{\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};}{\f41\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;}{\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;}{ \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid12731773 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid12731773 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid4072244\rsid4460131\rsid9508377\rsid12731773\rsid16129652}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info {\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min5}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr10\min4}{\version4}{\edmins3}{\nofpages13}{\nofwords5157}{\nofchars29398}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam} {\nofcharsws34487}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb720 \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\rsidroot16129652 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \insrsid16129652 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16129652 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16129652 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16129652 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid16129652\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid16129652 Quitugua v. Flores}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 , 2004 Guam 19, Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid16129652 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid4460131 13}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 of 19 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid16129652 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-9\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid4460131 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom9\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2050{\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\dpysize9\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid16129652 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-241\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid16129652 \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\pararsid4460131 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GEORGE M. QUITUGUA TO CANCEL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 40335 and to receive Certificate of Title No. 39212 relative to Lot No. 10069-1-6, Ledeson, Machanao, Guam, Estate No. 16925, Suburban, containing an area of 3,998 square meters,}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par Petitioner-Appellant, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 vs.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 AMBROSIO F. FLORES and CARL J.C. AGUON, in his official capacity as Registrar of Titles for the Department of Land Management, Government of Guam,}{ \b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Respondents-Appellees.}{\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Supreme Court Case No. CVA03-011 \par Superior Court Case No. SP0150-97}{\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 OPINION}{\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Filed: October 4, 2004}{\insrsid4460131 \par \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 2004 Guam 19}{\insrsid4460131 \par \par }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on February 23, 2004 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }{\ul\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appearing for the Petitioner-Appellant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 : \par Michael F. Phillips, Esq. \par PHILLIPS & BORDALLO, P.C. \par 410 West O}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Brien Drive \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \par \cell \par }{\ul\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appearing for Respondent-Appellee Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 : \par Jeffrey A. Cook, Esq. \par CUNLIFFE & COOK, P.C. \par Suite 200, 210 Archbishop F.C. Flores St. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \par }{\ul\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appearing for Respondent-Appellee Carl J.C. Aguon}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 : \par Eric Heisel, Esq., Assistant Attorney General \par Office of the Attorney General of Guam \par Suite 2-200E, Guam Judicial Center \par 120 West O}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Brien Drive \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par \par }{\ul\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appearing for Respondent-Appellee Bank of Guam}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 : \par Michael Berman, Esq. \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 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131 \par }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 BEFORE:}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice.}{\insrsid16129652 \par }{\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 PER CURIAM:}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [1]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Petitioner-Appellant George M. Quitugua appeals from a Decision and Order of the Superior Court granting a m otion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and a Decision and Order denying a motion to reconsider the dismissal.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua argues that the Superior Court failed to account for its role in delays and based its decision on evidence not before the court.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Aft er balancing the relevant factors in determining whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is an appropriate sanction, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s claims with prejudice for Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s failure to prosecute.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 We further hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in later denying Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his claims. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 I.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [2]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab The underlying dispute in this case involves real property in Machanao, Guam (}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the Property}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ).}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 On July 10, 1974, property owner Maria F. Flores (}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Maria Flores}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ) executed a Deed of Gift granting the Property to Respondent-Petitioner Ambrosio F. Flores (}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ) and Lawrence Vince Leon Guerrero, }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 to share and share alike.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\sl-254\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 The Property is described in the July 10, 1974 Deed of G ift as }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Lot No. 10069-1-6, Ledesong, Machanao, Guam, Estate No. 16925, Suburban, containing an area of 3998 square meters, as shown on Drawing No. 104-T7OMA, prepared by Juan T. Untalan, R.L.S. No. 6, covered by Certificate of Title No. 24837, bearing Document No. 93723.}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s Excerpts of Record (}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 ER}{ \fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 ) Ex. B, p. 93 (Deed of Gift). }}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appellant}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Excerpts of Record (}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ) Ex. B, p. 93 (Deed of Gift).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 A certificate of title (}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the first certificate}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ), listing the names of both Flores and Leon Guerrero, was issued on July 30, 1974. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [3]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab On September 4, 1974, Maria Flores executed a }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Corrected Deed of Gift}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 granting the Property to Flores alone, which stated }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [t]h is deed is made to delete the name of Lawrence Vince Leon Guerrero as one of the donees in that certain Deed of Gift executed by the donor herein on July 10, 1974, and bearing Document No. 238372.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 The record below does not indicate the reason for Maria Flores }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 correcting}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 the deed.}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, Ex. C, p. 95 (Corrected Deed of Gift).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 A certificate of title (}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the second certificate}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ) listing Flores }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 name only was issued on January 28, 1975. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [4]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Twenty years later, on May 17, 1995, Leon Guerrero executed a Deed of Gift purporting to grant his interest in the Property to Quitugua.