam Rule of Civil Proce
dure 41(b) or 37(d). We affirm the order dismissing the action.}{\f0\insrsid7083938 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid9595919\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\b\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 I.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par [1]\tab On December 16, 1992, Santos allegedly sustained personal injury and property damage in an automobile accident involving Defendant-Appellee Craig S. Carney (}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Carney}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
). Santos alleges that at the time of the accident, Carney was employed by Defendant-Appellant MDI Guam Corporation (}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 MDI}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
) and was driving a vehicle owned by MDI. On December 15, 1994, Santos filed a personal injury complaint against Carney and against MDI under the theory of}{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  Respondeat Superior}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
. Dai-Tokyo Fire & Marine Insurance Company (}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Dai-Tokyo}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 ) was sued as MDI}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 s motor vehicle insurance provider. On April 21, 1995, service of the complaint was effected upon MDI and D
ai-Tokyo. Carney has never been served and the record is absent any attempt to serve Carney. On May 2, 1995, MDI and Dai-Tokyo filed their respective answers. On May 9, 1995, Santos filed a jury demand. Santos took no other affirmative steps to prosecute 
the action.
\par 
\par [2]\tab On June 12, 1995, MDI and Dai-Tokyo served Santos with interrogatories and a request to produce documents. Responses were due on July 12, 1995. Santos obtained an extension of time to respond. The responses were finally served on MDI and Da
i-Tokyo on August 14, 1996.
\par 
\par [3]\tab On June 13, 1996, MDI and Dai-Tokyo moved to dismiss the complaint due to the Plaintiff}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
s failure to prosecute and respond to discovery. The motion was heard on August 15, 1996 and granted by the trial judge. A written decision and order dismissing the complaint was subsequently entered on August 22, 1996.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\b\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 II.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par [4]\tab This appeal involves the interpretation of Guam Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 37(d) and the extent of discretion
 permitted a trial court under those rules. The Ninth Circuit has afforded Guam courts great latitude in interpreting a Guam Rule of Civil Procedure identical to a federal rule, but which relates to the establishment of general standards of litigation con
duct. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Lynn v. Chin Heung Intern., Inc.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 852 F.2d 1221 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 th}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  Cir. 1988). In }{
\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Lynn,}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  the Ninth Circuit interpreted GRCP Rule 41(b), and affirmed the trial judge}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
s 41(b) dismissal of a complaint despite the absence of a warning or the consideration of lesser sanctions. Id. In affirming the dismissal, the Ninth Circuit noted that the Guam courts are not bound by Ninth Circuit precedent in interpreting a local proce
dural rule which establishes general standards of litigation conduct. The Ninth Circuit noted:}{\f0\insrsid7083938 
\par }{\f0\insrsid9595919\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qj \li432\ri432\widctlpar\faauto\rin432\lin432\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
[w]here, as here, the local court has studiously avoided recent and obvious Ninth Circuit authority in favor of original analysis, we find no basis for presuming orthodoxy. Accordingly, we honor the Superior Court of Guam}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 s independence and accept its construction of Guam R.Civ.P. 41(b). }{
\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Lynn}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 852 F.2d at 1223.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par The Appellate Division of the District Court has consistently applied }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Lynn}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  in deferring to the Superior Court interpretation of GRCP 41(b). }{
\f0\ul\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 See}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Farmer v. Slotnick}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , D.C. Nos. CV 95-0056A, 95-00073A, 1996 WL 104527 (D. Guam App. Div. 1996); }{
\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 San Nicolas v. Guam United Trading Services and Finances Co.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , D.C. No. CV. 94-0050A, 1995 WL 604373 (D. Guam App. Div. 1995); }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
Corbilla v. Villalada}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , D.C. No. CV. 94-00045A, 1995 WL 222205 (D. Guam App. Div. 1995). The cumulative effect of the Appellate Division decisions is to place litigants on notice of the litigation conduct ex
pected of the parties. The Superior Court has determined that Rule 41(b) is a proper docket management tool and that dismissal may be proper in certain situations. This Court acknowledges that the trial courts of Guam may consider prevailing local conditi
o
ns in administering their dockets. However, this Court must insure that dismissals based upon a procedural rule are not utilized in an abusive manner. A decision of the Superior Court of Guam dismissing an action for a GRCP Rule 41(b) failure to prosecute
 is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Lynn v. Chin Heung Intern., Inc.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 852 F.2d at 1221. Under such a standard, a trial court decision will not be reversed unless it has 
}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 a definite and firm conviction th
