{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f171\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202030204}WP Phonetic{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f180\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;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \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;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1706009
\rsid9508377\rsid13852261\rsid15495921}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr11\min10}{\version3}{\edmins3}{\nofpages2}{\nofwords2923}
{\nofchars16666}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws19550}{\vern16391}}\margl2160\margr720\margt1890\margb540 
\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\rsidroot15495921 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15495921 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15495921 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15495921 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15495921 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1890\footery540\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid15495921\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\pvpara\posx0\posy0\absw9361\nowrap\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 80 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 97 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 103 \\f "WP Phonetic"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 101 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 32 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}}{\field{\*\fldinst {
\insrsid15495921 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid13852261 1}}}{\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 32 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 111 \\f "WP Phonetic"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 102 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 32 \\f "WP Phonetic" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 32 \\f 
"WP Phonetic" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f171\fs24}}}{\field{\*\fldinst {\insrsid15495921 NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid13852261 2}}}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid13852261 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft-720\shptop0\shpright8640\shpbottom13680\shpfhdr1\shpbxmargin\shpbxignore\shpbymargin\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2067{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn lTxid}{\sv 655360}}{\sp{\sn dxTextLeft}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn dyTextTop}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn dxTextRight}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn dyTextBottom}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelv}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\shptxt \trowd \irow9\irowband9\ts11\trleft-1080\trftsWidth1 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone 
\clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1528\clshdrawnil \cellx448\pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\sl-476\slmult0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15495921 1
\par 2
\par 3
\par 4
\par 5
\par 6
\par 7
\par 8
\par 9
\par 10
\par 11
\par 12
\par 13
\par 14
\par 15
\par 16
\par 17
\par 18
\par 19
\par 20
\par 21
\par 22
\par 23
\par 24
\par 25
\par 26
\par 27
\par 28\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid15495921 \trowd \irow9\irowband9\ts11\trleft-1080\trftsWidth1 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1528\clshdrawnil \cellx448\row }}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxmargin\dobymargin\dodhgt0\dptxbx\dptxlrtb{\dptxbxtext\trowd \irow9\irowband9\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidth1 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone 
\clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1528\clshdrawnil \cellx448\pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\sl-476\slmult0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid15495921 1
\par 2
\par 3
\par 4
\par 5
\par 6
\par 7
\par 8
\par 9
\par 10
\par 11
\par 12
\par 13
\par 14
\par 15
\par 16
\par 17
\par 18
\par 19
\par 20
\par 21
\par 22
\par 23
\par 24
\par 25
\par 26
\par 27
\par 28\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid15495921 \trowd \irow9\irowband9\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidth1 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth1528\clshdrawnil \cellx448\row }}\dpx-720\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize13680\dpfillfgcr255\dpfillfgcg255\dpfillfgcb255\dpfillbgcr255\dpfillbgcg255\dpfillbgcb255\dpfillpat0\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid15495921 
Ward v. Reyes/CVA 96-004/Opinion}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }\pard \qj \li3600\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid13852261 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft2160\shptop0\shpright11520\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz1\shplockanchor\shplid2068{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt1\dprect\dpx2160\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid15495921 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid15495921 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid15495921 
\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\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-4320\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 KATHLEEN A. WARD\tab \tab )\tab }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.}{
\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  CVA96-004
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 )\tab }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 SUPERIOR COURT CASE No.}{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  CV1867-92
\par }\pard \qj \fi-2160\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Plaintiff-Appellant\tab )
\par }\pard \qj \fi3600\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-2160\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 vs.\tab \tab \tab )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 )\tab OPINION
\par }\pard \qj \fi-3600\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 ANTONIO L.G. REYES\tab \tab }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi3600\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-2160\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Defendant-Appellee\tab )
\par }\pard \qj \fi3600\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 )
\par )
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\ul\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261  }{\ul\insrsid13852261 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid13852261 )}{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Filed April 2, 1998
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Cite as 1998 Guam 1
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on 9 December 1997
\par Agana, Guam}{\insrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant:
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 JOHN R. WHITE, ESQ.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par Guam Memorial Park Building, Ste. 302
\par 230 West Soledad Avenue
\par Agana, Guam 96932
\par 
\par Appearing for the Defendant-Appellee:
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 DAVID J. HIGHSMITH}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par Highsmith & O}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Mallan, P.C.
