{\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;}
{\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 \rsid1656591
\rsid2888403\rsid4395531\rsid9508377}{\*\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\min49}{\version3}{\edmins2}
{\nofpages7}{\nofwords2981}{\nofchars16997}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws19939}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb810 
\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\rsidroot4395531 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4395531 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4395531 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4395531 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4395531 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery810\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid4395531\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\insrsid4395531 Sky v. Kobayashi}{\fs20\insrsid4395531 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid4395531 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1656591 7}
}}{\fs20\insrsid4395531  of 10
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4395531 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1656591 
{\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\insrsid4395531 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid4395531 
\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\pararsid1656591 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 SKY ENTERPRISE}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par Plaintiff-Appellant,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 vs.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 KENZO Y. KOBAYASHI}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par Defendant-Appellee.}{\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA02-008 }{\v\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Supreme Court Case No.CVA00-011}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par Superior Court Case No.: CV1390-00}{\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 OPINION}{\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Filed:}{\b\insrsid1656591  }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 December 3, 2002}{\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid1656591  }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 2002 Guam 24}{\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on October 4, 2002
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trqc\trgaph106\trrh-288\trleft-106\trftsWidth1\trpaddl106\trpaddr106\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1656591 \clvmgf\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4682\clvmgf\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4572\clshdrawnil \cellx9254\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1656591 {\ul\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 :
\par Curtis C. Van de Veld, Esq.
\par Van de Veld Law Offices, P.C.
\par Suite 215 
\par 194 Hernan Cortez Avenue
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }{\ul\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Appearing for Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 :
\par William R. Mann, Esq.
\par Berman O}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Connor Mann & Shklov
\par Suite 503, Bank of Guam Building
\par #111 Chalan Santo Papa
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \trowd \irow0\irowband0
\ts11\trqc\trgaph106\trrh-288\trleft-106\trftsWidth1\trpaddl106\trpaddr106\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1656591 \clvmgf\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4682
\clvmgf\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4572\clshdrawnil \cellx9254\row }\trowd \irow1\irowband1
\ts11\trqc\trgaph106\trrh-288\trleft-106\trftsWidth1\trpaddl106\trpaddr106\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1656591 \clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4682
\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4572\clshdrawnil \cellx9254\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \cell 
\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\ts11\trqc\trgaph106\trrh-288\trleft-106\trftsWidth1\trpaddl106\trpaddr106\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1656591 
\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4682\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4572\clshdrawnil \cellx9254\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \cell \cell }\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \trowd \irow2\irowband2\ts11\trqc\trgaph106\trrh-288\trleft-106\trftsWidth1\trpaddl106\trpaddr106\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1656591 
\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4682\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4572\clshdrawnil \cellx9254\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \cell \cell }\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \trowd \irow3\irowband3\ts11\trqc\trgaph106\trrh-288\trleft-106\trftsWidth1\trpaddl106\trpaddr106\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1656591 
\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4682\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4572\clshdrawnil \cellx9254\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \cell \cell }\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \trowd \irow4\irowband4\ts11\trqc\trgaph106\trrh-288\trleft-106\trftsWidth1\trpaddl106\trpaddr106\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1656591 
\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4682\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4572\clshdrawnil \cellx9254\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \cell \cell }\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \trowd \irow5\irowband5\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph106\trrh-288\trleft-106\trftsWidth1\trpaddl106\trpaddr106\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid1656591 
\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4682\clvmrg\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4572\clshdrawnil \cellx9254\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR. Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; and FRANCES TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice.}{\insrsid1656591 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:}{\b\insrsid4395531 
\par }{\insrsid1656591\charrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [1]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab This court }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 sua sponte }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 raised jurisdictional issues regarding an appeal by Plaintiff-Appell
ant Sky Enterprise (}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Sky}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 ) from a Superior Court order granting Defendant-Appellee Kenzo Y. Kobayashi}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s (}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Kobayashi}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 ) motion to compel inspection of Sky}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s corporate books and Kobayashi}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s cross-appeal fro
m the same order. This opinion addresses only the jurisdictional issues involved in the appeal and cross-appeal. After giving the parties the opportunity to brief the issues and hearing oral arguments, we agree to hear the appeal but dismiss the cross-app
e
al for lack of jurisdiction. We issue this opinion to clarify that the time limits in the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to interlocutory appeals and cross appeals and that a cross appeal from an interlocutory order must independently meet the st
atutory requirements for an interlocutory appeal.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 I.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [2]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab 
On August 18, 2000, Sky filed a complaint against Kobayashi, alleging claims of conversion, embezzlement, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Kobayashi counterclaimed, alleging that Sky failed to pa
y Kobayashi his share of corporate dividends beginning in May 2000 and that Sky refused to allow Kobayashi to inspect its books and records. 