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua subsequently requested issuance of a certificate of title to reflect the interest he allegedly obtained from Leon Guerrero, but was informed by the Registrar of Titles that a court order was required.}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 On May 30, 1997, Quitugua filed in the Superior Court of Guam a Petition to Cancel Certificate of Title against Flores, and Carl J.C. Aguon in his official capacit y as Registrar of Titles, Department of Land Management, Government of Guam.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua sought cancellation of the second certificate, maintaining that the second certificate was }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 erroneously issued}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 to Flores alone.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua requested reinstatement of the first certificate which granted title to both Flores and Leon Guerrero or alternatively, partition of his interest in the Property. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [5]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab The case was initially assigned to Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood on June 3, 1997.}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\sl-254\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 On January 9, 2004, Flores filed an Objection to Justice Frances Tydingco-Gatewood}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s participation in this appeal, stating that she had dis qualified herself from the case below. On January 14, 2004, Justice Tydingco-Gatewood responded to the Objection, stating that she had not disqualified herself from the case below, but had requested that the case be reassigned due to her heavy caseload o f criminal matters. At the January 26, 2004 Status and Disqualification hearing, counsel for Flores indicated that the Answer filed by Justice Tydingco-Gatewood had clarified the issue, and orally stated that he had no objection to her participation on th e panel.}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 On August 21, 1997, Flores filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Guam Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) (}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Also on August 21, 1997, the Office of the Attorney General (}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the AG}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Office}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ) on behalf of Aguon, filed an Answer.}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\sl-254\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 The AG}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s Office and the Bank of Guam, although named as defendants and appellants herein, played very limited roles in this case. The Bank of Guam, as the mortgagee of the Property, became involved when the AG}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s Office filed a Motion to Join Indispensable Party, on October 15, 1997. Although both the AG}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s Office and the Bank of Guam filed answers to Quitugua}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid16129652 s petition, their active involvement in the case ended there. Both the AG}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s Office and the Bank of Guam were represented at the August 29, 2002 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b). At that hearing, the AG}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s Office stated only that they did not oppose the motion to dismiss. The Bank of Guam orally joined the motion, but did not file a written joinder. With regard to the instant appeal, on October 7, 2003, the AG}{ \fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s Office and the Bank of Guam filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Joinders, stating that they would not file appellate briefs in this case. The motion was granted on October 24, 2003, and the joinders were subsequently filed on November 10, 2003.}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 On August 21, 1998, the parties stipulated that the Bank of Guam was an indispensable party, and the Bank of Guam subsequently filed an answer to Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s petition on September 15, 1998. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [6]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab A hearing on the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion was scheduled for October 24, 1997, but a Stipulation and Order for Continuance was filed, and the hearing was rescheduled for November 21, 1997.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The hearing on the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion was rescheduled five more times,}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 The hearing was rescheduled by the court to November 21, 1997; January 9, 1998; March 13, 1998; May 1, 1998 and June 26, 1998. }}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 and the case was reassigned to Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson on July 1, 1998.}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson apparently disqualified herself from hearing this case, but the record below does not reflect the reason for the disqualification.}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Ultimately, the case was reassigned to Judge Steven S. Unpingco on August 18, 1998. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [7]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab On August 11, 2000, Flores filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b)(}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the first Rule 41(b) Motion}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The hearing on this motion was rescheduled twice}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 The hearing, originally scheduled for September 29, 2000, was rescheduled to November 9, 2000 and again to January 17, 2001. The record does not indicate the reason the hearing was rescheduled. }}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 before it was finally held on February 20, 2001.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 On March 6, 2001, the court issued a Decision and Order (}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the March 6, 2001 Decision & Order}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ) denying the first Rule 41(b) Motion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In denying the motion, the court acknowledged the }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 unusual circumstances}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 that caused }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 numerous delays}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 and concluded that }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 dismissal at this juncture is not warranted.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 8 (March 6, 2001 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court, however, made it }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 clear that this ruling shall serve as a warning to [Quitugua] that further delays due to his inactivity will not be tolerated.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 8 (March 6, 2001 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court further ordered Quitugua to pay reasonable costs, including attorney}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s fees, associated with bringing the first Rule 41(b) Motion. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [8]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab After the court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s issuance of the March 6, 2001 Decision and Order, Quitugua made one request to Flores for production of documents but took no further action to prosecute his case.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 On April 3, 2002, Flores again filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute pursuant to Guam Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b)(}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the second Rule 41(b) Motion}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ).}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The hearing on this motion was held on August 29, 2002.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 After taking the matter under advisement, the court granted the motion (}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 October 28, 2002 Decision & Order}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ). \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [9]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Over a year later, on December 31, 2002, Quitugua filed a pleading styled as a Motion to Set Aside Decision and Order.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 A hearing on this motion was held on March 10, 2003, and in denying the motion, the court in the May 15, 2003 Decision and Order stated that notwithstanding the caption, the motion was treated as a Motion to Reconsider pursuant to the court}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s inherent authority.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court clarified that }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [u]ntil a final judgment is entered in this matter, the court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s decision is still an interlocutory order which cannot be appealed as of right}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 and thus, may be reconsidered at the discretion of the court at any time before entry of the final judgment.