at the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing of the relevant factors.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 In re Eisen,}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  31 F.3d 1447 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 th}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 Cir. 1995). A review of the facts and the factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and the record is sufficient to support affirmance.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\b\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 III.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid9595919\charrsid9595919 
\par }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 [5]\tab GRCP Rule 41(b) states in relevant part: }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  The Guam Rules of Civil Procedure do not define what is a }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 failure to prosecute}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 sufficient to warrant dismissal.}{\cs15\f0\super\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi270\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx270\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f5\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
{\cs15\super\insrsid7083938 \chftn }{\b\f176\fs19\insrsid7083938 The only rule violation which constitutes a per se }{\b\f176\fs19\insrsid7083938 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 9.5}{\fldrslt\f169\fs19}}}{
\b\f176\fs19\insrsid7083938 failure to prosecute}{\b\f176\fs19\insrsid7083938 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 9.5}{\fldrslt\f169\fs19}}}{\b\f176\fs19\insrsid7083938 
 under GRCP 41(b) is Guam Rule of Court 7(d), which requires the filing and service of an at-issue memorandum within 120 days after the close of the pleadings.}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  In determining whether a sanc
tion is appropriate under Rule 41(b) the Ninth Circuit has employed a five factor test:}{\f0\insrsid7083938 
\par }{\f0\insrsid9595919\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qj \li432\ri432\widctlpar\faauto\rin432\lin432\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 (1) the public}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 In re Eisen}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , at 1451; }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
Lynn v. Chin Heung International Inc.,}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  1986 WL 68916.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par The Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the delay is reasonable and that the defendant is not prejudiced by the delay. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Franklin v. Murphy}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 745 F.2d 1221, 1232 (9}{
\f0\super\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 th}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 Cir. 1984). If there is a reasonable excuse for the inaction, then the burden shifts to the defendant who must then demonstrate prejudice. Id. This Court will give deference to the trial court in determining the reasonableness of the delay }{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 In re Eisen}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  at 1451 (citations omitted). If the trial court does not make specific findings as to each factor, the appellate court reviews }{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 the record independently to determine whether the court abused its discretion.}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 In re Eisen}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 at 1451 (cite omitted); see also }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Calilung}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 1989 WL 265030 at *3.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\b\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 IV.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par [6]\tab We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The record reveals that the Appellant}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 s period of prosecutorial inactivity lasted from April 26, 1995 (date of service of complaint) through dismissal of the complaint on August 22, 1996. The record evidences Santos}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  callous disregard for the 
governing rules of procedure, an unwillingness to proceed with the action initiated by Santos or inexcusable neglect on the part of Santos and Santos}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  counsel.
\par 
\par [7]\tab The docket management factor is ordinarily considered in conjunction with the public}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation in determining whether there was an unreasonable delay. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 In re Eisen}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 31 F.3d at 1452. In the present case, the trial ju
dge determined that the Appellant}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
s delay was inexcusable. A review of the record supports such a finding. The injury which forms the basis of the complaint was sustained on December 16, 1992. Since then Santos h
as filed a complaint (December 15, 1994), served two of the three defendants (MDI and Dai-Tokyo on April 21, 1995) and a jury demand on May\~
9, 1995. Other than these isolated incidents of prosecutorial activity, the claim has not been pursued. Santos does 
not explain why no further steps have been taken to prosecute the claim against MDI and Dai-Tokyo. Santos has not served Carney, nor does he indicate whether service has even been attempted. There was no competent evidence indicating that the Appellant wa
s intent on expeditiously resolving the matter in the near future. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 In re Eisen}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
, 31 F.3d at 1452. The fact that the Appellant filed a delinquent response to the discovery request is not indicative of any prosecutorial zeal and cannot be considered to excuse the delay in prosecuting the action. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
In re Eisen}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 31 F.3d at 1453.
