{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f180\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;
\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;
\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\listtable
{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1
\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0
\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}
{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0
{\leveltext\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname AutoList5;}\listid1}}{\*\listoverridetable}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1865617\rsid8158368\rsid9508377\rsid13766006}{\*\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\min16}{\version3}{\edmins3}{\nofpages9}{\nofwords4071}{\nofchars23209}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}
{\nofcharsws27226}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb360 \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\rsidroot13766006 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\insrsid13766006 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13766006 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13766006 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13766006 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid13766006\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\insrsid13766006 Pacific Superior v. Melwani}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid13766006 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {
\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1865617 9}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006  of 15
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13766006 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1865617 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13766006 
\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\pararsid1865617 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 GUAM HOUSING AND URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par a public body corporate and politic,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par Plaintiff,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 vs.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 PACIFIC SUPERIOR ENTERPRISES CORPORATION,}{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Defendant-Appellant,
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 and MANU MELWANI,}{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Defendant-Appellee.}{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA03-002 
\par Superior Court Case No.: CV0887-96}{\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 OPINION}{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Filed:}{\b\insrsid1865617  }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 December 17, 2004}{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid1865617  }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 2004 Guam 22}{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on November 5, 2003
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\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\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\ul\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant:}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par Wilson A. Quinley, Esq.
\par Law Office of Wilson Quinley
\par Ste. 500 I, GCIC Bldg.
\par 414 W Soledad Ave.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 :
\par Lawrence J. Teker, Esq.
\par Teker Torres & Teker, P.C.
\par 330 Hernan Cortez Ave.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Justice Pro Tempore}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 .}{
\insrsid1865617 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 CARBULLIDO, C.J.:}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [1]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab This is a partial appeal stemming from an interpleader action filed by Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 GHURA}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
) against Defendant-Appellant Pacific Superior Enterprises Corporation (}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 PSEC}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
) and Defendant-Appellee Manu Melwani, to determine the ownership rights to $411,978.15 owed by GHURA for the renovation and repair of GHURA}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s residential housing units.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Melwani}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 cross-claimed against PSEC}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 for breach of contract. The interpleader action was resolved by summary judgment on November 19, 1999, but was appealed pursuant to Guam Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b) certification and reversed by this court.}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 While the issue of who was entitled to the interpled funds was on appeal, Melwani sought summary judgment on his cross-claim against PSEC for breach of contract.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Melwani and granted a second Rule 54(b) certification.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 This appeal followed.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [2]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab 
For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the trial court correctly granted Rule 54(b) certification, and further, we hold that at the time of entry of judgment, the trial court was not subject to a stay by the District Court of Guam (}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 the District Court}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ).}{\cs15\super\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid13766006 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13766006   In accordance with section 1424 of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. }{\fs20\insrsid13766006 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006  1424) , the jurisdiction of the
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13766006 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 District Court of Guam}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006  (}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 
the District Court}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 ) shall include }{\fs20\insrsid13766006 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 that of a bankruptcy court of the United States.}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 
  The role of the District Court in the case at bar was through its jurisdiction, and while sitting as, a bankruptcy court pursuant to this provision.  Therefore, future references to the District Court in this opinion is specifically to the court}{
\fs20\insrsid13766006 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13766006 s jurisdiction as a bankruptcy court.}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
However, we hold that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the June 10, 1994 Agreement between the parties with respect to the issue of arbitrability, and therefore, we reverse.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Finally, we hold that the issue of whether PSEC waived its right to enforce arbitration is an issue to be considered by the arbitrator.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 I.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [3]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab PSEC, a local contractor, successfully bid on four contracts with GHURA to repair and renovate several of GHURA}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s housing units.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The approximate contract price for all four contracts was $1,517,804.00.}{\insrsid1865617  
}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 PSEC was required to provide a performance or cash bond to guarantee the completion of the projects, or in the alternative, provide a cash escrow in the amount of 20% of the contract price.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
PSEC entered into an agreement with Melwani, who agreed to provide the sum of $303,564.00 (20% of the contract price) for the performance or cash bond, and in return, Melwani would receive $257,266.00 or 16.94% of the gross aggre}{\insrsid1865617 
gate amount of the contracts.}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [4]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab PSEC failed to complete each of the construction projects on the dates specified in the contracts.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
GHURA informed Melwani in October of 1994 that PSEC had abandoned the projects and was in default on the contracts, and further informed Melwani that if the construction was not completed, Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s bond would be forfeited.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Melwani thereafter completed the construction projects.}{\insrsid1865617  }
{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [5]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On various occasions between March 14, 1995 an
d May 12, 1995, both PSEC and Melwani independently claimed that they were entitled to all payments from GHURA due on the contracts.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Each of the defendants thus demanded payment from GHURA.}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [6]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On June 16, 1996, GHURA filed a Complaint in Interpleader i
n the Superior Court of Guam against PSEC and Melwani, to determine the ownership rights to $411,978.15, the amount due on the construction contracts.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [7]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On July 1, 1996, Melwani filed his Answer to the Complaint in Interpleader, claiming entitlement to
 the funds, and cross-claimed against PSEC for $257,266.00, alleging that he entered into a bonding agreement with PSEC for the subject contracts and that he was owed $257,266.00 as a premium for such services.
