{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f180\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\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 \rsid9508377
\rsid10304289\rsid11487529\rsid13715987}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min4}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr15\min4}{\version3}{\edmins2}
{\nofpages8}{\nofwords3163}{\nofchars18031}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws21152}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 
\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\rsidroot13715987 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13715987 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13715987 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13715987 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13715987 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid13715987\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid13715987 Hemlani v.  Lujan}{\fs20\insrsid13715987 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid13715987 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {
\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid11487529 8}}}{\fs20\insrsid13715987  of 12
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13715987 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid11487529 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\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\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid13715987 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13715987 
\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\pararsid11487529 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 MARYANN S. LUJAN,}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par Plaintiff,
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 vs.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 DAVID J. LUJAN, P.D. HEMLANI, and ZHONG YE, NC.,}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par Defendants.
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 ________________________________}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 P.D. HEMLANI}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 ,}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par Cross-Claim Plaintiff-Appellant,
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 vs.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 DAVID J. LUJAN,}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par Cross-Claim Defendant-Appellee.}{\insrsid11487529 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA01-019
\par Superior Court Case No.: CV0543-89}{\insrsid11487529 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 OPINION}{\insrsid11487529 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Filed:}{\b\insrsid11487529  }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 August 1, 2002}{\insrsid11487529 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid11487529  }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 2002 Guam 11}{\insrsid11487529 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Appeal f}{\insrsid11487529 rom the Superior Court of Guam 
\par }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Argued and Submitted on March 15, 2002 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5310\clshdrawnil \cellx5190\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4050\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }{\ul\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant:}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par Steven A. Zamsky, Esq.
\par Attorney at Law
\par Suite 805, GCIC Bldg.
\par 414 W. Soledad Ave.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910
\par \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Appearing for Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 :
\par Maria T. Cenzon-Duenas, Esq.
\par Mair, Mair, Spade & Thompson
\par A Professional Corporation
\par Suite 807, GCIC Building
\par 414 West Soledad Avenue
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910\tab \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth5310\clshdrawnil \cellx5190\clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4050\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 BEFORE:}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice (Acting)}{\cs15\super\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13715987 \chftn }{\insrsid13715987  }{\fs20\insrsid13715987 
 Chief Justice Peter C. Siguenza, Jr. recused himself from this appeal. Associate Justice F. Philip Carbullido, as the senior justice, was appointed Acting Chief Justice.}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , FRANCES TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD,
 Associate Justice, JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice.}{\insrsid11487529 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [1]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab Cross-Plaintiff/Appellant P.D. Hemlani (}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hemlani}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 ) appeals the trial court}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hemlani}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s inaction was the subject of a previous motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute filed in 1994, which was denied.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
After years of litigation, including trial, appeal, and remand, Cross-Defendant/Appellee David J. Lujan (}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 ) again filed a motion to dismiss for failure
 to prosecute before a different judge.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Lujan argued that the first judge}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s denial of the initial motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was erroneous as a matter of law.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Lujan claimed, and the second judge agreed, that Hemlani}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s failure to file a timely at-issue memorandum was a per se failure to prosecute requiring dismissal of the case.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 We disagree and reverse the trial court}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s dismissal.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 I.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [2]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab This case arose out of a conveyance of community real property without the consent of a spouse. Lujan was married to Mary Ann Lujan (}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Mary Ann}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 ).}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 During the marriage, the couple acquired two lots of real property as community property.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
While still married, Lujan executed a contract to sell these lots to Hemlani.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Thereafter, Hemlani executed a contract to sell one of the lots at issue to Zhong Ye, Inc., a Guam corporation.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Lujan subsequently executed a quitclaim deed conveying the lots to Hemlani.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Mary Ann became aware of the transfer of property and, in 1989, filed her Complaint to Cancel Instrument and to Quiet Title [to] Community Real Property against both Lujan and Hemlani.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Lujan failed to answer the Complaint and Mary Ann took judgment by default against him.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hemlani, however, answered the Complaint, and filed a cross-claim against Lujan.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Four years later, in 1993, Hemlani filed an At-Issue Memorandum for the cross-claim.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In 1994, Lujan filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, which }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  Judge Marty Taylor denied.}{\insrsid13715987 
\par }{\insrsid11487529\charrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [3]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab After several years of litigation, Hemlani ultimately prevailed against Lujan.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 H
owever, upon motion by Lujan, the lower court set aside that decision.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hemlani appealed the set aside, and in }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Lujan v. Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
, 2000 Guam 21, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of a new trial on the ground that Judge Taylor was not qualified to preside at the time of trial.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
, 2000 Guam 21, at }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  19.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
There is no dispute that Judge Taylor was qualified at the time he presided over the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [4]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab On remand and before a different judge, Lujan filed a second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
In both motions to dismiss, Lujan alleged the same period of prosecutorial inactivity and raised the issue that Hemlani failed to file a timely at-issue memorandum in violation of Rule 7(D) of the Superior Court Rules of Court.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The trial court found that it could properly reconsider the motion to dismiss, notwithstanding the denial of the initial motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
The trial court held that Hemlani}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s failure to file a timely at-issue memorandum was a per se failure to prosecute requiring dismissal.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 This appeal followed.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 II.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [5]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab This court has jurisdiction over a final judgment of the Superior Court.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Title 7 GCA }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  3107 (1994).