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 39 (May 15, 2003 Decision & Order re Petitioner}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Motion to Reconsider).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Thus, for purposes of this appeal, Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s motion will be treated as a Motion to Reconsider. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [10]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab A final judgment was entered on May 15, 2003.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua timely filed a Notice of Appeal on June 16, 2003. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 II.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [11]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab This is an appeal from a final judgment, over which this court has jurisdiction.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Title 7 GCA }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 3107(b) (2000), }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 as amended by}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Guam Pub. L. 27-31 (Oct. 31, 2003). \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [12]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Guam Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Guam Hous. & Urban Renewal Auth. (GHURA) v. Dongbu Ins. Co.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2002 Guam 3, }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 14; }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 see also}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Ward v. Reyes}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1998 Guam 1, }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 17; }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos v. Carney}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1997 Guam 4, }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 4.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Denial of a motion for reconsideration is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Ward}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1998 Guam 1 at}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 10.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which the judge could have rationally based the decision.}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Town House Dep}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 t Stores, Inc. v. Hi Sup Ahn}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2003 Guam 6, }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 27 (quoting }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Brown v. Eastman Kodak Co.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2000 Guam 30, }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 11). \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 III.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [13]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Quitugua presents two grounds to challenge the trial court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s dismissal of the action below.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 First, he argues that the court }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 fail[ed] to account for its own role in the delays.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appellant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Opening Brief, p. 5.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Second, he argues that the court erred in basing its decision }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 on evidence not before the court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 and by }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 granting the dismissal absent an affirmative showing the . . . dismissal was proper [under Rule 41(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure] as a matter of law.}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appellant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Opening Brief, p. 8 \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [14]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Flores maintains the dismissal was proper because the delays were due to Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s inaction.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 He further maintains that the court correctly found the delay to be unreasonable, and that the delay resulted in both presumed and actual prejudice to Flores. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 A.}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The Motion to Dismiss}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [15]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Rule 41 (b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure governs involuntary dismissals, and states in relevant part:}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 For 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.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Guam R. Civ. P. 41(b).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The instant appeal arises from the second Rule 41(b) motion, which Flores filed on April 3, 2002, and which the trial court granted in its October 28, 2002 Decision and Order. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 1.}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Failure to prosecute}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [16]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab This court has not expressly defined the action (or inaction) amounting to a failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), but we have adopted the followin g five-factor test to determine whether a sanction of dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate:}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 (1) the public}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s interest in expeditious resolution of litiga tion; (2) the court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 5 (quoting }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In re Eisen}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994));}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 see also}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 GHURA}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2002 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 15; }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Estate of Concepcion}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2003 Guam 12, }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 15. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [17]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab The trial court applied the }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 five-factor test, and we review its decision for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 GHURA}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2002 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 14; }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Estate of Concepcion}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2003 Guam 12 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 15. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 a.}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Public}{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and court}{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s need to manage its docket}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [18]}{\insrsid4460131 \tab }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The trial court combined its consideration of the first two factors of public interest in an expeditious resolution, and docket management.}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court found that despite its instruction in the March 6, 2001 Order that Quitugua }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 take steps to move the case forward,}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 his only action since that date was the filing of a Request for Production of Documents.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 13 (October 28, 2002 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court concluded that the delay in moving the case forward was unreasonable, and thus, the first two factors weighed in favor of dismissal.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Trial judges are }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 best situated to determine when delay in a particular case interferes with docket management and the public interest.}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Yourish v. Cal.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 }{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Amplifier}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Ash v. Cvetkov}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984)).}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Moreover, the }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 public}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Given the trial judge}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s superior position to evaluate the public interest and effects of delay on his docket, we agree that the first two factors favor dismissal.}{\insrsid16129652 \par }{\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 b.}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Risk of prejudice to defendant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [19]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab The third }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 factor requires weighing the risk of prejudice to Flores.