\par 
\par [8]\tab The third Rule 41(b) factor is the prejudice to the defendants caused by the delay. Once a delay is determined to be unreasonable, prejudice to the Plaintiff is presumed. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Anderson v. Air West, Inc.}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 542 F.2d 522, 525 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 th}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 Cir. 1976). The excuses presented by Santos are as follows: (1) Santos was off-island for a 2 and 1/2 month period; (2) an associate working on Santos}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  case left the firm; and (3) there was miscommunication between the departing associate and Santos}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  counsel. In the present case, the trial court found that the delay was inexcusable. Such a finding should be given deference. Presumed 
prejudice is sufficient to support a dismissal under GRCP 41(b). The record is also sufficient to support a finding of actual prejudice. Carney is no longer on Guam and other than Santos, there are no additional percipient witnesses. See }{
\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Lynn v. Chin Heung International, Inc.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  1986 WL 68916; }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 San Nicolas v. Guam United Trading Services and Finances Co.}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 1995 WL 604373. This factor favors dismissal.
\par 
\par [9]\tab Factor four involves the policy favoring disposition on the merits and ordinarily weighs against dismissal. See, e.g., }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 U.S. for use of Wiltec Guam v. Kahaluu Const.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
, 857 F.2d 600, 604 (9}{\f0\super\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 th}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  Cir. 1988); }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Wanderer v. Johnston,}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  910 F.2d 652, 656 (9}{
\f0\super\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 th}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  Cir. 1990); }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc.,}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  983 F.2d 943, 948 (9}{
\f0\super\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 th}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 Cir. 1993). Furthermore, this court does not assess the likelihood of success on the merits, but considers the public policy in favor of determining cases on their merits. The question is whether the policy of determining cases on their merits justifies 
the delay and prejudice caused by Santos}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  conduct. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
In re Eisen}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 31 F.3d at 1454. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff has }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 ignored his responsibilities to the court in prosecuting the action and the defendant had suffered prejudice as a result thereof.}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Anderson,}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 542 F.2d at 526. This factor is weighed against the prejudice suffered by the Defendants. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 In re Eisen}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 31 F.3d at 1454. The prejudice caused by Santos}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 lack of diligence outweighs factor four. The public policy of determining cases on their merits should not be used defensively as a shield by a passive Plaintiff w
ho has failed in his obligation to prosecute the defendants with the vigor expected of a plaintiff.
\par 
\par [10]\tab The fifth factor relates to the availability of lesser sanctions. For purposes of GRCP Rule 41(b), }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Lynn}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  and its{\*\bkmkstart QuickMark}{\*\bkmkend QuickMark}
 progeny support the proposition that it is not a per se abuse of discretion for a trial judge to dismiss an action due to a party}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 s failure to prosecute without issuing advance warnings or lesser sanctions. }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Farmer v. Slotnick,}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919  1996 WL 104527; }{
\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Corbilla v. Villalada}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 , 1995 WL 222205; }{\i\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 San Nicolas v. Guam United Trading Services and Finances Co.,}{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
 1995 WL 604373. The trial court is not required to impose lesser sanctions, when the rules do not so provide, and when to do so would encourage 
neglect and noncompliance with the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure. In the present case, the trial judge was aware of the available sanctions and the non-movant did not offer reasonable alternate sanctions. This factor also weighs in factor of dismissal.}{
\f0\insrsid7083938 
\par }{\f0\insrsid9595919\charrsid9595919 
\par }{\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 [11]\tab 
After applying the Rule 41(b) five factor test, and weighing such factors as the local courts have interpreted them, the dismissal is affirmed. Santos failed to carry the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the delay and failed to rebut the pre
sumption of prejudice arising from such delay. Since the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the 41(b) motion, it is unnecessary to address the merits of the Rule 37(d) ruling. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the dismissal.
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi432\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 Dated: 27 February 1997
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 MONESSA G. LUJAN
\par Presiding Associate Justice
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 JANET HEALY WEEKS
\par Associate Justice
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 EDUARDO A. CALVO
\par Associate Justice
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9595919 {\f0\insrsid7083938\charrsid9595919 _________
\par }}