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [8]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On August 8, 1996, PSEC filed its Reply to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s cross-claim and its Answer, Counter\_claim and Third Party Claim to the Complaint in Interpleader, alleging, }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 inter alia}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
, that Melwani was not its surety and claiming entitlement to all amounts alleged in the Complaint.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [9]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On May 15, 1997, pursuant to an Order Granting Interpleader and Discharging the Plaintiff, GHURA deposited into the registry of the Superior Court the amount of $411,978.15.}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The order provided that Melwani and PSEC
 would litigate, between themselves, their respective claims to the deposited funds, and further that Melwani and PSEC were enjoined from instituting or maintaining any claim or action against GHURA for the interpleaded funds.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [10]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On June 18, 1999, PSEC filed a motion for summary judgment in the interpleader action, which was granted by the trial court.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 After securing Rule 54(b) certification, the court}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s decision and order was appealed by Melwani.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 We}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 reversed and remanded in }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 GHURA v. Pacific Superior}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 2001 Guam 8.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The interpleader action is currently pending in the trial court.
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [11]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On December 15, 1999, Melwani filed the instant motion for summary judgment on his cross-claim for breach of contract.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
The trial court ruled in favor of Melwani on August 14, 2000.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 On December 12, 2000, the trial court also granted Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s motion for entry of final judgment as to his cross-claim, pursuant to Rule 54(b).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [12]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On December 28, 2000, PSEC filed for bankruptcy in the District Court Bankruptcy Division.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
This bankruptcy case was dismissed on April 11, 2001.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [13]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On April 23, 2001, Melwani filed certified copies of an Order and Judgment from the District Court, dismissing PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s bankruptcy case.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Subsequently, on May 8, 2001, the trial court entered its Final Judgment on the cross-claim, pursuant to Rule 54(b).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 A motion for reconsideration was filed by PSEC on June 13, 2001.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The motion was denied by the trial court on January 7, 2003.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 This appeal followed.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 II.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [14]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab This court has jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  3107 (1994), }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 as amended by}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
 Guam Pub. L. 27-31 (Oct. 31, 2003); Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  3108(a) (1994); 48 U.S.C. }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  1424-1(a)(2).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
PSEC appeals from a grant of summary judgment.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 We review the grant of summary judgment }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 de novo.}{\i\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Iizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int}{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 l (Guam), Inc.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 1997 Guam 10, }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  7.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 III.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [15]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab PSEC appeals from the trial court}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s grant of summary judgment in favor of Melwani.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Under Rule 56 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 A genuine issue of material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence establishing a factual dispute that requires resolution by a fact-finder. }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Iizuka,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  1997 Guam 10 at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  7.}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 A fact is material when it }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and [its] existence might affect the outcome of the suit.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Id.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  (quoting }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors, Ass}{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 n,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987)).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [T]he court must view the evidence and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the non movant.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Iizuka,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  1997 Guam 10 at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  8.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
If the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact, then summary judgment is properly granted.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 See Kim v. Hong,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  1997 Guam 11, }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  8.}{\insrsid1865617 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [16]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab PSEC raises several points of error on appeal.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
First, PSEC argues that the trial court erred in granting Rule 54(b) certification as to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s cross-claim.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Second, PSEC asserts that the trial court erred in entering judgment while the proceedings were subject to a stay issued by the District Court in PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s bankruptcy action.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Third, PSEC argues that the trial court erred in interpreting the arbitration provision in the June 10, 1994 contract and concluding that the instant dispute is not}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 arbitrable.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Fourth, PSEC argues that the trial court erred in finding that the June 10, 1994 contract was not unconscionable.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Fifth, PSEC asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s favor because the contract fails for lack of consideration.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Finally, PSEC argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s favor because he does not possess the appropriate surety business license and is barred from requesting judicial relief.}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [17]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab Melwani opposes each of PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s contentions.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 He argues, first, that th
