{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f43\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f44\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f46\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f47\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f48\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f49\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f50\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f51\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid10291321 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;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \ssemihidden \styrsid10291321 footnote text;}{\*\cs16 \additive \super \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden \styrsid10291321 footnote reference;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid10291321 footer;}{\*\cs18 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid10291321 page number;}{ \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 \slink23 \styrsid10291321 header;}{\*\cs20 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid10291321 headertext;}{\*\cs21 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid10291321 searchterm;}{\*\cs22 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid10291321 documentbody;}{\*\cs23 \additive \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \slink19 \slocked \styrsid10291321 Header Char;}{\*\cs24 \additive \i \sbasedon10 \styrsid10291321 Emphasis;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid811014\rsid862776\rsid1598413\rsid1972231\rsid2193419\rsid2309175\rsid2371452 \rsid2504626\rsid2506087\rsid3176464\rsid3422714\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid4160285\rsid4329331\rsid4331392\rsid4744076\rsid4815830\rsid4855016\rsid4931203\rsid5052173\rsid5062183\rsid5123780\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid6060947\rsid6160848 \rsid6514138\rsid6782860\rsid6953338\rsid7366506\rsid7483118\rsid7958375\rsid8016262\rsid8083724\rsid8270074\rsid8524331\rsid8598875\rsid8790013\rsid8866877\rsid9189166\rsid9452663\rsid9455426\rsid9776131\rsid10291321\rsid10712439\rsid10749241 \rsid11014019\rsid11292607\rsid11355540\rsid11404427\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12063525\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12921552\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid14055906\rsid14105686\rsid14108652\rsid14496123\rsid14510136\rsid14695321 \rsid14967201\rsid15032169\rsid15159555\rsid15297671\rsid15405516\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15864576\rsid15945946\rsid16592213\rsid16597937\rsid16671932}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info {\title \'93this is a quote, has said, of me saying \'91this is a quote\'92\'94}{\author ruddley_e}{\operator ruddley_e}{\creatim\yr2012\mo1\dy5\hr10\min16}{\revtim\yr2012\mo1\dy5\hr10\min25}{\version1}{\edmins9}{\nofpages13}{\nofwords5126} {\nofchars29219}{\*\company scims}{\nofcharsws34277}{\vern24689}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1008 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1440\dgvorigin1440 \dghshow1\dgvshow1\jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot10291321\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10291321 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10291321 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10291321 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid10291321 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \psz1\sbknone\linex0\headery1440\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid9112007\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqr\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9112007 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\lang1033\langfe0\langfenp0\insrsid10291321 Rapadas}{\i\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid1667944 v. }{\i\fs20\lang1033\langfe0\langfenp0\insrsid10291321 Benito and Guam Music, Inc.}{ \fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid1667944 , 2011 Guam}{\fs20\lang1033\langfe0\langfenp0\insrsid10291321 28}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid1667944 ,}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid13508531 Opinion}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid1667944 \tab }{ \fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid5073630 Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid5073630 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid10291321 13}}}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid5073630 of }{\field{\*\fldinst { \fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid5073630 NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid10291321 21}}}{\fs20\lang1033\langfe0\langfenp0\insrsid10291321 \par }\pard \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw10\brsp20 \tqr\tx9360\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9112007 {\fs20\lang1033\langfe0\langfenp0\insrsid10291321\charrsid13508531 \par }\pard \s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9112007 {\lang1033\langfe0\langfenp0\insrsid10291321\charrsid9112007 \par }}{\footer \pard\plain \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6253574 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs18\insrsid10291321 \par }\pard \s17\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid6253574 {\insrsid10291321 \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\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 LEONARDO M. RAPADAS, Attorney General of Guam, \par Office of the Attorney General, \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Petitioner-Appellee, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 v. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Deputy Director MARIE BENITO, in her capacity as }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Acting Director \par of Department of Revenue and Taxation, Government of Guam, and \par JOHN P. CAMACHO, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Revenue and Taxation, Government of Guam, \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Respondents. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 v. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GUAM MUSIC, INC., \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Intervenor-Appellant. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Supreme Court Case No. CVA10-003 \par Superior Court Case No. SP0141-08 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\pict{\*\picprop\shplid1025{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fRecolorFillAsPicture}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fUseShapeAnchor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn alignHR}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn dxHeightHR}{\sv 30}}{\sp{\sn dxWidthHR}{\sv 9360}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fStandardHR}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fNoshadeHR}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fHorizRule}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}}\picscalex936\picscaley6\piccropl0\piccropr0\piccropt0\piccropb0 \picw1764\pich882\picwgoal1000\pichgoal500\wmetafile8\bliptag133668226\blipupi-701{\*\blipuid 07f79d82720474aba73bff313c81978f}010009000003d000000006001c00000000000400000003010800050000000b0200000000050000000c023900450f040000002e0118001c000000fb0210000700 00000000bc02000000000102022253797374656d007560286b13289d350019e2587580015d75785fa513349d3500040000002d010000040000002d0100000400 0000020101001c000000fb02a4ff0000000000009001000000000440002243616c69627269000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000400 00002d010100040000002d010100040000002d010100050000000902000000020d000000320a5700000001000400000000003c0f380020003600050000000902 00000002030000001e0007000000fc020000000000000000040000002d01020008000000fa02050000000000ffffff00040000002d0103000e00000024030500 ffffffffffff35003c0f35003c0fffffffffffff08000000fa0200000000000000000000040000002d01040007000000fc020000ffffff000000040000002d010500040000002701ffff040000002d010000040000002d010000030000000000} \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GUAM MUSIC, INC., a Guam Corporation, \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Petitioner-Appellant, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 v. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 JOHN P. CAMACHO, as Director of the \par Department of Revenue and Taxation, Government of Guam, \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Respondent-Appellee. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Supreme Court Case No.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 CVA10-002 \par Superior Court Case No.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 SP0219-08 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 OPINION}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Filed:}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 December 29, 2011 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Cite as: 2011 Guam 28 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted May 27, 2011 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid2760303\tbllkhdrrows\tbllkhdrcols \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl \brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4680\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\pararsid10291321 {\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Appearing for Petitioner-Appellee:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 J. Patrick Mason, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Esq.}{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Office of the Attorney General \par Civil Litigation Div. \par 287 W. O}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Brien Dr. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910\cell }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Appearing for Intervenor/Petitioner-Appellant:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par Peter C. Perez, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par Lujan Aguigui & Perez, LLP \par DNA Bldg., Ste. 300}{\cs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 238 Archbishop Flores St. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid2760303\tbllkhdrrows\tbllkhdrcols \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr \brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx4680\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4788\clshdrawnil \cellx9468\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 BEFORE: KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Presiding Justice}{\cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid10291321 \chftn }{\insrsid10291321 }{\cf1\insrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart hit3}{\*\bkmkstart hit_last}{\*\bkmkend hit3}{\*\bkmkend hit_last}Chief Justice}{\cf1\insrsid10291321\charrsid13124816 }{\cf1\insrsid10291321 F. Philip Carbullido and Associate Justice Robert J. Torres were disqualified from this matter. Justice Maraman as the senior member of the panel was designated Presiding Justice.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ; MIGUEL S. DEMAPAN, Justice }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Pro Tempore}{\cs16\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \chftn }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Justice }{\i\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Miguel S. Demapan heard oral argument in this case. Prior to issuance of this Opinion, he retired as Chief Justice of the }{\insrsid10291321 Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Supreme Court.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ; ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO, Justice }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Pro Tempore}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 . \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 MARAMAN, J.: \par \par [1]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Intervenor-Appellant Guam Music, Inc. (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ) requests this court to review the decisions in SP0141-08 and SP0219-08.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Both cases pertain to the Department of Revenue and Taxation}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 DRT}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ) revocation of GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s licenses}{\cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \chftn }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Throughout the opinion, the term amusement device \'93license\'94 will be used. However, the Chapter at issue is entitled, \'93Tax on Amusement Devices,\'94 and furthermore, the provisions of the Business Privilege Tax Law provide administration and enforcement of the chapter. 11 GCA }{\insrsid10291321 \'a7\'a7 }{ \insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 26101}{\insrsid10291321 -26120 (2005)}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 .}{\insrsid10291321\delrsid8681130 }{\insrsid10291321 }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Therefore, although the usage of the term \'93license\'94 may seem as if amusement device \'93licenses\'94 should be administered and enforced by Title 11, Chapter 70, or the Business License Law, this is not the case here and the Business Privilege Tax Law sh all provide the available remedies when an amusement device license is revoked. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 for certain amusement devices.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In SP0141-08, the trial court denied GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Motion to Set Aside, Motion for a New Trial and Motion to Stay Proceedings because it held that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the court [was] unable to identify any practical relief that the setting aside of the order, judgment and writ would grant [GMI].}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Appellant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Excerpts of Record (CVA10-003) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ER2}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ), tab 5 at 4 (Dec. & Order, Jan. 25, 2010).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In SP0219-08, GMI was denied its Writ of Mandamus to compel DRT to reissue the licenses because GMI}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s petition }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 fail[ed] to identify which rights to property it claims it is entitled a vested property interest.