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The trial court determined that Quitugua failed to meet the burden showing the reasonableness of the delay, and recognized that once a delay is determined to be unreasonable, then prejudice to Flores is presumed.}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Unnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that memories will fade and evidence will become stale.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 See Sibron v. New York}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ,}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 392 U.S. 40, 57, 88 S. Ct. 1889, 1899 (1968).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court observed that Flores had suffered actual prejudice by the delay, because he was in possession of the property since 1974 and had been responsible for maintaining the buildings.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Moreover, the attorney who prepared both the deeds passed away after the issuance of the March 6, 2001 Order.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 We agree with the trial court that Quitugua has presented an insufficient reason to justify his delay.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 He claims that he expected the judge to schedule the hearing on Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but, when the}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 hearing date was not scheduled, Quitugua did not file a m otion requesting a hearing date or seek to schedule a status conference.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Although the pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion was filed by Flores, it falls to the plaintiff, Quitugua, to press his case with due diligence.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 We agree this factor favors dismissal. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 c.}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Public policy favoring disposition on the merits}{\b\insrsid16129652 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [20]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab The fourth factor takes into account the public policy favoring disposition of a case on its merits.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 5.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In its October 28, 2002 Decision and Order, the trial court recognized this policy, but emphasized that it }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 should not be used defensively as a shield by a passive Plaintiff who has failed in his obligation to prosecute the defendants with the vigor expected of a plaintiff.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 14 (October 28, 2002 Decision & Order) (quoting}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 9).}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Although this factor does not favor dismissal, the court felt this consideration was outweighed by the other four factors which support dismissal.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In}{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 942 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1991), the plaintiffs had repeatedly failed to respond to correspondence regarding discovery and arbitration, failed to appear for at least one scheduled meeting, and failed to submit a stipulation regarding arbitration of their claims.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at 651.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The defendants filed a Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, which the district court granted and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, stating that }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [a]lthough there is indeed a policy favoring disposition on the merits, it is the responsibility of the moving party to move towards that disposition at a reasonable pace.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at 652.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In this case, Quitugua}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s failure to prosecute is evidenced in inactivity and a pattern of dilatoriness over months and even years; thus, we agree that this factor is outweighed by the other factors favoring dismissal.}{\insrsid16129652 \par }{\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 d.}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Less drastic sanctions}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [21]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab In considering the fifth factor of lesser sanctions, the trial court pointed out that it had already imposed lesser sanctions, as well as a warning to Quitugua that further delays would result in dismissal, and that Quitugua must take the necessary steps to move this case towards resolution.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court questioned the effectiveness of lesser sanctions, because despite its warning and monetary sanctions, there had been no }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 substantial activity}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 in the case.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 14 (October 28, 2002 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court in }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Henderson v. Duncan}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) is instructive, as it involves a}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b), which is identical to the Guam rule.} {\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Henderson}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , the Ninth Circuit reviewed a }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 sua sponte}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 dismissal, where the plaintiff had failed to comply with an Arizona local court rule requiring plaintiffs to submit pretrial orders.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id. }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at 1422-23.}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In a span of almost eleven months, the plaintiff had obtained four continuances, and still had not submitted the pretrial order.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at 1423.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The district court had given specific and express warnings that if the plaintiff did not comply, then dismissal would be forthcoming.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 sua sponte}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 dismissed the case for failure to submit the pretrial order as required by the local rule.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit applied the abuse of discretion standard, and determined, }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 inter alia}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , that }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the [district] court first tried to warn counsel of the consequences of his continuing dilatory preparation. These warnings were crystal clear.}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at 1424.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Thus, although recognizing that although }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [d]ismissal is a harsh penalty and is to be imposed only in extreme circumstances[,]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the Ninth Circuit nonetheless affirmed the district court.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at 1423.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [22]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Here, the trial court, in denying the earlier motion to dismiss, gave a specific and express warnin g to Quitugua that he must move the case towards resolution, stating in its March 6, 2001 Decision and Order that }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 this ruling shall serve as a warning to [Quitugua] that further delays due to his inactivity will not be tolerated.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 8 (March 6, 2001 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Despite this warning and the imposition of sanctions, during the course of a year, Quitugua only served one request for production of documents.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Thus, we agree that the trial court correctly concluded that the last factor weighed in favor of dismissal.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [23]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab The trial court conducted a thorough examination of each factor to determine whether a sanction of dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate, and found only the fourth factor, the interest in disposition on the merits, does not counsel in favor of dismissal.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Although dismissal may be a harsh sanction, we cannot say the lower court }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Morris}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 942 F.2d at 652 (quoting }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Anderson v. Air West, Inc.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976)); }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 see also Santos}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 11; }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 GHURA}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2002 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 19.