e trial court correctly held that Rule 54(b) certification is proper in this case because the interpleader action is not based on the contract between the parties, which was on appeal at the time of the 54(b) motion, in December of 2000.}{\insrsid1865617 
 }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Second, he argues that the bankruptcy case was dismissed and therefore, the trial court properly entered final judgment in this case.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Third, Melwani contends that the trial court properly interpreted the arbitration provision to exclude this dispute from arbitration and further, PSEC has waived its right to enforce his right to arbitrate.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Fourth, Melwani argues that the money put at risk to secure PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s bids was consideration for the contract.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Fifth, Melwani asserts that PSEC 
waived the affirmative defense with respect to the business license issue, or alternatively, Melwani claims that he has the appropriate business licenses for entering into the contract with PSEC.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Melwani does not respond to PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s argument with respect to unconscionability.
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 A.\tab Rule 54(b) Certification}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [18]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab The first issue we address is whether the trial court erred in entering final judgment as to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s cross-claim, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, while the interpleader action is pending.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Specifically, PSEC argues that the trial court erred in entering final judgment as to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s cross-claim, pursuant to Rule 54(b), because the interpleader status is based upon the contract between Melwani and PSEC and the interpleader action is pending in the trial court.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Melwani asserts that because the interpleader action is not based on the contract between PSEC and Melwani, the court properly}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 entered final judgment on his cross-claim.
}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 We agree.
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [19]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab A trial court}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s Rule 54(b) certification as to one or more but fewer than all claims is to be upheld absent abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Davis v. Fendler}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
, 650 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1981). The }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 issuance of a 54(b) order is a fairly rout
ine act that is reversed only in the rarest instances.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 283 F.3d 1064, 1068 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Rule}{\insrsid1865617  54(b) states in relevant part:}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 When more than one claim for relief is pre
sented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one ore more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an
 express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and upon express direction for the entry of judgment.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par Guam R. Civ. P. 54 (b).
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [20]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab The above rule finds its source in Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 To satisfy the requirements of Rule 54(b) . . . the claim adjudicated must be a }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 claim for relief}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  separable from and independent of the remaining claims in the case.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Brunswick Corp. v. Sheridan}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 582 F.2d 175 (2nd Cir. 1978).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) in a case involving multiple parties and multiple claims is reserved for cases where
 the costs and risks of multiple proceedings and the policy with respect to judicial efficiency are outweighed by the need for an }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 See Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981).}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [21]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab The claim which has been certified by the trial court as final is Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s cross-claim against PSEC for breach of contract.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 This court previously held that Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s claim for the $257,000.00 is not related to the issue of entitlement to the interpled funds.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Pacific Superior}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 2001 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  19. Faced with a second 54(b) request, the trial court stated its reasons for directing entry of final judgment as to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s cross-claim:}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The Court finds that the contract cl
aim for two hundred and fifty-seven thousand dollars ($257,000) and whether Melwani was entitled to recover that amount is not inextricably intertwined with the [remaining] claims in this case.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
The contract claim under which the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Melwani has no bearing on whether PSEC received any credit for the encroachment bond, any deception and/or conversion.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Moreover, PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s claim involving its inability to make payments on its own 
taxes sound in tort, and likewise, has no bearing on whether Melwani is entitled to recover under its contract.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Therefore, the Court finds that the determination of the remaining issues will not moot or duplicate the determinations already made in this case.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Albeit that the policy disfavoring piecemeal litigations is a major concern of this Court, the particular issues in this case are unique and are not as inter-related as they first appear.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Moreover, the Court finds that the appellate Court will not have to address similar factual or legal issues in the judgments entered by this Court.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
The issue of interpleader and the interpretation of contract are two legally distinct issues, and have no bearing on whether a party will be liable for conversion, fraud and the like.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
The Court also finds that there is a concern of whether PSEC would be able to pay the judgment if the Court delays the entry of judgment until all issues in this case have been resolved.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Therefore, the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and grants Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s motion for entry of judgment.}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Defendant-Appellant}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s Excerpts of Record (}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ER}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ), tab 9 (Decision and Order, Dec. 12, 2000).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