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [3]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab On December 28, 2000, Kobayashi filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Permit Inspection of Corporate Books and Records. The trial court issued an order granting Kobayashi}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
s motion to inspect the records but denying his request that he be allowed to copy the records. Importantly for this opinion, the trial court}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s order was entered on the Superior Court}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
s docket on March 19, 2002, but the Notice of Entry was not filed until March 22, 2002. Sky filed a notice of appeal on April 19, 2002 appealing the discovery order. On May 16, 2002, this court issued an order granting Sky}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s request for an interlocutory review. Kobayashi then filed a notice of cross appeal on May 23, 2002.

\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [4]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab On
 September 27, 2002, this court issued an order to show cause why the appeal and cross-appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the time limits for filing an appeal. Sky submitted a response arguing that its appeal was timely filed and th
at the time limits under the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure should not apply to an interlocutory appeal. Kobayashi filed a non-opposition to Sky}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s response. A hearing on the order to show cause was held on October 4, 2002.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 II.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [5]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab This court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  3108(b) (1994). Jurisdictional issues may be raised by any party at any time or }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 sua sponte}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  by the court. }{
\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Pac. Rock Corp. v. Dep}{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 t of Educ.}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 2001 Guam 21, }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 18. We issue this opinion to clarify the application of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure to interlocutory appeals.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 III.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [6]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab 
The first issue we decide here is whether an interlocutory appeal must meet the jurisdictional time limits of Rule 4(a) of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure, and if so, whether the time to file an appeal is measured from the filing of the entr
y of the judgment on the Superior Court docket or the filing of the notice of entry. The second issue we consider is whether a cross-appeal from an interlocutory appeal must also meet the jurisdictional time limits of Rule 4(a).
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 A.}{\b\insrsid1656591  }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 The Interlocutory Appeal }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [7]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab The trial court order that Sky appeals from was entered on the Superior Court}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
s docket on March 19, 2002. The Notice of Entry was not filed until March 21, 2002. Sky filed its Notice of Appeal on April 19, 2002, which is twenty-eight days from the date that the Notice of Entry was filed but thirty-one days after the entry of the or
der on the docket.
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 1. GRAP 4(a)}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [8]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab Rule 4(a) of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [w]hen an appeal is permitted by law from the Superior Court to the Supreme Court, the time within which an appeal may be taken in a civil case shall be thirty (30) days from the date of entry of judgment.}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  Guam R. App. P. 4(a). For an appeal taken as of right, this time limit for filing a notice of appeal }{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 is an absolute requirement from which this court has no discretion to digress}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 . [A] timely notice of appeal is }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 mandatory and jurisdictional.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Gill v. Siegel}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 2000 Guam 10, }{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  5 (quoting }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 United States v. Robinson}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 361 U.S. 220, 224, 80 S.Ct. 282, 285 (1960)).}{\insrsid4395531 
\par }{\insrsid1656591\charrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [9]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab Both Sky and Kobayashi argue that the Rule 4(a) time limit should apply only to appeals taken as of right and not to discretionary appeals. The
 parties argue that jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals is governed solely by Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 3108(b). Section 3108(b) allows this court to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order if resolving the questions of law on which the order is based would }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 (1) Materially advance the termination of the litigation or clarify further proceedings therein; (2) Protect a party from substantial and irreparable injury; or (3) Clari
fy issues of general importance in the administration of justice.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  7 GCA }{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  3108(b). The parties argue that under section 3108(b), this court can choose whether or not t
o hear an interlocutory appeal based solely on whether, in this court}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
s discretion, the appeal meets at least one of the three conditions, regardless of whether the appeal is timely. We disagree.