}{\insrsid16129652 \par }{\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 2.}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Failure to respond to the motion to dismiss}{\b\insrsid16129652 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [24]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab The Superior Court, in granting the motion, also considered Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s failure to respond to Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua argues that }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 mere failure of Petitioner to respond to the Motion to Dismiss does not automatically result in a dismissal absent an affirmative showing of the Respondent that the dismissal is proper as a matter of law.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appellant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Opening Brief, p. 12.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The next issue we must address is whether Local Rule 5B of the Rules of the Superior Court requires that a judge deem unopposed motions to be conceded and automatically granted.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Rule 5B provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 B. Responses to Motions \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \fi22\li1418\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1418\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 (1) Procedure. Non\_moving parties shall not later than fourteen (14) days before the hearing serve all other parties either:}{ \insrsid16129652 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li2160\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin2160\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 (a) A written opposition containing citations, analysis and explanation; or}{\insrsid16129652 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li2160\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin2160\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 (b) A notice of non\_opposition; or}{\insrsid16129652 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li2160\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin2160\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 (c) A joinder in the motion.}{\insrsid16129652 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \fi22\li1418\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1418\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 (2) Failure To File. Absent good cause shown, failure to file one of the papers required by B. supra has the same effect as filing a notice of non\_opposition. If a party is prejudiced by failure to file such failure is sanctionable pursuant to Rule 11 of these rules. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\insrsid4460131 \par }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Guam Ct. R. 5B. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [25]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab The trial court found Quitugua had failed to file a written opposition as required by Rule 5B.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Moreover, the court, citing Rule 3A of the Rules of Superior Court, which provides:}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Absent good cause shown, papers not timely filed shall be disregarded by the court[,]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 found that Quitugua had failed to show good cause for the failure to file.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Guam Ct. R. 3A.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s attorney had recei ved notice of the motion and the court determined the explanation provided, an associate}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s departure from the firm, did not constitute good cause.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Therefore, the court deemed the motion unopposed, and granted the motion.}{\insrsid16129652 \par }{\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [26]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab On appeal, Quitugua objects to dismissal for failure to file a response, stating }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 a non-opposition is not tantamount to a conclusion as a matter of law.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appellant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Brief at p. 12.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 He points to the statement in the October 28, 2002 Decision and Order concluding that }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [p]ursuant to Superior Court Rules 3 and 5, [Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ] Motion to Dismiss is deemed unopposed.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 As such, the motion will be granted.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 12 (October 28, 2002 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Because this language may give the impression that the dismissal necessarily resulted from Quitugua}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s failure to oppose the motion, we must elucidate the lower court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s decision. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [27]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Clearly, nothing in Rule 3 or Rule 5 mandates that the failure to file an opposition to a motion automatically results in that motion being granted.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Specifically, Rule 3A provides the court may disregard papers not timely filed, while Rule 5B(2) provides that failure to file will have the same effect as the filing of non-opposition to the motion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 These rules do not relieve the lower court of its duty to consider the merits of the motion before it. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [28]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Here, the trial court did not }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 automatically}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 grant the motion because Quitugua failed to file an opposition.}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\insrsid16129652 }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 If the tria l court had not undertaken an analysis of the five-factor test adopted by this court but instead had granted the motion based solely on the motion being unopposed because of Quitugua}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s failure to respond, the result we reach may have been different.}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Indeed, the court permitted Quitugua to argue in opposition to the motion at the scheduled hearing, and as discussed above, the court considered and applied the five-factor test in determining whether a dismissal was proper sanction pursuant to Rule 41(b).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court may have interpreted the failure to file an opposition as additional evidence of Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s pattern of dilatoriness and inactivity, but}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the conclusion that dis missal was proper was based on the merits of the motion, not simply Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s failure to file an opposition to the motion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In affirming the trial court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s dismissal fo r failure to prosecute, we emphasize that the failure to file a written opposition to a motion, the filing of a notice of non-opposition to a motion, or the disregard of untimely filed papers, does not require a court to automatically grant the motion and is not dispositive of the motion itself.}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\insrsid16129652 }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Despite local rules requiring a party to file oppositions before the hearing date or risk a finding that the party had consented to granting the motion, courts have considered the merits of an unopposed motion to dismiss. }{\i\fs20\insrsid16129652 People ex rel. Swim v. Dist. Dir.,}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 No. EDCV 02-00495-VAP, 2002 WL 1988181, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2002) (unreported); }{\i\fs20\insrsid16129652 see also}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid16129652 Longshore v. Pine}{ \f41\fs20\insrsid16129652 , 222 Cal.Rptr. 364, 367 (Ct. App. 1986)}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 (}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 In spite of appellant}{ \fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s failure to file timely opposition to the motion to dismiss, the trial court considered appellant}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s opposition papers and decided the motion on its merits although not required to do so.