The trial court therefore properly considered the costs and risks of multiple proceedings and the policy with respect to judicial efficiency and further determined that they were outweighed by the need for an early and separate judgment as to Melwani}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s cross-claims, particularly in light of the fact that the entitlement to interpled funds was still on appeal at the time that the 54(b) certification was granted on December 12, 2000.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
See Morrison-Knudsen Co.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 655 F.2d at 965.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Further, the trial court appropriately found that Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s cross-claim based on breach of contract is separate from, and independent of, the issues of fraud, conversion, and similar issues raised in the interpleader action.
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [22]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab This court in a prior appeal involving the main interpleader action noted that }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s cross\_
claim against PSEC for the payment of a premium for the bonding agreement does not implicate the interpleaded funds.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }
{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 GHURA v. Pacific Superior}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 2001 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  31.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Because Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s cross-claim for breach of contract is separable from and independent of the issues raised in the interpleader action, we hold that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding that there was no just reason for delay and in}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 directing entry of final judgment as to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s cross-claim against PSEC.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 See Brunswick Corp.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 582 F.2d at 182 (recognizing that a Rule 54(b) certification requires that }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 the claim adjudicated must be a claim for relief separable from and independent of remaining claims in the case}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ).}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [23]\tab }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion with respect to the trial court}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 B.\tab The Bankruptcy Action}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [24]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab The next issue we consider is whether the trial court was subject to a stay issued by the District Court action when it entered final judgment with respect to Melwani}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s cross-claim. 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [25]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On April 11, 2001, the District Court dismissed PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s bankruptcy case.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 See}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  ER, tab 11 (Order Dismissing Case and Barring Refiling for 180 Days).}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 On April 12, 2001, a Judgment was entered }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
in accordance with Order filed April 11, 2001.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ER, tab 11 (Judgment).}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The caption for the Judgment contained captions for both the bankruptcy case (Bankruptcy Case No. 00-00156) and the adversary case (Adversary Case No. 01-00003).}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ER, tab 11 (Judgment).
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [26]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab On May 8, 2001, subsequent to the District Court}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s entry of judgment, the trial court entered final judgment with respect to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s cross-claim for breach of contract.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [27]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab We reject PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s argument that the trial court erred in entering final judgment with respect to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s cross-claim.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The bankruptcy case was dismissed by the District Court prior to the trial court}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s entry of judgment in the instant case, and therefore, was no longer subject to a stay.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 We find no error in this respect.}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 C.\tab Arbitration }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [28]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab We next address whether the trial court erred in interpreting the arbitration provision in the June 10, 1994 contract between PSEC and Melwani.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 PSEC argues that the trial court erred in finding that the instant dispute is not subject to arbitration provision found in the June 10, 1994 contract.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Melwani disagrees and argues that the trial court properly interpreted the arbitration provision to exclude the instant}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 dispute from arbitration. 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [29]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab We review issues of contract interpretation }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 de novo}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 .}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 See Apana v. Rosario,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  2000 Guam 7, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  9.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Similarly, a trial court}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s decision regarding the scope of an arbitration clause is also reviewed }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 de novo}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 .}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Louis Dreyfus Negoce S.A. v. Blystad Shipping & Trading, Inc.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 252 F.3d 218 (2nd Cir. 2001).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [30]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
When deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter (including arbitrability), courts generally . . . should apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Gov}{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 t of Guam v. Pacificare Health Ins. Co.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 2004 Guam 17, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  26 (quoting }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S. Ct. 1920, 1924 (1995)).}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 In interpreting a written contract, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
the intent of the parties is ascertained from the writing alone.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Ronquillo v. Korea Auto., Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  2001 Guam 25, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
 10; }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 see also}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Camacho v. Camacho,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  1997 Guam 5, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  33 (}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
