{\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};}
{\f63\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;}{\f169\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f179\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 \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 \b 
\sbasedon10 Strong;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid9508377\rsid10048015\rsid12284468\rsid14371865}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min1}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy20\hr11\min4}{\version3}
{\edmins2}{\nofpages9}{\nofwords3343}{\nofchars19061}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws22360}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1170 
\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\rsidroot12284468 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12284468 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12284468 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12284468 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12284468 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1170\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid12284468\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\fs20\insrsid12284468 Rebecca Adams v. Frank Duenas, et al, 1998 Guam 15, Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid12284468 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid10048015 9}}}{\fs20\insrsid12284468  of 12
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12284468 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12284468 
\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\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015\charrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 REBECCA ADAMS,\tab }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab \tab )\tab \tab Supreme Court Case No. }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 CVA97-032}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 )\tab \tab Su}{\insrsid10048015 perior Court Case No. }{
\b\insrsid10048015\charrsid10048015 CV1497-95}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-2880\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Plaintiff-Appellant,\tab }{\insrsid10048015 \tab }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi4320\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-2880\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 vs.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab \tab \tab \tab )
\par }\pard \qj \fi4320\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-6480\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 FRANK DUENAS, BETSY HO, GUAM }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab )\tab \tab \tab }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
OPINION}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-4320\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 TOURIST NIGHT CLUB, an }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab \tab )
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 instrumentality of KENT WAI HO, and }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab )
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 JOHN DOES I-X,\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi4320\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 )
\par }\pard \qj \fi-2880\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Defendants-Appellees.\tab )
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 ____________________________________)
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Filed September 4, 1998
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid10048015  }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 1998 Guam 15}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and Submitted on February 20, 1998
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\ul\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
\par John R. White
\par Attorney At Law
\par P.O. Box 302, 
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96932
\par Suite 302, Third Floor
\par Guam Memorial Park Building
\par 230 West Soledad Avenue
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par }{\v\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
\par }{\ul\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Appearing for the Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
\par Raymond T. Johnson, II
\par Attorney At Law
\par 388 South Marine Drive, Suite 202
\par Tamuning, Guam 96911
\par }{\insrsid10048015 
\par }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice; JANET HEALY WEEKS, and BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Associate Justices.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 CRUZ, J:
\par }{\insrsid10048015\charrsid10048015 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [1]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant, Rebecca Adams, appeals the trial court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
s orders granting two Motions to Set Aside Entry of Default, denying several Motions for Default Judgment, and denying a Motion for a New Trial following a jury verdict finding no liability on the part of the Defendants-Appellees.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 It is this court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
s determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling against the Plaintiff-Appellant in the above motions.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Therefore, we hereby affirm the trial court}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s ruling in its entirety.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 FACTUAL BACKGROUND}{\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [2]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant was an employee of the Guam Tourist Night Club (}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 GTNC}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 ) and brought suit against Defendants-Appellees for injuries sustained as a result of an argument on the premises.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
In her complaint, the Plaintiff-Appellant alleged battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent selection by GTNC for its hiring of Appellee Frank Duenas.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The Defendants-Appellees in return filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The Clerk of the Superior Court entered two Entries of Default; however, the trial court subsequently set aside both, consistent with the court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s policy of deciding cases on their merits.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The Plaintiff-Appellant also made several motions for default judgment for failure to comply with discovery, and motions to compel and for attorneys fees; all of which the court denied.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [3]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab The case proceeded to trial; however, prior to the jury}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s deliberation, Appellee Frank Duenas withdrew his counterclaim.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The jury determined that the Defendants-Appel
lees were not liable to the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The jury also awarded Defendants-Appellees Kent Wai Ho and Betsy Ho thirty dollars ($30) each in punitive damages.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 During closing arguments, Appellee}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s counsel m
ade a statement which the Plaintiff-Appellant deems inappropriate}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [l]ikewise, should I tell you this whole thing stems from a lawyer, a sleazy lawyer going to Kent Ho
 and saying }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 give me five}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
thousand dollars whether it be true or not.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 made}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
a motion for}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 a new trial on the basis of the above stated comment.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The court subsequently denied the Motion for a New Trial in a written Decision and Order filed June 12, 1997.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The order was entered on the docket on June}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 16, 1997.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 A timely Notice of Appeal was filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant on July 15, 1997.}{\cs15\super\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid12284468 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid12284468 As noted in the case of }{\i\fs20\insrsid12284468 