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [10]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab 
First, we note that Guam has no statutorily set time limit for filing an interlocutory appeal. However, we have previously applied the Rule 4(a) time limit to interlocutory appeals. }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 See Gutierrez v. Charfauros}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , CVA99-045 (Sup. Ct. Guam Oct. 29, 1999) (order dismissing interlocutory appeal for, among other things, failure to file a timely notice of appeal). In }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Charfauros}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , this court held that }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
if the Defendant-Appellant were seeking interlocutory review based upon the }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 order, a notice of appeal should have been filing [sic] within thirty (30) days from the docketing date.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Id. }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 at}{\insrsid1656591  }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 n.1. This court has also made reference to th
e timeliness of a notice of appeal filed in other interlocutory appeals. }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 See}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 People v. Pak}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 1998 Guam 27, }{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  3}{\insrsid1656591  }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 (}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 The trial court granted Defendant's motion by Order dated 20 March 1998. This [interlocutory] appeal was }{
\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 timely}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  filed on 20 April 1998.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
) (emphasis added); }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 People v. San Nicolas}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 1999 Guam 19, }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  4 (}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
The trial court heard argument and later issued a written decision and order on March 25, 1998}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
. No final judgment followed. The People filed a }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 timely}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  Notice of Appeal on March 27, 1998 and San Nicolas, in turn, filed a timely Notice of Cross-Appeal on April 7, 1998.}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 ) (emphasis added).
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [11]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab Our application of Rule 4(a)}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
s time limits to interlocutory appeals is supported by the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure and the policy underlying Rule 4(a). As indicated by the language of Rule 4(a), the time limits set forth therein are not necessarily limited to f
inal judgments. Rule 4(a) sets the time limit for filing a notice of appeal at }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
thirty (30) days from the date of entry of }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 judgment}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 .}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  GRAP 4(a) (emphasis added). However, Rule 4(a) also provides that a }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
judgment }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 or order}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  is entered within the meaning of this subdivision when it is entered in the civil or criminal docket and notice is given to the parties}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 .}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  GRAP 4(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, the applicability of Rule 4(a) to discretionary appeals is indicated by rule 11(b), which provides that for good cause, this court }{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 may upon motion enlarge the time prescribed by these rules or by its order }{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  but the court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  or a petition for permission to appeal.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  Guam R. App. P. 11(b).
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [12]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab Additionally, the policy behind the Rule 4(a) time limit in the context of final judgments similarly supports application of the time lim
it to an appeal from an interlocutory order.}{\insrsid1656591  }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 The purpose of setting the time limit for an appeal is }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 to set a definite point of time when litigation shall be at an en
d, unless within that time the prescribed application has been made; and if it has not, to advise prospective appellees that they are freed of the appellant's demands.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Gill}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 2000 Guam 10 at }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  5}{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 (quoting }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Browder v. Dir., Dep}{
\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 t of Corr. of Illinois}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S. Ct. 556, 561 (1978)). This reasoning also supports limiting the time within which an interlocutory appeal may be filed, where the parties must be equally assured that they can rely on the trial court}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
s order once the time to file an appeal has passed. Accordingly, we hold that a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order must be filed within the Rule 4(a) time limits.