\par 134 Chalan Santo Papa, Ste. 204
\par Agana, Guam 96910}{\insrsid13852261 
\par }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS, and JOAQUIN C. ARRIOLA, Associate Justices.
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par WEEKS, J.:
\par }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [1]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab Appellant Kathleen A. Ward (}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 ) is appeali
ng an order denying her Guam Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) Motion to Reconsider the granting of an order dismissing her complaint and the entry of Judgment dismissing her complaint with prejudice based upon her failure to prosecute.}{
\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 This Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion to Reconsider,}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
in granting the Motion to Dismiss and in entering a Judgment of Dismissal.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The decision below is hereby affirmed.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 I.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [2]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab On 15 December 1992, Ward filed suit against Antonio L.G. Reyes (}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Reyes}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 ) alleging that Reyes had sexually assaulted her while on a business trip.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The jury trial began on 12 April 1995 and a mistrial was declared on 19 April 1995.}{
\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 A year later, on 9 April 1996, Reyes moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute and as a sanction for the misconduct of Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s trial counsel which resulted in the mistrial.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The motion was heard on 8 May 1996.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Neither Ward nor her attorney appeared at the 8 May 1996 hearing. The Motion was orally granted on that date and on 13 May}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
1996, Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan issued a written order granting the Motion to Dismiss and}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 entered a Judgment of Dismissal with prejudice.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [3]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab On 17 May 1996 Attorney John White, counsel for Ward, filed a }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Motion to Responder}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
 [sic] the order granting Defendant Reyes}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  Motion to Dismiss and the subsequent Judgment.}{
\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The Appellant}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s sole argument}{
\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 in support of the written Motion to Reconsider was that the Appellant was given the wrong time to appear for the hearing}{\cs15\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid15495921 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15495921 Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid15495921 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid15495921 s counsel was able to produce a copy of the Notice of the Motio
n to dismiss which indicated that the hearing was scheduled for 8 May 1996 at 2:00 p.m. However, both the Notice of Motion filed with the Court and the 8 May 1996 court calendar indicated that the hearing was set for 10:00 a.m. on that morning.   }}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 .}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [4]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The Motion to Reconsider the order granting the Motion to Dismiss was heard on 7 June 1996, at which}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
time Ward orally presented new arguments opposing the Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 novel arguments}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 related to the allegations of misconduct by Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s trial counsel and the causes for the delay in prosecuting the underlying complaint.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 After listening to oral argument of both counsel, the trial court denied the Motion to Reconsider.}{
\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The court indicated that the absence of counsel at the 8 May 1996 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was not a factor in granting the Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The order denying the Motion to Reconsider was filed by the trial court on 28 June}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 1996. The Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal from the 28 June 1996 Order.

\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi4320\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 II.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [5]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 7 GCA }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  3107, 3108 and}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 48 U.S.C. }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 1424-3(d).}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
We look first to determine the subject of the appeal.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Rule 3(c) of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that the Notice of Appeal designate the order or judgment being appealed.}{
\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 In the present appeal, the Notice only designates the order denying the Motion for Reconsideration as the final decision being appealed.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
The Notice of Appeal did not include either the order granting the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or the Judgment dismissing the complaint with pre
judice, nor did the Appellant later attempt to amend the Notice of Appeal to include the dismissal Order and Judgment.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
In a procedural order dated 15 January 1997, the Chief Justice noted that the only order being appealed is the order granting the Motion to Reconsider.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
The Appellee contends that the Supreme Court therefore does not have jurisdiction to review the Judgment or the order granting the Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [6]}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab In certain situations, the Ninth Circuit treats a Rule 59 motion as an appeal of the underlying judgment.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Washington State Health Facilities Ass}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 n v. Dep}{
\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 t of Social and Health Services,}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  879 F.2d 677, 681 (9}{
\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 th}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  Cir. 1989).}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 This is
 appropriate where there is no prejudice and it could be fairly inferred that the Appellant had intended to appeal the judgment.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 See}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 id.}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  at 681; }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Lynn v. Sheet Metal Workers}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  Int}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 l. Ass}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 n}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 804 F.2d 1472, 1481 (9}{\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 th}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  Cir. 1986).}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 In the instant case, throughout her filings, the issues underlying the Motion to Dismiss and the entry of Judgment were raised and briefed by Ward.}{
\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Furthermore, at the trial court hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration, the court permitted Ward to argue the merits of the Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Additionally, the Appellee has also responded to Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s arguments r