Merchant v. Nanyo Realty}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 , 1997 Guam 16, }{\fs20\insrsid12284468 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 2, }{\f63\fs20\insrsid12284468 
Rule 4(a) of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the entry of a judgment before the notice
 of appeal effectuates the initiation of an appeal.  Although a written Decision and Order was issued by the trial court on June 12, 1997, no judgment was subsequently entered before a briefing schedule was established or oral arguments were made.  On Jun
e
 16, 1998, the court ordered the case be remanded to the trial court, for the limited purpose of providing the trial court with jurisdiction to enter a judgment.  In accordance with the order from this court, the judgment was filed on July 16, 1998 and en
t
ered on the docket on July 20, 1998.  Because the court only discovered the absence of the judgment after the parties had submitted their briefs and after oral arguments had already been made, the court chose not to dismiss the case but instead withheld i
ssuance of this Opinion pending the filing of the judgment below.}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The issues on appeal in this case do not revolve around the facts, but instead are a product of procedural questions which were brought before the court below.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 ANALYSIS}{\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [4]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 48 U.S.C. }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  1424-3(d) and 7 GCA }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  3107 and 3108.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
On appeal, the Plaintiff-Appellant raises several separate issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in granting the Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  First and Second Motions to Set Aside Default Judgment, (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s Motion for Default for Failure to Comply with Discovery, (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
s Second, Third and Fourth Motions for Default or Motions to Compel and for Attorneys Fees, and (4) whether the trial court erred in denying the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s Motion for a New Trial.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Separate
 analyses are necessary to address the different motions, the outcomes of which the Plaintiff-Appellant challenges on appeal.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 I.}{\b\insrsid10048015\charrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [5]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab 
In reviewing a motion to set aside the entry of default the standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting such relief.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Hawaii Carpenters}{
\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  Trust Funds v. Stone}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 794 F.2d 508, 513 (9}{
\super\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 th}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  Cir. 1986).}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 A trial court decision will not be reversed unless it [the appellate court] has }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 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.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Santos v. Carney
}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 1997 Guam 4, }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  4.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) provides that }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 for go
od cause shown, the court may set aside the entry of default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b).}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The concepts of default and default judgment are distinct and must be treated separately.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
U.S. v. Topeka Livestock Auction, Inc.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 392 F.Supp. 944 (N.D. Ind. 1975).}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
However, due to the parallels between entries of default and default judgments, in reviewing entries of default courts will look to the same grounds that are relevant in considering whether to set aside a default judgment.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Id.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
On the other hand, the standard is less rigorous when examining a motion to set aside entry of default than for default judgments, so these grounds are more liberally construed.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Hawaii Carpenters}{
\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 794 F.2d at 513}{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 .}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The grounds on which a court will deny a Rule 60(b) motion are if }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 (1) the defendant}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
s culpable conduct led to the default, (2) the defendant has no meritorious defense, or (3) the plaintiff would be prejudiced if the judgment is set aside.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Midsea Industrial, Inc. v. HK Engineering,Ltd., }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 1998 Guam 14, }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 5}{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 .}{\i\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
It must also be kept in mind that default judgments are generally disfavored and deciding a case on its merits is encouraged whenever possible.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Id. at}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  7.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The above test must be applied to each motion separately.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 In this case, an Entry of Default was entered by the Clerk of Court on two separate occasions, November 16, 1995 and September 10, 1996.}{
\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [6]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab Counsels stipulated to an extension of time, until November 15, 1995, for the Defendants-Appellees to file an answer to the complaint.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The Defendants-Appellees did not file their answer and counterclaim until November 17, 1995, two days after the deadline.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
In the interim, on November 16, 1995, one day after the deadline, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed and the court entered the first Entry of Default.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The Defendants-Appellees failed to appear at the default hearing date on December 18, 1995; however, the court continued the matter until December 29, 1995, at which time the Defendants-Appellees appeared.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 At that time the court set aside the entry of default based on what the court must have determined to be excusable neglect and in keeping with the court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s policy of determining cases on their merits.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [7]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab Applying the }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Midsea}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  test, we examine the three factors for Rule 60(b) motions.}{\insrsid10048015  }
{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 As to the Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
 conduct, no evidence was presented to indicate that the late filing was a result of the Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  culpable conduct.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 It is, however, unclear what the reason for the late filing was.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The
 Plaintiff-Appellant argues that defense counsel knew that the fifteenth of}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 November was the deadline.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
But to the extent this reflected neglect, the court found it to be excusable.}{\insrsid10048015  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [8]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab As to the second factor, the standard in a Rule 60(b) motion for wh