}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 ). Courts in another jurisdiction have held that the merits of a motion to dismiss should not be addressed if a party did not comply with local rules that require filing an opposition to such a motion. }{\i\fs20\insrsid16129652 See Czaja v. Sallak}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 , 536 A.2d 1001, 1002 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988)}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid16129652 ; Burton v. Planning Comm}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid16129652 n,}{\f41\fs20\insrsid16129652 536 A.2d 995 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). When these local rules were later amended; however, so that }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 the failure to respond no longer resulted in a finding that the party consented to the motion, judges have exercised their discretion and considered the merits of unopposed motions. }{\i\fs20\insrsid16129652 See Bank of America v. Crumb}{ \fs20\insrsid16129652 , No. CV 950129064S, }{\f41\fs20\insrsid16129652 1999 WL 435770, *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 21, 1999) }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 (unpublished memorandum decision on motion to dismiss); }{\i\fs20\insrsid16129652 A. Rotondo & Sons, Inc. v. Skanco Sharon-Foxboro Dev., Inc.}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 , No. CV93 0524589S, 1995 WL 116675, *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. March 3, 1995) (unpublished memorandum opinion)}{\f41\fs20\insrsid16129652 .}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court has a duty to analyze the merits of the motion before rendering its decision.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court below discharged its duty and there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the case }{\insrsid4460131 for failure to file a response.}{\insrsid16129652 \par }{\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 3.}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua}{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s other arguments on appeal}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [29]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Although Quitugua fails to directly address the five-factor analysis conducted by the court below, he does raise additional arguments on appeal.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Initially, he argues that the court erred in failing to account for its role in the delay in moving the case forward, and relies on }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Midsea Indus., Inc. v. HK Eng}{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 g, Ltd.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1998 Guam 14, for support of this argument.}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In making this argument, Quitugua quotes from the March 6, 2001 Decision and Order, denying the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\insrsid16129652 }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 We take the opportunity to voice our concern regarding the delays that characterized the proceedings below. We are troubled by a calendaring system that allowed numerous continuances without raising a }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 red flag}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 with regard to the setting and hearing of Flores}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Rule 12(b)(6) motion. In its March 6, 2001 Decision and Order, the trial court clearly indicated its intention to }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 set any pending motions as soon as possible in order to help move this case along.}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 ER, p. 8 (March 6, 2001 Decision & Order). Despite this statement, the record before us reveals that Flores}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Rule 12 (b)(6) motion, which had been pending since being filed on August 21, 1997, was neither scheduled for hearing, nor was it ever heard. During the February 23, 2004 oral argument, Quitugua}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s attorney stated that the court had acknowledged the Rule 12(b)(6) motion was still pending and }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 promised}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 to set the motion for hearing; yet, after seven }{ \fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 discussions}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid16129652 the court did not do so. Undoubtedly, the judges}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 heavy caseload and priority given to criminal cases may have contributed to the frequent continu ances and trial judges do not have multitudes of time to spend on the failures of litigants to follow orders, rules and requirements of our courts. Here, Quitugua is responsible for inexcusable delay and failure to comply with a court order to prosecute his case diligently. We nevertheless have difficulty accepting a calendaring system that not only allows so many continuances and permits cases to languish in the courts for several years, but also appears unfair to civil litigants.}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua conveniently omits that in its March 6, 2001 Decision and Order, the court expressly acknowledged the }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 unusual circumstances}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 that caused }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 numerous delays[,]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 and consequently, did not dismiss the case pursuant to the first Rule 41(b) Motion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 8 (March 6, 2001 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua apparently also ignored the court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s explicit warning that }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 further delays due to his inactivity will not be tolerated.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 8 (March 6, 2001 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Contrary to Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s assertion, the court below recognized that delays had affected the case. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [30]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Additionally, Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s reliance on this court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s ruling in }{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Midsea}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 is mistaken.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 As Flores correctly points out, }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Midsea}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 involved a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Default Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure,}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Rule 60(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure states in relevant part: \par }\pard \ql \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid16129652 Mistakes, Inadvertence, Excusable Neglect, Newly Discovered Evidence, Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b ) ; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is bas ed has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or if it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from operation of the judgment. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid16129652 Guam R. Civ. P. 60 (1998).}{\insrsid16129652 }}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 rather than a Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The factors considered in denying a Rule 60(b) motion involve weighing the defendant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s conduct in causing the delay, the defendant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s meritorious de fenses, and prejudice to the plaintiff if the judgment is set aside.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Midsea}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1998 Guam 14 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 5.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Although we review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a motion to set aside entry of a default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) and a dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), the relevant factors in evaluating a Rule 60(b) motion are not identical to the five-factor test in evaluating a Rule 41(b) motion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 While both Rule 41(b) and Rule 60(b) are driven by the policy concern of deciding a case on its merits, only Rule 60(b) is intended to be }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 remedial in nature and should be applied liberally.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 6.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Review of Rule 41(b) motions does not share this policy consideration.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Because of the factual and legal distinctions, }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Midsea}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 does not control this case. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [31]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Quitugua further maintains that Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss should have been addressed before the case could move forward, and that Quitugua }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 reasonably anticipated}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 that the court}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s ruling on Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Rule 12(b)(6) motion would }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 stop or at least delay}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 proceedings or his ability or responsibility to move the case forward.