[I]n interpreting a clause of a contract to determine the intent of the contracting parties, whenever possible, the express language of the contract should control.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ); Title 18 GCA }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  87105 (1994) (}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible . . . .}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ); Title 18 GCA }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  87104 (1994) (}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ).}{\insrsid1865617 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [31]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab We recently recognized in }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Government of Guam v. Pacificare Health Insurance Co.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 2004 Guam 17, that }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 several presumptions apply when interpreting a contract containing an agreement to arbitrate.}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Id.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  26.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
The first of these presumptions underscores the strong policy favoring arbitration, and states that }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 a
ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Id.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  (quoting }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Kiefer Specialty Flooring, Inc. v. Tarkett, Inc.,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  174 F.3d 907, 909 (7th Cir. 1999)); }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 see also Sumitomo Constr. Co.,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  1997 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  14 (}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [A]ny doubt as to the arbitrator}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s jurisdiction is resolved in favor of arbitration.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 In other words, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ambiguities regarding the question of }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 whether}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  a particular merits-related dispute is arbitrable because it is within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  are construed in favor of arbitration.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Pacificare}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 2004 Guam 17 at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  26 (quoting }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 First Options}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
, 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S. Ct. at 1924 (determining that before concluding that the parties intended that an issue not be arbitrated, the intent to exclude such issues from arbitration must be clear)).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
For this reason, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 a court may not deny a party}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s request to arbitrate an issue }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Kiefer Specialty 
Flooring, Inc.,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  174 F.3d at 909 (quoting }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 United States Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
 363 U.S. 574, 582-83, 80 S. Ct. 1347, 1353 (1960)).
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [32]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab In contrast to the first presumption, the second presumption, which must be applied in interpreting a contract}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s arbitration provision, favors judicial determination with respect to the forum for determining the issue of arbitrability.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 In particular, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [t]he questi
on of whether a claim or dispute is arbitrable is generally considered one for the courts, and not the arbitrators, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably reserved the question for the arbitrators.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Pacificare}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 2004 Guam 17 at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  27.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Accordingly, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [c]ourts may conduct an independent determination of the question of arbitrability if the parties have not clearly agreed that
 the question of arbitrability is to be determined by the arbitrator.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Id.}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [33]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab In this case, the relevant arbitration provisions are found in sections 2 and 8 of the June 10, 1994 contract between the parties, which state:}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 2.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\ul\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Construction Projects/Profits}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 .}{\insrsid1865617 
 }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 With the support of bond money put up by MPM, PSEC has won bids for five construction projects as set forth at column one of Exhibit }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 A}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Set forth at columns one and two are the minimum and maximum profits for each of the five construction projects that }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 PSEC agrees to pay to MPM immediately following receipt of payment for completion of said projects.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Immediately}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
 shall mean on or before the close of the following work day, and work days exclude Saturdays and Sundays.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Prior to PSEC making payment to MPM for his share of profits he shall first consult with MPM to make sure both parties agree.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
If there is a disagreement on the mathematical computation, then both parties agree that the Ernst & Young accounting firm shall prepare calculations which both parties agree shall be final and binding on them.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Any fees incurred with retaining the services of Ernst & Young shall be borne solely by MPM.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
If there are any types of disagreement, independent of mathematical computation, both parties agree to submit their disputes to arbitration as set forth at Section 8 below}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 .}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 . . . . 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 8.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\ul\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Arbitration}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 .}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Arbitration, if called for pursuant to Section 2 above, shall be made in accordance with the rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association (}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 AAA}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ) 
pertaining to arbitration, which laws, rules, procedures and regulations are incorporated in this Agreement by reference, and the parties expressly agree to such manner of arbitration, and to abide by each and every provision of an award rendered pursuant
 to such arbitration.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par ER, tab 3 (Decl. of Manu Melwani) (emphases added).