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Appellant}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Excerpts of Record (CVA10-002) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ER1}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ), tab 3 at 7 (Dec. & Order, Jan. 28, 2010).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Oral argument in CVA10-002 and CVA10-003 were consolidated on the motion of the Attorney General (}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 AG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Order, May 17, 2011.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The matters in both cases are addressed in this consolidated opinion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [2]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We reverse the trial court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s finding of mootness in both cases.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We find that the trial court did not consider the administration and enforcement provisions found in Title 11, Chapter 26, Article 1 of the Guam Code Annotated , that apply to the taxes paid by GMI to operate the contested amusement devices.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 11 GCA \'a7 22101 (2005) and 11 GCA \'a7\'a7 26101-26120.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Further, the trial court should have provided GMI with the opportunity to present evidence and arguments on the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 sua sponte}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 finding of mootness.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In order to find mootness, the trial court should have determined whether GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s amusement devices were in fact illegal gambling devices.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 This is because although the court could not have ordered the reissuance of expired licenses, i t could have determined whether the licenses were properly revoked.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s right to operate the amusement devices would not have been properly revoked if the trial court found that the amusement devices were not gambling devices.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [3]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We therefore remand th is case to the trial court to consider what remedies, if any, are available to GMI under the Business Privilege Tax Law, Title 11, Chapter 26, Article 1 of the Guam Code Annotated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 I.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [4]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On May 29, 2008, DRT issued to GMI }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 License Non-Renewal Notices}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 to operate certain amusement devices.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ER1, tab 1 at \'b6 24 (Pet. Writ. Mand., Nov. 13, 2008).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On June 23, 2008, GMI appealed and requested that its licenses be reissued while the appeal proceeded.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On June 30, 2008, the Governor of Guam directed DRT to issue new licenses.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 DRT complied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI subsequently received new licenses on June 30, 2008. On July 3, 2008, then Attorney General Alicia Limtiaco issued a letter demanding DRT revoke the licenses issued, and on July 11, 2008, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel DRT to so act.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On August 18, 2008, Judge }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Pro Tempore}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Robert Klitzkie issued a Decision and Order granting Limtiaco}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Writ of Mandamus.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 A.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 CVA10-003}{ \b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [5]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On August 22, 2008, GMI filed a Motion to Inte rvene and a Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Order Entered.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On September 10, 2008, GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 ' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s motions to intervene and stay enforcement were denied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On September 30, 2008, GMI filed its notice of appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On August 24, 2009, this court reversed the denial of the motion to intervene and remanded the matter for further proceedings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Upon remand, the trial court dismissed GMI}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s motion for a retrial on the basis of mootness.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The trial court stated it was unable to identify any possible justifiable remedy.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The trial court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s decision is now on appeal in CVA10-003.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 B.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 CVA10-002}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par [6]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 While GMI waited for this court to review its appeal on the trial court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s denial of its motion to intervene in SP0141-08, GMI filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on November 13, 2008 to compel DRT to reissue the licenses.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The trial court issued a Decision and Order on January 28, 2010, stating that it was unable to identify any adequate or speedy remedy by which GMI could obtain relief.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The court stated that GMI failed to identify what property right it had to justify a granting of the writ requested. The court, therefore, denied the request.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI appeals from this decision in CVA10-002.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 C.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Issues on Appeal}{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par [7]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In CVA10-003, GMI appeals the denial of its motion for a new trial on the grounds of mootness.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI alleges the trial court adjudicated the case in a manner contrary to the standards for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure as laid out by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Duenas v. Brady}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 2008 Guam 27}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI also argues that the trial court misinterpreted the mandate of this court issued in CVA08-010.