elated to the Motion to Dismiss and Judgment. We conclude that no prejudice would be suffered by the Appellee, if this Court were to consider the merits of the Motion to Dismiss and entry of Judgment.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [7]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab Therefore, under the rationale of }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Washington State Health Facilities v. DSHS,}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
 and given the specific facts of this case, this Court will consider the appeal of the order denying Rule 59 relief as an appeal also of the underlying judgment. 879 F.2d at 681. In other cases, where Guam Rules of Appellate Proce
dure Rule 3(c) is not strictly complied with, this Court may not be so lenient.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qj \fi4320\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 III.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [8]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab Before proceeding to the merits of the appeal, a preliminary issue must be addressed.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Appellee Reyes urges this Court to disregard all arguments made by the Appellant which were not raised originally in the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion to Dismiss and which depend on filings which were not properly before the trial court.}{
\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [9]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab This Court}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s review of the trial court}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s decision will be limited to those arguments which were raised at the trial level.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
The appellate record is likewise restricted to those portions of the record which were considered by the trial court in support of those arguments.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Both the Motion for Further Proceedings and portions of the trial transcripts the Appellant thought relevant, could have and should have been raised first in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
No excuse is given as to why the Appellant failed to do so. It would have been improper for the trial court to consider a new argument made by the Appellant }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 never before briefed and advanced for the first time at the hearing on the [reconsideration] motion.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Universe Resort Guam v. Sandcastle, Inc.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 1996 WL 104525 at **5 (D.Guam.App.Div. 1996);}{
\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  see also}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 ,}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  Tonry v. Security Experts, }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Inc., 20 F.3d 967, 974 (9}{\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 th}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  Cir. 1994); }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 United States v. Walker}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 601 F.2d 1051, 1054-1055 (9}{\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 th}{\insrsid13852261  Cir. 1979).}{
\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Motion for Reconsideration}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [10]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The Appellant is seeking a reversal of the trial court}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s order denying the Motion for Reconsideration made under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
The Appellant incorrectly argues that the standard of review for a motion for reconsideration is de novo.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 In fact, the denial of such motions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid13852261 
 }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Universe Resort Guam v. Sandcastle, Inc.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 1996 WL 104525 at **2 (D.GuamApp.Div. 1996).}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Motions for reconsideration are appropriate where the trial court: }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
(1) is presented with new evidence; (2) committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9}{\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 th}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  Cir. 1993),}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  cert. denied,}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994).}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
In the present appeal, the Appellant has failed to satisfy any one of the three prongs justifying reconsideration of the underlying motion.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Appellant argues two of the three possibilities: she attempts to pass off}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 as }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 new evidence}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
 certain trial transcripts and a court filing, and she contends that dismissal of the case is manifestly unjust.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [11]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The evidence Ward attempts to present in support of the reconsideration of the Motion to Dismiss consists of : (1) trial transcripts evidencing the conduct of Ward}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s counsel which are related to the mistrial declared by Judge Cruz; a
nd (2) a Motion for Further Proceedings which was never officially docketed with the Superior Court.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Neither the trial transcripts nor the Motion for Further Proceedings were a part of the record when the trial court was determining the Motion to Dismiss and were only first offered during the hearing on }{\insrsid13852261 the Motion for Reconsideration.}
{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [12]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The Appellee}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s comments regarding the trial conduct of Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s trial counsel were
 attached as an affidavit in support of the Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. The transcripts were never provided to the Court. The Appellant contends that the conduct of the Appellant}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s counsel at trial did not justify a mistrial.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The Appellant is attempting to support this argument with the trial transcripts.}{
\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 However, in opposing the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff-Appellant did not dispute the Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s Affidavit regarding the misconduct of the Appellant}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s trial counsel.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 In now rebutting the allegations of misconduct, the Appellant}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 is a
sking this Court to review trial transcripts which were not considered by the trial judge in determining the Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [13]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s failure to submit available evidence in support of his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss does not make such evidence }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 newly discovered}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
 as is necessary to satisfy the standards for a Motion for Reconsideration.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 ACandS, Inc.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 5 F.3d at 1263.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