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [34]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab The trial court, interpreting the above contract provisions, concluded that }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 the parties only intended to submit questions of profit to arbitration, and nothing else.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ER, tab 8 (Decision and Order, August 14, 2000).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Specifically, the trial court found: }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Because the minimum profit claimed by PSEC is a profit issue, the Court finds that it is not subject to arbitration.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }
{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ER, tab 8 (Decision and Order, August 14, 2000).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Our conclusion differs. Resolution of a pro
fit issue would have proceeded to Ernst & Young, while the resolution of any other issue would have proceeded to arbitration, under section 2 of the June 10, 1994 contract.}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [35]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab With the view that contracts containing an arbitration provi
sion must be construed in favor of arbitration, we find that the plain language of the contract indicates that the only dispute which is expressly }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 excluded}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
 from arbitration is a dispute as to mathematical computations.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 According to the contract, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 any types of disagreement}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
 outside of this exclusion for mathematical computation must proceed to arbitration.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Although the arbitration clause appears within section 2, which is headed }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Construction Projects/Profits,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  this same section delineates PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s obligations with respect to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s payment of profits.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 The dispute brought forth by Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s cross-claim is whether Melwani is entitled to his minimum profit as damages for a breach of contract action.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Such 
dispute is not merely a question of mathematical computation, and therefore, under the contract provisions, must proceed to arbitration.}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [36]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab Accordingly, because a court may not deny PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s request to arbitrate }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  we hold that the trial court erred in its determination of arbitrability.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Kiefer Specialty Flooring, Inc.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
, 174 F.3d at 909 (quoting }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  363 U.S. at 582-83, 80 S. Ct. at 1353).}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [37]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab Our holding with respect to the issue of arbitrability preclu
des our need to reach the other issues raised by Melwani on appeal regarding consideration, unconscionability, and the business license affirmative defense.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 D.\tab Waiver}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [38]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab Melwani argues that even if the parties were obligated to proceed to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the June 10, 1994 contract, PSEC}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 s delay in asserting its right to arbitrate this dispute amounted to a waiver of the right to compel arbitration.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [39]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab In }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Pacificare}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , we observed that }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 procedural }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  are presumptively }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 not}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Pacificare}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 2004 Guam 17 at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  29 (quoting }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  537 U.S. 79, 84, 123 S. Ct. 588, 592 (2002)).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
In particular, }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 the presumption is that the arbitrator should decide }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 allegation[s] of }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 waiver}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Howsam, }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 537 U.S. at 83, 123 S. Ct. at 592 (emphasis added) (quoting }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Moses H. Cone Mem}{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S. Ct. 927, 942 (1983)).}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [40]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab We therefore hold that the issue of waiver, which is a procedural question and a defense to arbitrability, must also proceed to arbitration.}{\insrsid1865617  }{
\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Howsam}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 537 U.S. at 84, 123 S. Ct. at 592; }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 see also}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Pacificare}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 , 2004 Guam 17 at }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  29 (stating that }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 issues of procedural arbitrability, }{\i\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 i.e.,}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  whether prerequisites such as time limits, notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, are for the arbitrators to decide.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 ).
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 IV.}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1865617 {\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [41]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab We hold that the trial court properly entered a final judgment with respect to Melwani}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
s cross-claim, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure and further hold that the trial court, at the time of entry of judgment, was not subject to a stay by the District Court of Guam.}{\insrsid13766006 
\par }{\insrsid1865617\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [42]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab With respect to the substantive issues on appe
al, we hold that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the June 10, 1994 contract between the parties, and for this reason, we }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 REVERSE}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 .}{\b\insrsid1865617  }{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 Relatedly, we hold that the issue of whether a party waived its right to enforce arbitration is a determination which must be made by the arbitrator.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
Our holding on the issue of arbitrability precludes our need to reach the remaining issues raised on appeal.}{\insrsid1865617  }{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid1865617 
\par }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 [43]}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 \tab Accordingly, we }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 REVERSE}{\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  and }{\b\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617 REMAND}{
\insrsid13766006\charrsid1865617  to the trial court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.}{\insrsid1865617 
\par }}