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI argues that the Supreme Court granted intervention for GMI to seek a more favorable resolution.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI alleges that the trial court did not do this because it neither set aside writ orders nor allowed GMI to fully participate in the case. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [8]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In CVA10-002, GMI appeals the dismissal of its petition for writ of mandamus on the grounds of mootness and lack of jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI enumerates what it believes to be live or actual controversies, mainly concerning the deprivation of due process. GMI also appeals the trial court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s dismissal of GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and its grant of summary judgment in favor of the AG.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lastly, GMI request s the Supreme Court to compel DRT to reissue GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s licenses. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 II.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 JURISDICTION}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [9]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 This court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment. 48 U.S.C.A. \'a7 1421-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 112-54 (2011)); 7 GCA \'a7\'a7 3107, 3108(a) (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Howev er, the trial court in this case did not enter a separate document setting forth the entry of a final judgment in SP0219-08 or SP0141-08 when the Notices of Appeal were filed for both cases on February 19, 2010.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 With regard to filing an appeal before a final judgment is entered, in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Quijano v. Atkins-Kroll, Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 2008 Guam 14, we stated,}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Under Rule 58(a)(1) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [e]very judgment and amended judgment must be set forth in a separate document}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 . . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 } {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Guam R. Civ. P. (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GRCP}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ) 58(a)(1) (2007).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 If no separate judgment is entered, Rule 58(b)(2)(B) allows a judgment to be effectively entered, for the purpose of the separate document rule, 150 days after entry of the underlying Decision and Order on the docket.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GRCP 58(b)(2)(B).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The Decision and Order granting summary judgment to Atkins-Kroll was entered November 30, 2007.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Therefore, a final judgment was entered for the purposes of the separate document rule on April 28, 2008. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GRCP 58(b)(2)(B).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Although the Notice of Appeal was prematurely filed, Rule 4(a)(2) of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure allow a prematurely entered Notice of Appeal to refer to the subsequently entered judgment. Thus, the appeal was timely and proper once judgment was effectively entered on April 28, 2008.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Quijano v. Atkins-Kroll, Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 2008 Guam 14 \'b6 5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In its briefs, the AG attempts to differentiate }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Quijano }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 from the instant case by arguing that in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Quijano }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 a judgment was entered.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Appellee}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s CVA10-002 Brief (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 AG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 ' }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Br. 1}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ) (Aug. 23, 2010) at 4; Appellee}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s CVA10-003 Brief (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 AG }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Br. 2}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ) (Aug. 23, 2010) at 5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The AG argues that in this case,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par Guam Music did not request the entry of a final judgment from the superior court as provided by GRAP Rule 58(d)(}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 A party may request that judgment be set forth on a separate document as required by Rule 58(a).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 )}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 And Guam Music did not file a renewed notice of appeal 150 days after the decision and order was entered on the docket.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par AG Br. 1 at 4; AG Br. 2 at 5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The facts in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Quijano}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , however,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 do not show that a final judgment was entered.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Quijano}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , this court held that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 a final judgment was entered for the purposes of the separate document rule on April 28, 2008,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 exactly 150 days after the Decision and Order was entered.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Quijano}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 2008 Guam 14 \'b6 5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Even if a separate document had been entered, this court decided to use the date 150 days from the Decision and O rder, rather than the date of the supposed entry of a requested final judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See id.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Furthermore, in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Quijano}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the appeal was seen as timely filed without a renewed notice of appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See id.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Thus, the AG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s argument that parties must file a renewed notice of appeal 150 days after the Decision and Order was entered on the docket is incorrect. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [10]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Appeals in both SP0219-08 and SP0141-08 were filed on February 19, 2010. Therefore, GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s appeals were timely and proper arising from July 19, 2010.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 As a result, this court has jurisdiction.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 III.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 STANDARD OF REVIEW}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [11]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In CVA10-002, GMI seeks review of the trial court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s dismissal of the petition for writ of mandate in SP0219-08.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 A trial court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s grant of a motion to dismiss a {\*\bkmkstart SR_769} {\*\bkmkstart SearchTerm}{\*\bkmkend SR_769}{\*\bkmkend SearchTerm}petition for writ of mandamus is reviewed }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 DCK Pac. Guam, LLC v. Morrison}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 2010 Guam 16 \'b6 6.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_1045}{\*\bkmkstart SR_1047}{\*\bkmkend SR_1045}{\*\bkmkend SR_1047}An order for }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_1050}{\*\bkmkend SR_1050}dismissal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 for }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_1053}{\*\bkmkend SR_1053}lack}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 of }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_1055}{\*\bkmkend SR_1055}jurisdiction}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 is reviewed }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Castino v. G.C. Corp.,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 2010 Guam 3 \'b6 14 (citing }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Amerault v. Intelcom Support Servs., Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 2004 Guam 23 \'b6 9}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [12]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In CVA10-003, GMI is appealing the trial court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s dismissal of its Motion to Set Aside, Motion for New Trial and Motion to Stay Proceedings.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 A trial court}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Midsea Indus. Inc. v. HK Eng}{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 g Ltd.}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 1998 Guam 14 \'b6 4 (citing }{ \cs24\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc.,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 840 F.2d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 1988)}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 .}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The trial court}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s }{\cs21\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_9195}{\*\bkmkend SR_9195}denial}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 of a }{\cs21\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_9198}{\*\bkmkend SR_9198}motion}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 for }{\cs21\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_9200}{\*\bkmkend SR_9200}new}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\cs21\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_9201}{\*\bkmkend SR_9201}trial is similarly reviewed}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 for abuse of discretion.}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 People v. Flores}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 2009 Guam 22 \'b6 59.}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lastly, courts elsewhere review a trial court}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s denial of plaintiffs}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 motion to stay enforcement under the abuse of discretion standard of review.}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Bains v. Moores}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,\~91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309, 337 (Ct. App. 2009)}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 (citing}{ \cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct.}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 505}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 513 (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Ct. App.}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 2000) (applying the abuse of discretion standard of review to determine whether the trial court erred in denying party}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s motion to s tay proceedings in light of pending related criminal proceeding.); }{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of A.K. & Kilbert}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 755 N.E.2d 1090, 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In reviewing a motion to stay proceedings, we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review.}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ) (citation omitted).}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\cs22\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [13]}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In both CVA10-002 and CVA10-003, however, the predominant ground for dismissal was mootness.}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Although this court has not established a standard for reviewing dismissals of actions on the basis of mootness, the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Ninth Circuit reviews dismissals on this ground }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Native Vill. of Noatak v. Blatchford}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 38 F.3d 1505, 1509 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing }{ \cs24\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Friends of the Payette v. Horseshoe Bend Hydroelec. Co.}{\cs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 988 F.2d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 1993)) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 A district court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s dismissal of an action on the ground of mootness is reviewed de novo.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Because the trial court found each case to be moot, this court only has before it the trial court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s analysis of mootness.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The standard of review for mootness, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 de novo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , will therefore be applied to each case. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart sp_999_4}{\*\bkmkstart SDU_4}{\*\bkmkstart _______HN_F2}{\*\bkmkstart B21994218132} {\*\bkmkend sp_999_4}{\*\bkmkend SDU_4}{\*\bkmkend _______HN_F2}{\*\bkmkend B21994218132} \par }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 IV.