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 III.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [6]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab On appeal, Hemlani argues that Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute raises issues which were already decided by the trial court, and is barred by the law of the case doctrine.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Hemlani also argues that Lujan cannot bring a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute seven years after the alleged period of inactivity ended.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 A.\tab The Law of the Case Doctrine.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [7]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab With respect to the re-litigation of a previously decided issue, the rule is that }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 People v. Hualde}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 1999 Guam 3, }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  13.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 This rule is known as the }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 law of the case.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 There are exceptions to the rule.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
A court has discretion to depart from the law of the case where: 1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; 2) an intervening change in the law has occurred; 3) the evidence on remand i
s substantially different; 4) other changed circumstances exist; or 5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result. Failure to apply the doctrine of the law of the case absent one of the requisite conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  (citations omitted).}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 We note that the parties and the trial court failed to cite our opinion in }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 People v. Hualde}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  for the rule in this jurisdiction regarding the law of the case.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
However, because our review here is for an abuse of discretion, we must determine whether the trial court}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or whether the }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 record contains no evidence on which the judge could have rationally based the decision.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Midsea Indus., Inc., v. HK Eng}{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 g, Ltd}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 ., 1998 Guam 14, }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  4 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Thus, we determine whether the record will support affirmance of the trial court}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s decision to reconsider the failure to prosecute issue under any of the }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hualde}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  exceptions.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [8]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab Citing the case }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Castner v. First Nat}{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 l Bank of Anchorage}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 278 F.2d 376 (9th Cir. 1960), the trial court re-heard the failure to prosecute issue upon a finding of exceptional circumstances.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The trial court found that Judge Taylor}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s decision on the first Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute did not recognize or address the Rule 7(D) per se failure to prosecute violation, and therefore the decision was inconsistent with the Superior Court Rules.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Appellant}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s Excerpts of Record, tab Sept. 13, 2001, p. 8 (Decision and Order, Sept. 13, 2001).
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [9]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab With respect to the }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hualde}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  factors, the trial court essentially found that Judge Taylor}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s decision was clearly erroneous because it was inconsistent with Rule 7(D).}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Thus, we must determine whether Rule 7(D) requires dismissal for failure to file a timely at-issue memorandum.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 This presents a question of law, which we review }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 de novo}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 .}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 See Ceasar v. QBE Ins.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Int}{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 l}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 ., }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Ltd.}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 ,}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 2001 Guam 6, }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  7.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [10]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab The record shows that Hemlani}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s untimely}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 at-issue memorandum, in violation of Rule 7(D), was put before Judge Taylor in the first motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Appellee}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s Supplemental Excerpts of Record, tab 4. p. 2 (Lujan Reply Memorandum, Dec. 23, 1994).}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 We note, however, that Lujan did not argue that dismissal was mandatory under that rule.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The second trial court held that Rule 7(D) absolutely required dismissal for failure to file a timely at-issue memorandum. 
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [11]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab There is no dispute that Hemlani}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s at-issue memorandum was untimely filed.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Rule 7(D) provides that }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [f]ailure to serve the at issue memorandum required by this rule constitutes failure to prosecute or comply with the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure as those terms are used in GRCP 41(b).}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Guam Ct. R. 7(D).}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Guam Rule of Civil Procedure}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 41(b) provides in part: }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Guam R. Civ. P. 41(b). Lujan argues that R
ule 7(D) offers no discretion to a trial court and that dismissal is required for Hemlani}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s undisputed failure to file a timely at-issue memorandum.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Lujan cites a decision of this court, }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 1997 G
uam 4, to support his position.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 We disagree with his interpretation of }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Santos}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 .