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [13]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab We further reject the parties}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  argument that because this court issued an order that stated that it would exercise its discretion to grant immediate review of the trial court}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s March 19 order, this court cannot now c
hoose to dismiss the appeal. Jurisdictional issues may not be waived and may be raised at any time by either party or by the court }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 sua sponte}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 . }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
See Pac. Rock Corp.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 2001 Guam 21 at }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  18. Because the time limit for
 filing an appeal is jurisdictional, it must be complied with, notwithstanding any order from this court agreeing to hear a discretionary appeal.}{\insrsid4395531 
\par }{\insrsid1656591\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 2.}{\b\insrsid1656591  }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Entry of judgment}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [14]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab We now turn to the issue of when the thirty-day time period to file an appeal begins to run. Rule 4(a) provides that }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 the time within which an appeal may be taken in a civil case shall be thirty (30) days from the date of entry of judgment.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  GRAP 4(a). A judgment or order is entered within the meaning of Rule 4(a) when it is entered on the docket }{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 and notice is given to the parties of this entry by the Clerk of the Superior Court.}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Id.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 This court has previously held that}{\insrsid1656591  }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
[a]bsent Notice of the entry of Judgment the entry is without effect.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{
\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Archbishop of Guam v. G.F.G. Corp.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , CVA96-016 (Sup. Ct. Guam, Jan 22, 1997). In }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Gill v. Siegel}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
, 2000 Guam 10, however, this court held that }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
[t]he time limit for filing an appeal commenced on the date Final Judgment was entered on the docket. . . . }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Gill}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 2000 Guam 10 at }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  13. The holding in }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Gill}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  has created some confusion over which is the critical date that begins the time within which to file a notice of appeal.
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [15]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab The issue in }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Gill}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 was whether the language of Rule 4(a) requiring both entry and notice should be interpreted to require }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 receipt}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 of the notice of entry before the time limit for filing an appeal begins to run. This court rejected that argument. }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Id.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  at }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  8-10. In reaching its conclusion, this co
urt discussed Rule 77(d) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs notice of entry of judgment. }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Id.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  Rule 77(d) provides in part that }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [l]ack of notice of entry by the clerk does not affect the time to a
ppeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except as permitted by Rule 4(a)}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 .}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\cs15\super\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4395531 1}{\fs20\insrsid4395531  Although GRCP 77(d) refe
rs to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Appellate Rules of the District Court of Guam, these rules have been supplanted by GRAP 4(a) for the purposes of GRCP 77(d). }{\i\fs20\insrsid4395531 Gill}{\fs20\insrsid4395531 
, 2000 Guam 10 at }{\fs20\insrsid4395531 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid4395531  8, n. 3.}{\insrsid4395531 \tab }}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 Guam R. Civ. P. 77(d). Relying on federal authority interpreting the nearly identical rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court found that }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 lack of notification by the clerk o
f entry of judgment has no effect whatsoever on the start of the allowable time for filing an appeal. With respect to an appeal, all that matters under this rule is that the judgment be entered.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Gill}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 2000 Guam 10 at }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  9.
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [16]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab Under both }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Gill}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 and Rule 4(a), entry of judgment begins the time within which a notice of appeal must be filed. As discussed above, Rule 4(a) further provides that }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [a] judgment or ordered is entered within the meaning of this subdivision }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
when it is entered in the civil or criminal docket and notice is given to the parties of this entry by the Clerk of the Superior Court}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 .}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  GRAP 4(a) (emphasis added). Additionally, GRCP 77(d) provides that the }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [l]ack of notice of entry does not affect the time to appeal }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 except as permitted by Rule 4(a)}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 .}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}
{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  GRCP 77(d) (emphasis added). Rule 4(a) requires both entry and notice of entry to start the time for an appeal. Thus, an appeal must be taken within thirty days of the entry of 
the judgment, defined in Rule 4(a) as the date that both events have occurred.}{\cs15\super\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4395531 2}{\fs20\insrsid4395531 
 This interpretation is also the most fair to prospective appellants, as under the procedure followed in the Superior Court for entering a judgment, a party has no way of knowing that the judgment has been entered until the notice of entry is filed.}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  To the extent that the dicta in }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Gill}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  suggests otherwise, it is now clarified.