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ANALYSIS \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [14]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We begin with a discussion of when mootness can be found, and will next discuss the administration and enforcement provisions of the Amusement Device Tax and whether the revocation of GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s licenses is subject to a hearing under the Administrative Adjudication Laws (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 AAL}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lastly, we will discuss whether the tr ial court should have allowed parties the opportunity to brief the court on the issue of mootness. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 A.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 When Can Mootness Be Found?}{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [15]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In CVA10-003, the trial court stated that }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the most salient issue . . . absent from the 17 self-identified issues raised . . . is the mootness of any available remedy.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ER2, tab 5 at 3 (Dec. & Order).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In CVA10-002, the trial court stated, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par [T]he petition contains no assertion that a license for 2009-2010 was sought or revoked. Nor is th ere any assertion or argument, despite the instant motion arising after the 2009-2010 licensing year had begun and the 2008-2009 year lapsed, that the petition meets the capable of repetition yet evading review test reaffirmed by the Guam Supreme Court in 2007.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par ER1, tab 3 at 5-6 (Dec. & Order).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On the basis of the trial court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s finding of mootness of any available remedy, the trial court granted the AG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s motion to dismiss GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Petition for Writ of Mandate, which was the basis for appeal in CVA10-003, and denied GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Motion to Set Aside, Alternative Motion for New Trial and Motion to Stay Proceedings, which was the basis for appeal in CVA10-002.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [16]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 This court has stated that }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [t]he test for mootness is whether }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the issues involved in the trial court no longer exist}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 because intervening events . . . [have] render[ed] it impossible for the [reviewing] court to grant the complaining party effectual relief.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Tumon Partners, LLC v. Shin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 2008 Guam 15 \'b6 37 (quoting}{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In re}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 A. Minor}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 537 N.E.2d 7, 10 (Ill. 1989) }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ; }{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 see also}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{ \cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Sullivan v. McDonald}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 913 A.2d 403, 405 (Conn. 2007) (citing }{\cs24\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Private Healthcare Sys., Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 v.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\cs24\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Torres,}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 898 A.2d 768 (Conn. 2006)) }{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 (}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot.}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ) (internal quotations omitted)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ;}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In re Matter of Inspection of Minn. Auto Specialties, Inc.,}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn. 1984) (}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 If, pending an appeal, an event occurs which makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal will be dismissed as moot.}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ) (citations omitted); }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Furthermore, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [m]ootness can arise at any stage of litigation.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Town House Dep}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 t Stores v. Ahn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 2000 Guam 32 \'b6 9 (citing }{\cs22\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Calderon v. Moore} {\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\cs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996))}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Therefore, at any point, our courts may lose jurisdiction since }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [c]ourts may not give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \chftn }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 There is a developed body of jurisprudence that stands for the principle that newly introduced facts or issues may render a case on appeal moot. }{\i\insrsid10291321 See, e.g.}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid1577868 ,}{\i\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Davis}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 , 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)) (\'93(1) there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur}{\insrsid10291321 ,}{ \insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.\'94); }{\i\insrsid10291321 see }{\i\insrsid10291321\charrsid1577868 Simeon v. Hardin}{ \insrsid10291321\charrsid2387941 ,}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid1577868 451 S.E.2d 858, 866 (}{\insrsid10291321 N.C. }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid1577868 1994)}{\insrsid10291321 (citing }{\i\insrsid10291321\charrsid873885 In re Peoples}{\insrsid10291321 , 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (N.C. 1978))}{\i\insrsid10291321 }{\insrsid10291321 (\'93[D]uring the course of litigation it develops that . . . the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue, the case should be dismiss ed . . . .\'94); }{\i\insrsid10291321\charrsid1577868 Darring v. Kincheloe}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid2387941 ,}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid1577868 783 F.2d 874, 876-77 (9th Cir.}{\insrsid10291321 }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid1577868 1986)}{\insrsid10291321 (holding that after an inmate is transferred, and no \'93reasonable expectation\'94 nor a \'93demonstrated probability\'94 that the inmate would return to the prison against which he sought injunctive relief, the claim for injunctive relief was moot); }{ \i\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Meyer v. Strouse}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 , 221 A.2d 191, 192 (Pa. 1966) (holding that that the intervening expiration of the appellant\rquote s term of offi}{\insrsid10291321 ce rendered the appeal moot.).