ether a meritorious defense existed is to ask the question of whether it is possible that the outcome after a full trial would be contrary to that achieved from a default judgment.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Midsea}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , at }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  11.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 In this case, not only was there some possibility that a contrary result would occur, but in fact the Defendants-Appellees presented defenses which the jury accepted as valid.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 And as to the third and final prong, there was no showing of prejudice by the Plaintiff-Appellant in the two day delay in the filing of the answer.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [9]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab The second motion to set aside relates to the Default entered on September 10, 1996.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
An amended complaint was filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant on August 21, 1996, and an entry of Default was then entered after the Defendants-Appellees had failed to file an answer.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The Defendants-Appellees filed a motion to set aside the entry of default on September 18, 1996.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The hearing was held on October 22, 1996 and the court set aside the default after fin
ding good cause and again reiterating the policy of the court to decide cases on their merits.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
There was no evidence of culpability as the Defendants-Appellees expressed confusion due to the volume of paperwork and motions involved in the case and an unawareness that an answer needed to be filed for the amended}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 complaint.}{\cs15\super\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid12284468 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid12284468 Courts have expressed a reluctance that parties, not being personally negligent themselves in the pursuit or def
ense of their case, be held responsible for the errors of their legal representatives.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid12284468 Barber v. Tuberville}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 , 218 F.2d 34, 36 (D.C. Cir. 1954).}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The Defendants-Appellees also filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint two days after the hearing, on October 24, 1996.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Meritorious defenses, again, were raised in the answer}{\insrsid10048015  
}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 to the amended complaint.}{\cs15\super\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid12284468 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid12284468 In the Defendants-Appellees}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 
 answer to the amended complaint, the Appellee raised several defenses including, but not limited to, contributory negligence, self-defense, lack of duty of care, the statute of limitations and fraud.}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 And, the Plaintiff-Appellant once again failed to provide any showing of prejudice.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 II.}{\b\insrsid10048015\charrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [10]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab Motions for default are reviewed for clear abuse of discretion by the trial court.}{\insrsid10048015 
 }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Eitel v. McCool}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9}{\super\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 th}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  Cir. 1986).}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Default judgments are generally disfavored because deciding cases on their merits is preferred.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Midsea}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , at }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  7.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
Plaintiff-Appellant argues that the trial court erred in not granting a default judgment pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C) as a sanction for the Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  failure to comply with discovery.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The imposition of sanctions is discretionary and reviewed for clear abuse of discretion.}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 People v. Tuncap, }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 1998 Guam 13, }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 11.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
Where the drastic sanctions of dismissal or default are imposed, however, the range of discretion is narrowed and the losing party}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s non-compliance must be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
 }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Sigliano v. Mendoza}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 642 F.2d 309, 310 (9}{\super\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 th}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  Cir. 1981).}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Factors which the court may consider in determining whether default judgment is proper include:}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 (1)}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying
 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Eitel}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 782 F.2d}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 at 1471-72.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [11]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant filed a motion to compel on April 17, 1996.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The Appellee failed to file a timely opposition and requested an extension of time to file the opposition.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The court granted the motion of the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The Plaintiff-Appellant then filed a motion for default due to a failure to comply with the motion to compel.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Once again the Defendants-Appellees faile
d to file a timely opposition, but at the hearing on August 12, 1996 the court denied the motion for default and granted the Defendants-Appellees an extension of time to comply with the motion to compel, until August 26, 1996.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The Defendants-Appellees offered as justification for the failure to file a timely opposition the fact that counsel had miscounted the number of days in which to file the opposition.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 No evidence of willfulness or bad faith has been presented by the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Instead, the only evidence presented as an explanation was defense counsel}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s assertion that he inadvertently miscalculated the time to file an opposition.}{\insrsid10048015  }
{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 No prejudice to the plaintiff was shown through an extension of time to comply and the court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s continuing reliance on the policy against default judgments in favor of a decision on the merits is sufficient to sustain its decision.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
At that hearing the court not only granted the extension of time, but granted the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s costs in bringing the motion.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 This sanction was a less drastic than imposing default, but still acted to punish the Defendants-Appellees for non-compliance.}{
\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [12]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab On August 20, 1996 the Plaintiff-Appellant filed its second Motion to Compel which was then scheduled for September 26, 1996.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The court, on December 18, 1996 denied the motion on the basis that it believed the Defendants-Appellees had complied with the orders.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The Plaintiff-Appellant does concede that the Appellee provided responses; however, the Plaintiff-Appellant deemed the responses to be incomplete and evasive.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The trial court did not agree.}{