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [17]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab We further find that the filing of the notice of entry effectively gives notice to the parties of 
the entry of the judgment on the docket and is sufficient to begin the thirty-day limit for filing a notice of appeal. Thus, we find that Sky}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s interlocutory appeal is timely under Rule 4(a), and because we previously found that the interlocutory appeal meets the requirements of 7 GCA }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  3108(b), it is properly before this court.
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 B.}{\b\insrsid1656591  }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Cross Appeal from the Interlocutory Appeal}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [18]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab We must next determine whether this court may exercise jurisdiction over Kobayashi}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s cross appeal. Kobayashi filed a notice of cross appeal on May 23, 2002, more than two months from March 22, 2002, the date that the notice of appeal was
 filed, but within fourteen days of May 16, 2002, the date that this court issued an order granting the interlocutory appeal. Kobayashi argues that the time to file a cross appeal from an interlocutory order should start running from the date that this co
urt issues an order granting immediate review, rather than from the date that the notice of appeal is filed.
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 1.}{\b\insrsid1656591  }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 GRAP 4(a)}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [19]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab The Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure do not support Kobayashi}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s position. As discussed above, the time limits set forth in Rule 4(a) apply to appeals of interlocutory orders. Rule 4(a) explicitly provides that }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [s]ubsequent to a timely notice of appeal, any other party may file a cross-notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
from the filing date of the first notice.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 GRAP 4(a) (emphasis added). There is nothing in the rule which directs that a notice of cross appeal be filed only after the court acce
pts an interlocutory appeal. Furthermore, this court does not always issue orders explicitly accepting interlocutory review. }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 See}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
Fajardo v. Liberty House Guam}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 2000 Guam 4, }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 4 (accepting jurisdiction pursuant to 7 GCA }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 3108(b) without objection or comment and without issuing an order agreeing to hear the appeal prior to the issuance of the opinion.). Thus, measuring the time for filing a notice of cross appeal from the
 date that this court issues an order agreeing to hear an interlocutory appeal rather than from the date that the notice of appeal is filed is not workable. Accordingly, because Kobayashi filed his notice of cross appeal more than fourteen days after Sky 
filed its notice of appeal, Kobayashi}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s appeal was not timely filed.}{\insrsid4395531 
\par }{\insrsid1656591\charrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [20]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab The next issue is whether Kobayashi}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s failure to timely f
ile a notice of cross appeal is a jurisdictional defect. We find that it is. Some jurisdictions have held that the timely filing of a notice of cross appeal is merely a procedural requirement and may be waived. }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
See Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino County}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 192 F.3d 1283, 1298 (9th Cir. 1999) (}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Although an initial notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, a protective or cross-appeal is only the }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 proper procedure,}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 not a jurisdictional perquisite once an initial appeal has been filed.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 ) (quoting }{
\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Bryant v. Technical Research Co.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 654 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). However, we agree with the opposing view that }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [b]ecause a cross-appeal is a separate attempt by an appellee to enlarge his own rights or lessen the rights of his adversary }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  the time requirements for filing a cross-appeal pursuant to App.R. 4(A) are mandatory and jurisdictional.}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Kaplysh v. Takieddine}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
, 519 N.E.2d 382, 386-87 (Ohio 1988) (interpreting rules nearly identical to the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure); }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 McCracken v. Edward D. Jones & Co.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