}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Moreover, this court has recognized that intervening events or changed circumstances that make it impossible for a reviewing court to grant the complaining party effectual relief will render a case moot.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [17]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Here, the changed circumstance is that the court may be unable to order reinstatement of the license that GMI seeks.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 This depends on whether the devices are in fact illegal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On December 10, 2009, Respondent Ilagan signed a declaration stating, }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par Since the time I signed the declaration filed on August 4, 2009, I have received sufficient information to verify that the devices that are the subject of this lawsuit are being used as gambling devices and therefore are not entitled to be licensed accord ing to 11 GCA \'a7 22202. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par AG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Br. 1 at 19.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Guam code prohibits machines or amusement devices set to make progressive or automatic payouts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 11 GCA \'a7 22202 (2005).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In Guam, a }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 gambling device means any coin operated device which, when operated, may return w innings (other than free games not redeemable for cash) of value to the user based partially or completely upon chance, by the operation of which a person may become entitled to receive winnings of value.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 9 GCA \'a7 64.20(b) (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Any gambling device sha ll be subject to seizure and forfeiture.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 9 GCA \'a7 64.20(c).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [18]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We find that it was reasonable to review the issue for mootness in light of DRT}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s determination that the devices were illegal.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Upon review, the trial court concluded that because GMI had not requested a remedy that the court could grant, the case was moot.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 As a result, it dismissed GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Motion to Set Aside, Motion for a New Trial and Motion to Stay Proceedings in SP0141-08 and denied GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Petition for Writ of Mandamus on the ground of mootness.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI, however, maintains that it is entitled to have licenses for its amusement devices reinstated pending completion of a formal hearing on this matter under the AAL.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We now examine whether GMI is entitled to a hearing under the AAL.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 B.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Does the AAL provide GMI a right to a hearing?}{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [19]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The AG argues that GMI}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s effort to reissue licenses for now illegal gambling devices would be futile.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 AG Br. 1 at 22.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The AG also argues that GMI loses its interest in the licenses since GMI is not entitled to have its devices registered in perpetuity.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 AG Br. 1 at 36-40.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 To substantiate this argument, the AG cites to}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Beer Co. v. Massachusetts}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 97 U.S. 25, 32 (1877), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Nw. Fertilizing Co. v. Vill. of Hyde Park}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 97 U.S. 659, 664 (1878) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Mugler v. Kansas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273 (1887)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The AG also cites authority stating that an unlawfully or mistakenly conferred benefit that is subsequently taken away when a statute is properly construed or changed is not a violation of due process.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 AG Br. 1 at 41.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Here, the AG cites }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lerner v.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Gill}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 751 F.2d 450, 459 (1st Cir. 1985) and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Glenn v. Johnson,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 761 F.2d 192, 194-95 (4th Cir. 1985).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 These cases will be discussed in turn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [20]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On the issue of licenses and permanent rights, the AG}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s citation to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, although relevant, is not directly on point.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 First, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Beer,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Nw. Fertilizing Co. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 and}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Mugler}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 deal with subsequent laws passed by a state legislature that voided an existing contract or took away an existing right.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Beer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , the voided contract was the plaintiff}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s charter, granted by the Massachusetts legislature, giving it the right to manufacture and sell alcohol.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Beer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 97 U.S. at 29-31.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The Supreme Court in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Beer }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 allowed a subsequent law passed by the Massachusetts legislature prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors to repeal the plaintiff}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s charter.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 31-33}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 .