\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [13]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab On January 14, 1997, the Plaintiff-Appellant made its third and fourth motions for default or motions to compel and for attorney}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s fees.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The court heard the motions on March 4, 1997 and took the matter under advisement.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The motions were again argued on March 14, 1997.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The third motion was filed due to failure to provide documents (1) through (7) identified in the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s Requests for Production (RFPs).}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The Defendants-Appellees had responded by saying it could not find the documents corresponding to item number (4) in the RFPs.}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The fourth motion was filed due to Appellee Betsy Ho}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s failure to comply with discovery.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Appellee Betsy Ho did, however, comply after the motion was filed.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [14]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab As to the third motion, the Defendants-Appellees contended that they had searched, but could not find the documents requested.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The Plaintiff-Appellant claimed that this contention was both false and inappropriate.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The trial court, however, denied both of the motions on two grounds}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
(1) that the court had heard all the evidence and did not believe at the time it was appropriate to take the case away from the jury, by granting a default judgment, and (2) the court believed the Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  contention that they had searched for the items requested and could not find them.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Given the circumstances, (1)}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 the timing at which the motion was made and heard, (2)}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
the fact that the Defendants-Appellees had made some effort to comply with discovery, which was deemed a good faith effort by the trial court, and (3) the fact that default is a drastic sanction, the trial court ac
ted within its discretion in denying the motions.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 III.}{\b\insrsid10048015\charrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [15]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab 
The Plaintiff-Appellant filed a Motion for a New Trial pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) based on a statement}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 made by}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 the}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  counsel during closing}
{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 arguments.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The grounds for which a new trial may be granted under Rule 59 are broad and, in the case of a jury trial, a new trial may be granted 
}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 for any of the reasons for which
 new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of . . . Guam . . . .}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10048015  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [16]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab The statement at issue is as follows:}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [l]ikewise, should I tell you this whole thing stems from a lawyer, a sleazy lawyer going to Kent Ho and saying }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 give me five thousand dollars whether it be true or not.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The Plaintiff-Appellant argues that this statement was evidence of an offer of settlement which is not allowed at trial.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Plaintiff-Appellant also argues that the statement was }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 highly irresponsible, reckless, malicious, negligent, and unprofessional}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
 and that the trial court erred in not granting the motion for a new trial even though the court conceded the statement was inappropriate.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 A trial court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal except for cases of clear abuse of discretion.}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Phillips v. Ceribo}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 1984 WL 48862, Civ. No. 83-0053A (D. Guam App. Div. April 16, 1984).}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [17]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab Attorney misconduct warrants a new trial only if such misconduct affected the verdict.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Mateyko v. Felix, }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 924 F.2d 824, 828 (9}{\super\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 th}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  Cir. 1990), }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 cert.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  }{
\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 denied}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 112 S.Ct. 65 (1991).}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 In determining whether prejudice 
had occurred due to attorney misconduct which would warrant a new trial, the court should consider }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 the nature and seriousness of the remarks and misconduct, the general atmosphere, including the judge}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s control of the trial, the likelihood of prejudicing the jury, and the efficacy of objection or admonition under all the circumstances.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Dominguez v. Pantalone}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , 212 Cal. App. 3d 201, 211, 260 Cal. Rptr. 431, 437 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 In }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Dominguez}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 , the Defendant alleged that Plaintiff}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s counsel committed prejudicial misconduct by attempting, on several occasions throughout the trial, to introduce to the jury the investigating officer}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s opinion of fault after the trial court expressed doubts as to the opinion}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s admissibility.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Id.}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  at 207-8.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The Plaintiff}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
argued that the Defendant had waived her right of review for most of the instances of misconduct because she failed to make note of the conduct, at the time each act occurred, so that the judge could admonish the jury. }{
\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Id.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  at 211.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Although defense counsel had made objections to the plaintiff}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s counsel}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s remarks, he only requested an admonition after the last instance of alleged misconduct occurred.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Id.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  at 212.}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The court held that a claim of attorney misconduct should be given no consideration on appeal absent a showing of timely and proper objection and request for jury admonishment.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Id.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  at 211.}{\insrsid10048015  
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Because the effect of misconduct can ordinarily be removed by an
 instruction to the jury to disregard it, it is generally essential, in order that an act of misconduct be subject to review on appeal, that it be called to the attention of the trial court at the time, to give the court an opportunity to so act, if possi
ble, as to correct }{\insrsid10048015 the error and avoid a mistrial.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Id.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  at 211-12. }{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [18]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab In this case, the Plaintiff-Appellant did not raise any objection during or immediately after closing arguments were made, which would have provi