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [12]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab In }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Santos}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , this court stated, }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [t]he only rule violation which constitutes a per se }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 failure to prosecute}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
 under GRCP 41(b) is Guam Rule of Court 7(d), which requires the filing and service of an at-issue memorandum within 120 days after the close of the pleadings.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Santos, }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  5 n.1.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Santos}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
 court was simply noting Rule 7(D) in defining a failure to prosecute. Contrary to Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s argument, }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Santos}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  neither holds nor implies that a per se failure to prosecute mandates dismissal.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [13]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab This issue was addressed by this court in another case during the pendency of the instant appeal.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Guam Housing & Urban Renewal Auth. v. Dongbu Ins. Co.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 2002 Guam 3, we held:}{\insrsid13715987 
\par }{\insrsid11487529\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Pursuant to the Guam Rules of Court Rule 7(D), a failure to serve an at issue memorandum constitutes a per se failure to prosecute. Guam Ct. R. 7(D); }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 see also}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Santos}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
 5 n.1. }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 However, a court's finding of a failure to prosecute does not mandate dismissal under GRCP 41(b)}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
. Rule 41(b) empowers the court to dismiss an action on a plaintiff's failure to prosecute; it remains within the court's discretion whether to exercise that power.}{\insrsid13715987 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid11487529\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id. }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  15 (emphasis added.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 We agree with and reiterate the holding of}{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  Guam Housing & Urban Renewal}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
, that Rule 7(D) and GRCP 41(b) do not mandate dismissal for an untimely at-issue memorandum and the resulting per se failure to prosecute.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
In such a case, the trial court maintains the discretion to order an appropriate sanction including dismissal.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [14]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab In the instant case, Judge Taylor was not required by Rule 7(D) to dismiss the case for Hemlani}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s failure to file a timely at-issue memorandum.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Consequently, Judge Taylor}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s decision was not clearly erroneous on this ground.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by re-opening the failure to prosecute issue on this ground.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 B.\tab The Remaining }{\b\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hualde}{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  Factors.}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [15]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s second motion does not allege, nor could this court find, any intervening change in law which would have otherwise permitted the second judge to re-open the failure to prosecute issue.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Likewise, and as previously stated, Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s second motion focused on the Rule 7(D) issue.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The second motion raised no new evidence; nor did it allege any changed circumstances which would have offered an exception to the law of the case rule.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13715987 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13715987 
 We note that Lujan argues that he suffered actual prejudice as a result of Hemlani}{\fs20\insrsid13715987 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13715987 
s failure to prosecute because of the death of a key witness.  However, this was considered and rejected by Judge Taylor in his denial of the first motion to dismiss.  Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid13715987 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13715987 s Excerpts of Record, tab 224, p. 6 (Decision and Order, May 18, 1995).}}}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Finally, because Rule 7(D) does not mandate dismissal for failure to file a timely at-issue memorandum, we find that no manifest injustice would result if Judge Taylor}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s decision was not overturned.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [16]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab Because no exception under }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hualde}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  justifies}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 re-litigating the failure to prosecute issue, the law of the case doctrine applies.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in considering and granting the mot
ion to dismiss.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 C.\tab Do Seven Years of Activity Cure a Failure to Prosecute?}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [17]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab Hemlani argues that even assuming the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable, the trial court nonetheless erred in granting Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The period of inactivity, upon which Lujan}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s second motion to dismiss was based, ranged from 1989 to 1993.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s Second Motion to Dismiss was filed in 2001.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hemlani argues that after Judge Taylor was appointed to this case in 1994, seven years of continuous litigation ensued.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Hemlani argues that if the period of inactivity has ceased before the filing of a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, such a motion should be barred.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [18]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab The trial court agreed that }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 diligent prosecution may rescue a claim that was previously inactive for various reasons.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Appellant}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s Excerpts of Record, tab Sept. 13, 2001, p. 10 (Decision and Order, Sept. 13, 2001).}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
However, the trial court stated that Rule 7 mandates dismissal for failure to file a timely at-issue memorandum and no discretion is granted under the rule. The trial court found that }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 subsequently revitalizing a dormant case will not cure a previous violation of a Superior Court Rule sufficient to warrant dismissal.}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Appellant}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s Excerpts of Record, tab Sept. 13, 2001, pp. 11-12 (Decision and Order, Sept. 13, 2001). However, in light of the holding of }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Guam Housing & Urban Renewal, }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 that Rule 7(D) does not mandate automatic dismissal for an untimely at-issue memorandum, the trial court}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s reasoning here is in error.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 See}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Guam Housing & Urban Renewal Auth.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 2002 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  15. 