It was not an abuse of discretion to deny a Motion to Reconsider when the Motion is supported by evidence which could have and should have been presented to the trial court during consideration of the original Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Barber v. State of Hawaii}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 42 F.3d 1185 (9}{\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 th}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  Cir. 1994); }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dept. Of Agric.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 838 F.Supp. 1346 (D. Minn. 1993) (reconsideration motion of motion to amend cannot be used to introduce available evidence whic
h was not proffered, to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the merits); }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Beyah v. Murphy, }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 825 F.Supp.}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  }
{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 213 (E.D. Wis. 1993) (citing }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 FDIC v. Meyer}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7}{\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 th}{\insrsid13852261  Cir. 1986).}{
\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [14]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab 
The Appellant next contends that the trial court should have considered as evidence of prosecutorial zeal, a Motion for Further Proceedings, delivered by the Appellant on 1 December 1995 to the Clerk}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s Office of the Superior Court.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
The motion submitted by the Appellant was stamped received by the Superior Court Clerk}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s Office. But the same standard applies to this document.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The trial court was never presented with the
 Motion for Further Proceedings during consideration of the Motion to Dismiss or the Motion for Reconsideration.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
The actual filing was questioned by both the trial court and Appellee as neither the Court nor the Appellee were aware of its existence.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The trial court noted that it was never raised in the Appellant
}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s opposition to the Motion to Dismiss or in the papers supporting the Motion for Reconsideration.}
{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 There was no copy in the official court file, there was no affidavit attesting to its existence and of its filing with the clerk}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s office, and the counsel for the Appellee never received a copy of the motion. In fact, the purported Motion for Further Proceedings w
as first mentioned at the hearing on the Motion to Reconsider. More importantly, even then its existence was not substantiated by the presentation of the document itself, but by the unverified oral assertion of Plaintiff-Appellant}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s counsel. The Motion itself, undeniably stamped }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 received}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  but not }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 filed}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  by the Clerk}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}
}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s office,}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 was never viewed by a judicial officer until Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal came before this Court.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Since the 
trial court did not consider the existence of this Motion when ruling on the Motion to Dismiss and since it was not properly before the trial court during the argument of the Motion for Reconsideration, this Court will not consider such evidence in review
ing the trial court}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s decision in dismissing the case below.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [15]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab Ward also argues that the order granting the Motion to Dismiss is manifestly unjust}{\cs15\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid15495921 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15495921 W
ard fails to cite any legal authority which sets forth the standard of review for Rule 59(e) motions or the standard for granting a Rule 59(e) motion.}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 .}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Ward admits that she failed to appear at the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss but alleges that such non-appearance was not her fault. She contends that she was not notified properly of the 10:00 A.M. hearing on 8 May 1996.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 It should be noted that both the trial court judge and the Appellee-Defendant were present at the 10:00 a.m. hearing.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Also, the court
-filed original of the Notice of Motion indicates that the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on 8 May 1996.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
The 8 May 1996 calendar for the trial court also indicated that the hearing was set for 10:00 a.m.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The bottom line is, however, that the trial court clearly indicated that Ward}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s absence, while noted, was not significant in the Court}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s gra}{\insrsid13852261 nting of the Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [16]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab Since the Appellant has failed to demonstrate the existence of }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 new evidence,}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 manifest injustice}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  or an }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 intervening change in controlling law,}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
this Court cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Motion for Reconsideration, and such decision is therefore affirmed.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Motion to Dismiss}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [17]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The Appellee-Defendant sought dismissal of the action under GRCP 41(b).}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Under this rule, a defendant may move for dismissal for the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute the action or for fail
ure of the plaintiff to comply with an order of the court. Dismissal of an action is a serious sanction which should be used in a non-abusive manner.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Such dismissals are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 1997 Guam 4 }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 4.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 An abuse of discretion occurs only when the decision is }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which the judge could have rationally b
ased the decision.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Lynn v. Chin Heung Int}{
\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 l., Inc.,}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  1986 WL 68916 at **2.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 In reviewing a trial court decision, this Court weighs five factors: }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 (1) the public}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
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.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Id.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  at 3-5 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