, 445 N.W.2d 375, 383 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989); }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 see also Johnson v. Teamsters Local 559,}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 102 F.3d 21, 28-29 (1st Cir. 1996); }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Haas v. Freeman}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 693 P.2d 1199, 1204 (Kan. 1985) (interpreting the rule that the court lacks jurisdiction over untimely cross appeals to include interlocutory cross appeals); }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Rolen v. Rhine}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 172 Cal. Rptr. 456, 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (dismissing both the appeal and cross appeal for lack of jurisdiction because neither was timely filed); 4 C.J.S. }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Appeal and Error}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  270 (2002) (}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Cross appeals }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 89 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  must, in order to be available for consideration by the appellate court, be taken and perfected within the time prescribed by statute or rule of court. This requirement of timeliness is jurisdictional.}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 ) (footnote omitted). Thus, because Kobayashi did not file his not
ice of cross appeal within the prescribed time, we lack jurisdiction over the cross appeal.}{\insrsid4395531 
\par }{\insrsid1656591\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 2.}{\b\insrsid1656591  }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 7 GCA }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  3108(b)}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [21]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab In addition to the jurisdictional time requirements for cross appeals, a cross appeal from an i
nterlocutory order must also meet the requirements of section 3108(b). An immediate appeal from an i}{\insrsid1656591 nterlocutory order is available}{\insrsid4395531 
\par }{\insrsid1656591\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 as provided by law and in other cases only at the discretion of the Supreme Court where it determines that resolution of th
e questions of law on which the order is based will: (1) Materially advance the termination of the litigation or clarify further proceedings therein; (2) Protect a party from substantial and irreparable injury; or (3) Clarify issues of general importance 
in the administration of justice.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 3108(b). The limitations on interlocutory appeals ensure that such appeals are granted only when }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
the necessity of immediate review outweighs [the] general policy against piecemeal disposal of litigation.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Fedders v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 601 N.W.2d 861, 864 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999) (quoting }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
Cascade Mountain, Inc. v. Capitol Indem. Corp.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
, 569 N.W.2d 45, 46 n.2 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997)). The considerations that compel a court to accept an initial interlocutory appeal do not necessarily apply to a cross appeal. Accordingly, if any appeal, including 
a cross appeal, from an interlocutory order does not meet the section 3108(b) criteria, we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal. }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 See San Nicolas}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 1999 Guam 19 at }{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  11 (}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 San Nicolas has set forth no arguments to persuade this court to consider this matter as an interlocutory appeal. . . .}{\insrsid1656591  }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
Therefore, the court declines jurisdiction over San Nicolas' cross\_appeal.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 );}{\insrsid1656591  }{
\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Fedders}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  at 864 (}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
The exercise of our discretion to grant leave to appeal would be severely hampered by the cross-appellant}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591  notion that once leave to appeal is granted, any party to the litigation could raise by cross-appeal any issue.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 ); }{\i\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Trecartin v. Mahony-Troast Constr. Co.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 , 1}{\insrsid1656591 20 A.2d 733, 734-36 (N.J. 1956).}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [22]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab Because we find that Kobayashi}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s cross appeal is not timely, we do not need to reach an analysis of the cross appeal under section 3108(b). 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 IV.}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\b\insrsid1656591 
\par }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 [23]}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 \tab An appeal from an interlocutory order, and a cross appeal from such an appeal, must meet the jurisdictional requirements of both GRAP 4(a) and 7 GCA }{
\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
 3108(b). Because Sky filed its interlocutory appeal within thirty days from the filing of the notice of entry on the Superior Court docket, and because Sky}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s appeal meets the requirements of section 3108(b), we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Because Kobayashi}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 s cross appeal is not timely under Rule 4(a), we have no jurisdiction over it. Therefore, we nee
d not determine whether the cross appeal meets the section 3108(b) requirements, and it is hereby }{\b\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 DISMISSED}{\insrsid1656591 .}{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD\tab \tab }{\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 Associate Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab Associate Justice}{\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid1656591 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1656591 {\insrsid4395531\charrsid1656591 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR.
\par Chief Justice
\par }}