ded the trial court an opportunity to admonish the jury and counsel as to the inappropriateness of the specific statement.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The trial court did, however, instruct the jury through the reading of a jury instruction that statements of counsel were not evidence.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The jury instruction, coupled with the fact that the Plaintiff-Appellant failed to raise any objection to the statement at the time it was made, evinces no resulting prejudice against the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Dominguez}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  court addressed the possible impropriety of counsel}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s statement as follows:}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 As the [California] Supreme Court noted nearly eighty years ago, }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [i]t rarely occurs in an
y case which is of moment and sharply contested that counsel on both sides in their zeal and partisan devotion to their clients do not indulge in arguments, remarks, insinuations, or suggestions which find neither support in, nor are referable or applicab
le to the testimony, or warranted by any fair theory upon which the case is being presented.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
If such impropriety of counsel always afforded ground for a new trial, there would be little prospect of any litigation becoming finally determined.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 It is only wh
en the conduct of counsel consists of a willful or persistent effort to place before a jury clearly incompetent evidence, or the statements or remarks of counsel are of such a character as to manifest a design on his part to awake the resentment of the ju
ry, to excite their prejudices or passions against the opposite party, or to enlist their sympathies in favor of his client or against the cause of his adversary,}{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
 and the instructions of the court to the jury to disregard such offered evidence or objectionable remarks of counsel could not serve to remove the effect or cure the evil, that prejudicial error is committed}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 .}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 It is only in extreme cases that the court, when acting promptly and speaking clearly and directly on the subject, cannot, by instructing th
e jury to disregard such matters, correct the impropriety of the act of counsel and remove any effect his conduct or remarks would otherwise have.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }{\i\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Id.}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  at 210-11.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [19]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab The Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s attempt to characterize defense counsel}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
s statement as an attempt to introduce evidence of offers of settlement is curious.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 In making this argument, Plaintiff-Appellan
t would suggest the existence of a certain amount of truth in the statement and, thus, only objects to its admissibility into evidence as an offer of settlement.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
Nonetheless, because the Plaintiff-Appellant did not raise an objection to the statement at the time it was made on any basis,}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 waiver of that right has occurred.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 The trial court never addressed the issue of whether this was actually evidence of an offer of settlement which would be inadmissible because the Plaintiff-Appellant failed to timely object.}{\insrsid10048015  }{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
The fact that the Plaintiff-Appellant, at the time the statement was made, either did not have a problem with the statement or was unable to come up with a proper objection to make does not mean that counsel should subsequently be able to go before 
the court when he finally thought of an objection to make.}{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 CONCLUSION}{\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [20]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab Although, at best, Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  counsel}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{
\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s handling of this case was sloppy}{\cs15\super\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid12284468 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid12284468 The court in no way condones defense counsel}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 s inaction, inattentiveness and unawareness of proper procedure in this case.  Although this court may  have found the defense counsel}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 
s behavior to be unacceptable, we find that the trial court acted completely within its authority in setting aside the entries of default and denying the default judgments and motion for a new trial. }}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
, no willfulness was established by the Plaintiff-Appellant.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Furthermore, no showing of prejudice resulted from Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015  untimeliness.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
Additionally, the policy of the court to decide cases on their merits and its disfavoring of default judgments provides the bases for setting aside of the entries of default and not entering default judgments for the noncompliance with discovery.}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 None of the trial court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s actions}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 demonstrate any abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Perh
aps the repeated problems with late filings or the issues of the noncompliance with discovery could have been addressed with other sanctions, less drastic than default, such as costs for attorneys fees and the filing and arguing of motions.}{
\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 However, the trial court obviously did not believe that such sanctions were necessary and we respect the trial court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s judgment. }{\insrsid10048015 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 [21]}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \tab Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the bases for the Motion for a New Trial do not}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
present any reversible error by the trial court.}{\cs15\super\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid12284468 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid12284468 We will defer to the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 
s good judgment as to the statement}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f169\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 s impropriety as the trial court was in a better 
position than we to assess the prejudicial effect of the statement.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid12284468 Mayetko}{\fs20\insrsid12284468 , 924 F.2d at 828.}}}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
On the contrary, the evidence presented to the court, the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
s failure to make a timely objection to the defense counsel}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 
s statement in closing arguments and the fact that the jury was properly admonished by the court through jury instructions, only provide support for the trial court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s decision.}{\insrsid10048015  }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Therefore, trial court}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f169\fs24}}}{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 s decision is AFFIRMED.
\par }{\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ,}{\insrsid10048015 \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid10048015\charrsid10048015 JANET HEALY WEEKS,}{\insrsid10048015 
\par }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Associate Justice\tab \tab }{\insrsid10048015 \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Associate Justice}{\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10048015 {\insrsid10048015 PETER C. SIGUENZA,
\par }{\insrsid12284468\charrsid10048015 Chief Justice}{\insrsid10048015 
\par }}