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appellant}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Opening Brief, p. 8.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Essentially, Quitugua contends that he was waiting for the court to rule on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion before he could determine his ability to proceed with his case.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua asserts that the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, which raised a statute of limitations defense, was jurisdictional and dispositive and the court should have addressed the motion before the case could proceed on its merits;}{ \cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Quitugua raised this same argument at the hearing for the Motion for Reconsideration. At that hearing, the court clarified that as a matter of practice, courts often first address jurisdictional challenges, such as motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), or lack of jurisdiction over the person pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), because such motions are dispositive of the entire case. Here, Flores filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which was for }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 however, this argument must fail as Flores}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Rule 12(b)(6) motion did not attack either subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction.}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua relies on several cases discussing the role of Rule 12(b)(6) motions, including, }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 n}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 549 F.2d 884 (3rd Cir. 1977), }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Hiland Dairy, Inc. v. Kroger Co.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 402 F.2d 968 (8th Cir. 1968), and }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Davis H. Elliot Co. v. Caribbean Utils. Co.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 513 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1975).}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 These cases do not, however, support his contention that he is prevented from proceeding with the case absent a ruling on the 12(b)(6) motion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Cf.}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 DaVeiga v. Alberston}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s, Inc.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , No. Civ. 00-665-ST, 2000 WL 1520241 (D. Or. Oct. 10, 2000) (adopting a magistrate judge}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s recommendation that the grant of a Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute renders moot the pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Moreover, despite Quitugua}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s assertion, he fails to cite any authority that the pendency of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion prevents him from proceeding with the case. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [32]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Quitugua additionally argues that the court erred in dismissing}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the case based on evidence not before the court and by granting the dismissal absent an affirmative showing the dismissal was proper as a matter of law.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s arguments arise from statements made by counsel for Flores during the August 29, 2002 hearing on Flores}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Second Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, regarding Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s inaction in prosecuting the case.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Specifically, Quitugua objects to the reference to statements that Quitugua had only made a request for production of documents since the issuance of the March 6, 2001 Decision and Order Denying the}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Motion to Dismiss, and that there had been }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 no substantial activity}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 by Quitugua.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Appellant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Opening Brief, p. 10; ER, p. 13 (Oct. 28, 2002 Decision & Order). \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [33]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Quitugua relies on }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 People v. Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1999 Guam 1, apparently for the proposition that the court may only consider evidence that has been presented in affidavits and admitted into evidence.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 does not, however, apply here, and Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s reliance on this case is mistaken.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , the government challenged the trial court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s grant of a defendant}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Motion to Suppress Evidence, arguing that the court had improperly used and considered an affidavit from defendant.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 1999 Guam 1 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 7, 12.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The defendant}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s affidavit, which was attached to the suppression motion, indicated that his consent to a search of his home had been obtained through coercion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 7.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 At the su ppression hearing, this affidavit was not introduced or otherwise admitted into evidence; the only evidence presented was the testimony of a police officer, who was a government witness.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 8.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 We reversed the trial court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s suppression of evidence, and examined the different purposes and uses of affidavits in suppression hearings.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at}{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 2, 19-25.}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 To put things simply, the trial court in }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 erred in considering and using an affidavit that had not been introduced into evidence; also there had been no notice that it would consider the affidavit in making its decision.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id.}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 25. \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [34]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab In the instant case, Quitugua would have this court adopt the converse of the ruling in }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ; namely, that a trial court consider only evidence that has been presented through affidavits and introduced into evidence.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 He presents no authority for this proposition, and we are not persuaded by his argument to expand the holding in }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 .}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Essentially, Quitugua argues that the trial court should not have considered the statements by Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 counsel, made during the August 29, 2002 hearing, that Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s only activity in the case since the last hearing was the filing of a single Request for Production of Documents, and further maintains that the trial court erred in relying on these statements as a basis for granting the Second Rule}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 41(b) Motion to Dismiss.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 13 (Oct. 28, 2001 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Our review of the record r eveals that the trial court was made aware of the discovery request through Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Second Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss, which states that }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Quitugua has still done noth ing whatsoever to prosecute his claim against Flores, except to serve a discovery request after the Court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s March 6, 2001 Order.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (April 3, 2002).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Furthermore, when counsel for Flores referred to this discovery request during the August 29, 2002 hearing, Quitugua}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s attorney did not dispute this assertion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In fac t, counsel for Quitugua further acknowledged that }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 we sent a request for discovery}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 after the March 6, 2001 Decision and Order.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 57 (Transcript of Proceedings of Respondent}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, Aug. 29, 2001).