This Court will not reverse a trial court determination}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 unless we have }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing of the relevant factors.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Id.}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  (citat}{\insrsid13852261 ions omitted).}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [18]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the delay is reasonable, and if proven, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove prejudice.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  8.}{\i\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 If the Plaintiff fails to meet its burden, prejudice is presumed.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Id.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Presumed prejudice is sufficient to support dismissal under GRCP 41(b).}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Id.}{\i\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Also, in reviewing the trial court decision, this Court can only consider the record as was presented before the trial judge hearing the Motion.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Tonry v. Security Experts, Inc.}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 20 F.3d 967, 974; }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 United States v. Walker}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 601 F.2d at 1054-1055.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [19]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The trial judge granted the Motion to Dismiss based upon the grounds stated in the Defendant}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s memorandum in support of the Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
However, the trial judge did not go into each of the factors identified above. This Court may independently review the record (as presented to the trial judge) to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13852261  5.}{
\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [20]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab 
In moving to dismiss the case for a failure to prosecute, Reyes cited several factors: (1) the prosecutorial inactivity from the date of the mistrial on 19 April 1995 until the filing of the Motion to Dismiss on 9 April 1996; (2)}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 the misconduct of Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s counsel which consisted of filing, but not serving, a moot motion to recuse Judge Cruz,}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 seven months after the mistrial and two months after Judge Cruz had recused himself;}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 (3) the misconduct of Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s counsel which resulted in a mistrial; (4) the failure of Ward to take any action on an order granting attorney}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s fees to Ward; (5) the prejudice suffered by Reyes by the delay which would result in a trial (if one were to occur at all)}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
over four and a half years after the incidents in question.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Reyes supported the Motion to Dismiss with a sworn affidavit executed by defense counsel who was present at the trial.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 No trial transcripts evidencing the misconduct of Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s trial counsel were presented to the trial court.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [21]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab In Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s opposition to the Motion to Dismiss only two arguments were a
dvanced: (1) the delay was due to the constant reassignment of the case to different judges, and (2) there was no misconduct in failing to serve Reyes with the Motion to Recuse Judge Cruz since Judge Cruz recused himself.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Ward did not address the misconduct of counsel at trial, the prosecutorial inactivity, or the prejudice suffered by Reyes due to the delay.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [22]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab Ward claimed that the motion to recuse Judge Cruz was not served upon the Appellee because it was moot, and that therefore it was not misconduct
. Also, Ward did not support the opposition to the Motion to Dismiss with trial transcripts, affidavits or pleadings.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [23]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The trial court determined that Ward failed to meet her burden of showing that the delay was}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 reasonable.}{
\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Ward}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s counsel blamed the delay on the court, yet Ward fails to realize that as the Plaintiff in the action, Ward herself had a duty to prosecute the matter.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Apart from the tardily presented Motion for Further Proceedings}{\cs15\super\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid15495921 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid15495921 Which this Court cannot consider.}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
, Ward took no action herself to expedite resolution of the case.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 The one year delay was not justified by the Appellant.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
All discovery had been completed, the matter had been fully prepared for trial, yet no action was taken to set the matter for a new trial.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
In addition, during the delay, there was no evidence of settlement discussions and the Appellant did not take further action on an order which awarded attorneys}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  fees to Ward.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [24]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab Furthermore, this Court grants deference to a trial court in determining the reasonableness of the delay.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  5.}{\insrsid13852261  }{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 As indicated by this Court in }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 , the trial judge }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes manageable.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid13852261  }{\i\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Id.}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  (citations omitted).}{
\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [25]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab 
Since Plaintiff-Appellant failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of the delay, prejudice against the defendant sufficient to justify dismissal can be presumed. Appellant Ward failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.}{\insrsid15495921 
\par }{\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [26]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261  \tab Therefore, we cannot say 
that we have a firm and definite conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment in determining that the Plaintiff failed to show that the delay was reasonable.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
We must therefore affirm the trial court}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
s granting of the Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\b\caps\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Conclusion
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid13852261\charrsid13852261 
\par }{\b\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 [27]}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 \tab The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion for Reconsideration.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
Appellant proffered no new evidence and failed to demonstrate manifest injustice.}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 Nor was the trial court}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 s granting of the Motion to Dismiss based on an erroneous conclusion of law or an insufficient record. The order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, the order granting the Motion
 to Dismiss and the subsequent Judgment are hereby AFFIRMED.
\par 
\par DATED:}{\insrsid13852261  }{\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 March 1998}{\insrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 JOAQUIN C. ARRIOLA, Associate Justice\tab \tab JANET HEALY WEEKS, Associate Justice}{\insrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid13852261 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13852261 {\insrsid15495921\charrsid13852261 PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice
\par }}