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [19]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab Review of the case law shows the general acceptance among jurisdictions that active prosecution after inactivity will cure a failure to prosecute.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Rollins v. United States}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 286 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1961), the plaintiff filed an action under the federal Tort Claims Act.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Rollins}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 206 F.2d at 762.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The summons was not properly served upon the Un
ited States until more than two years later upon the order of the district court judge to issue an alias summons to the United States.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
After answering the complaint, the United States moved for dismissal for lack of prosecution due to plaintiff}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s failure of}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 timely service under the applicable statute of limitations.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The district court denied the motion and the United States did not appeal the denial.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 At trial, the United States renewed its motion to 
dismiss for lack of prosecution, and after trial filed a motion to reconsider the motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 762-63.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The motion was granted on the ground that the service was made after passage of the statute of limitations, and the action was barred by laches, which was a jurisdictional defect under the circumstances.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 763.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Rollins}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
 court stated that while the trial court would have been within its discretion in dismissing the action for lack of prosecution when the motion to dismiss was origin
ally filed, the pendency of the action permitted the trial judge to issue the alias summons and allow the plaintiff to proceed.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 764.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Most important to the case at bar, the }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Rollins}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  court also found that because there was no lack of diligence follow
ing the issuance of the alias summons, it was error to dismiss the action.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 765.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [20]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab In }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Raab v. Taber Instrument Corp}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
., 546 F.2d 522 (2d Cir. 1976), Raab was a shareholder who filed suit against Taber in 1967.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Raab}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 546 F.2d at 523.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 At or about the same time, another shareholder, Less, also}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 represented by Raab}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s attorney, sued Taber over the same issue raised in Raab}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s suit.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In 1974, the district court i
ssued an order stating that counsel for Less and Raab and counsel for Taber had agreed that Raab}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s case would proceed after the Less trial.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 However, in 1975, after the }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Less}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  case had been settled and the }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Raab}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  case proceeded, Taber moved to dismiss for lack of Raab}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s prosecution.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
The trial court found that the delay between 1967 and 1974 was reason for dismissal.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The Second Circuit reversed holding that the parties}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  actions from 1974 on, }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 breathed new life into dormant cases.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 524.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [21]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab In }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Spiegelman v. Gold Dust Texaco}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 539 P.2d 1216 (Nev. 1975), t}{\insrsid11487529 
he Nevada Supreme Court stated:}{\insrsid13715987 
\par }{\insrsid11487529\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
if the claim is presently being prosecuted with diligence it cannot be dismissed because at some earlier time plaintiff did not act diligently. . . . Where . . . t
he lapse has already occurred, and further proceedings have been taken, it is neither necessary or (sic) justifiable to allow dismissal because a party finds, as Taylor here found, that nearly two years prior to the motion to dismiss a lapse in excess of 
one year has occurred.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 1218-19 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Spiegelman}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  involved a lapse in excess of one year.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In the instant case, the lapse between the period of inactivity and Lujan}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s second motion to dismiss was seven years.}{\insrsid13715987 
\par }{\insrsid11487529\charrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [22]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab In opposition, Lujan cites the case of }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Gunner v. Van Ness Garage}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
, 310 P.2d 32, 150 Cal. App. 2d 345 (Cal. D. Ct. App. 1957).}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Gunner}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
, the plaintiff filed a complaint in December 1950 but failed to complete service until three years later.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Gunner}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 310 P.2d at 33, 150 Cal. App. 2d at 346.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In September 1954, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
The last answers were filed in January 1955, and defendants moved to dismiss for want of prosecution in February 1955.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 33, 150 Cal. App. 2d at 347.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The trial court found that from the filing of the complaint in 1950 to the filing of the amended complaint in 1954, plaintiff was guilty of inexcusable delay.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 34, 150 Cal. App. 2d at 348.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Gunner}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  court a
ffirmed dismissal of the case notwithstanding plaintiff}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s activity after the period of inactivity stating:}{\insrsid13715987 
\par }{\insrsid11487529\charrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 a belated manifestation of diligence could not operate to excuse the earlier lack of diligence which exte
nded over a period of nearly four years, from December 1950 to September 1954. . . . . Plaintiff seeks to excuse herself by the facts that the case was actually set for trial, and that certain defendants obtained time to plead to the amended 
{\*\bkmkstart Document1zzSDUNumber7}{\*\bkmkend Document1zzSDUNumber7}
complaint by order of court. As we view the situation disclosed by the record these facts are immaterial since the inexcusable delay to support the trial court's order may be found in the period before the filing of the amended 