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Moreover, at the August 29, 2002 hearing, Quitugua did not argue that there was other evidence to indicate that he had taken action to mo ve the case forward.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Therefore, even if the trial court erroneously considered and relied on counsel}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s statements regarding the discovery request,}{\cs15\super\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16129652 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 }{\f41\fs20\insrsid16129652 It seems apparent that if the trial court had not considere d the information regarding the single discovery request submitted by Quitugua after the March 6, 2001 Decision and Order, then there would be no evidence at all before the trial court regarding any action taken by Quitugua, and the court could have concl uded that no action had been taken. }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Thus, the court}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 s reliance amounted to harmless error, as its reliance on the information }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 would not have made a difference in the t rial court's decision, [and] thus [did] not affect[] the substantial rights of the parties.}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 }{\i\fs20\insrsid16129652 Yang v. Hong}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 , 1998 Guam 9, }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16129652 12; }{\i\fs20\insrsid16129652 see also }{\fs20\insrsid16129652 Guam R. Civ. P. 61.}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 it was not error for the trial court to ultimately conclude that there had been }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 no substantial activity}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 in the case since the March 6, 2001 Decision and Order.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 ER, p. 13 (Oct. 28, 2001 Decision & Order).}{\insrsid16129652 \par }{\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [35]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Finally, Quitugua argues that the lower court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s dismissal was based on findings of prejudice, when there were no facts in the record to support such findings.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 To supp ort this argument, Quitugua states that there had not been any showing that the death of a potential witness, Attorney J.U. Torres, who had drafted both of the deeds for Maria Flores, was prejudicial.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 We disagree.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Obviously, the attorney who drafted both the original deed and the corrected deed for the original landowner, Maria Flores, could have presented testimony that may have shed light on the circumstances in amending}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 or }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 correcting}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 the deed to delete Leon Guerrero as a grantee.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The death of this particular potential witness was indeed prejudicial to Flores.}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [36]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Quitugua also objects to statements made by Flores}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 counsel at the August 29, 2002 hearing that Flores had been in possession of the disputed property and expended time and money in maintaining the property.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Again relying on }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1991 Guam 1, Quitugua apparently argues that because these statements were not in affidavits introduced into evidence, they should not have been considered.}{ \insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 This contention was discussed above, and need not be considered extensively here, except to state that Quitugua has failed to provide any authority to expand the holding of }{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 .}{\insrsid16129652 \par }{\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [37]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Reversals of Rule 41(b) motions to dismiss are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s arguments on appeal do not overcome this high standard.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The trial court did not rely on an erroneous conclusion of law; moreover, there was evidence on the record which the court could have rationally based its decision.}{\i\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 See Town House}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2003 Guam 6 at } {\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 27.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Although dismissal may be harsh, we do not have the }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing of the relevant factors.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 GHURA}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2002 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 14 (quoting }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Santos}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1997 Guam 4 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 4).}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Moreover the authority to invoke the dismissal for failure to prosecute is vital to the efficient admin istration of judicial affairs and those in the best position to evaluate docket management are the trial judges.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 For these reasons, we affirm the trial court}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b).}{\insrsid16129652 \par }{\insrsid4460131\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 B.}{\b\insrsid4460131 }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The Motion for Reconsideration}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [38]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Denial of a motion to reconsider is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Ward}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 1998 Guam 1 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 10.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 This court has adopted three prongs to justify reconsideration:}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 where the trial court:}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 (1) is presented with new evidence; (2) committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid4460131 }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Id. }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 (quoting }{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [39]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s only argument regarding reconsideration is that the court below committed clear error or was manifestly unjust in failing to account for its role in the delays and in basing its decision on evidence not in the record.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Thus, he maintains that the court should have granted his motion for reconsideration.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [40]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s arguments in seeking reconsideration are identical to the arguments raised and rejected, }{\i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 supra}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , pages 13-18.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In its October 28, 2002 Decision and Order, the court below conducted a detailed analysis of the five factors and found they weighed in favor of dismissal.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 There does not appear to be clear error in this analysis.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Further, the dismissal does not appear to be manifestly unjust; the court had expressly warned Quitugua that further delays would result in dismissal.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 In sum, it cannot be concluded that the court abused its discretion dismissing the case.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 The court below did not base its decision to dismiss on erroneous conclusions of law, and there was evidence on which the court could have rationally based its decision.}{\insrsid4460131 }{ \i\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 See Town House}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 , 2003 Guam 6 at }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 27.}{\insrsid4460131 }{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration was properly denied. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 IV.}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4460131 {\b\insrsid4460131 \par }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 [41]}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 \tab We hold that the the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that dismissal was warranted, or in rejecting Quitugua}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 s arguments that its decision to dismiss be reconsidered. Accordingly, the decisions granting the Second Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss and denying the Motion for Reconsideration, and the Final Judgment, are hereby }{\b\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 AFFIRMED}{\insrsid16129652\charrsid4460131 .}{\insrsid4460131 \par }}