complaint. Counsel have cited no case holding that tardiness in making the motion to dismiss will excuse the plaintiff's previous inexcusable delay.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [23]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab The }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Gunner}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  court noted that no case was cited which held that tardiness in filing a
 motion to dismiss would excuse a plaintiff}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s prior inactivity.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 However, a later California case addressed this issue.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
In 1970, the California Supreme Court upheld the denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute when the motion had been filed }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 after}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  the complained of delay and }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 after}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  the trial court had set the matter for trial.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 468 P.2d 193, 197, 2 Cal. 3d 557, 563-64}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 (1970).}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Denham}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , the plaintiff filed a complaint in 1964.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 194, 2 Cal. 3d at 559.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
In 1965, the court decided a motion filed by defendant.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 195, 2 Cal. 3d at 561.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Plaintiff made no other filings until 1967, when he filed an at-issue memorandum.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 196, 2 Cal. 3d at 562.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In February 1969, the court held a pretrial hearing and set trial for April 1969.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Just before trial, defendant moved to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to a California law which gave the trial court discretion to dismiss the action if it was not brought to trial within two years of filing.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The California Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Id.}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  at 197, 2 Cal. 3d at 563-64.
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [24]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab The }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Denham}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  case and the cases cited above show that it is within a court}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s discretion to deny a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute where the lapse in prosecution has already occurred and further proceedings have been taken.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 We agree and follow that line of cases.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 To the extent that }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Gunner}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  is inconsistent with }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Denham}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
 and the line of cases cited above, we reject }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Gunner}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 .
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [25]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab In the instant case, Hemlani}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s inactivity occurred between 1989 and 1993.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Judge Taylor was appointed in 1994 and trial commenced on June 5, 1996.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Final judgment against Lujan was entered on January 26, 1999.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 On February 5, 1999, Lujan filed a motion for a new trial which was granted on April 22, 1999.}{
\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Hemlani appealed on May 12, 1999.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 This court issued an opinion on June 16, 2000.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
All this litigation occurred during the eight years after Hemlani}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
s inactivity and before Lujan filed his Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute on June 28, 2001. Clearly such active litigation should be sufficient to cure a previous period of inactivity.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
A dismissal under these circumstances would be a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Denham, }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 460 P.2d at 199, 2 Cal. 3d at 566 (}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 a reviewing court should not disturb the exercise of a trial court}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s discretion unless it appears that there has been a miscarriage of justice.}{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 ).
\par }{\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [26]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab Motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute, even if filed after litigation has been reactivated, should be tried on a case-by-case basis.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 If diligence is shown after the inactivity has stopped, dismissal is inappropriate.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 See}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
Rollins}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 286 F.2d at 764; }{\i\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 see also Spiegelman}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 , 539 P.2d at 1218-19.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 In this case, Hemlani}
{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 s actions after his period of inactivity show his diligence.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Thus, the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the case.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 IV.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\b\insrsid11487529 
\par }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 [27]}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 \tab Rule 7(D) of the Superior Court Rules of Court does not mandate dismissal for failure to file a timely at-issue memorandum.}{\insrsid11487529  }{
\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Dismissal or other sanction for such a violation is at the discretion of the trial court.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 There being no exception to the law of the case rule, the trial co
urt erred in reconsidering and granting the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Further, dismissal for failure to prosecute is inappropriate when a plaintiff acts diligently}{\insrsid11487529 
 }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 after the period of inactivity.}{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 The judgment of the trial court is }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 REVERSED}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 
 and the case is }{\b\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 REMANDED}{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529  for proceedings consistent with this opinion.}{\insrsid11487529 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 JOHN A. MANGLONA\tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 FRANCES TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD
\par Designated Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid11487529  }{\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 Associate Justice}{\insrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid11487529 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11487529 {\insrsid13715987\charrsid11487529 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
\par Chief Justice, Acting
\par }}