}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Nw. Fertilizing Co.,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the plaintiff had the right to manufacture and transport agricultural fertilizer matter.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Nw. Fertilizing Co.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 97 U.S. at 663-64.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Here, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a change in the law by the Illinois legislature granting neighboring townships the power to enact restrictive measures against the fertilizer plant.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 This change in the law led to the effective halt of the origin ally chartered activity.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 665.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lastly, in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Mugler,}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 four years after the plaintiff constructed a brewery, the legislature passed a law that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Mugler}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 8 S. Ct. at 273-74.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The Supreme Court in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Mugler}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 upheld j udgments against him for violating the new law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Mugler}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 123 U.S. at 675.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [21]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In contrast to the case at hand, all three cases cited by the AG concerned a change in law handed down by a legislature.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In this case, the change in law was merely a change in opinion as to legality of an amusement device as determined by the Director of the Department of Revenue and Taxation.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [22]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 With regard to the unlawfully or mistakenly conferred benefit argument, the AG cites to }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lerner v. Gill}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 and }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Glenn v. Johnson}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 AG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Br. 1 at 41.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lerner,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the plaintiff relied on a previous interpretation of the parole statute which allowed him eligibility for parole after ten years.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lerner}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 751 F.2d at 453.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The plaintiff was transferred to a minimum security facility, receiving certain benefits as a result, and his family moved closer to him.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 A subsequent interpretation of the statute sent him back to the maximum security facility.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The plaintiff argued that this was a violation of his due process rights since his parole eligibility was withheld.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 457.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The First Circuit stated that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [o]nly in rare circumstances have courts allowed the misconstructions of officials to estop the proper execution of state or federal law[.]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 459.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Similarly, in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Glenn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , the Fou rth Circuit read a parole statute strictly, as opposed to the more humane way in which the Parole Commission and the trial court approached the statute.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Glenn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 761 F.2d at 193-94.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 As a result, the plaintiff, and several other prisoners who initially were eligible for parole after ten years had to wait a quarter of their determinate sentence, which in the plaintiff}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s case was twenty-eight and three fourths years.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 193.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The Fourth Circuit described the situation by stating, }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [a] wrong turn near the outset of a journey usually extends the trip unnecessarily.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 That is what happened here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 193.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [23]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lerner }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Glenn}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , much like the other cases presented by the AG, are helpful, but do not determine the outcome here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Both c ases pertain to interpretations of parole statutes.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Moreover, both cases rely on subsequent interpretations of a statute and not a re-evaluation of the subject of the statute.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Lastly, a prisoner}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s right to a parole hearing concerns a prisoner}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s liberty interest}{\cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \chftn }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 }{ \i\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 See}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 }{\i\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Jancsek v. Oregon Bd. of }{\i\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Parole}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid6647378 ,}{ \b\i\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 }{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 833 F.2d 1389, 1389-90 (9th Cir. 1987) }{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 (}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \'93 We need not decide the threshold issue of whether the Oregon }{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 parole}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 statute confers a liberty interest entitling prisoners to }{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 due}{ \fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 }{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 process}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 protection in the setting of release dates. Instead, we assume for the purposes of this decision that prisoners have such a liberty interest}{\fs20\insrsid10291321 [}{\fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 .}{\fs20\insrsid10291321 ]}{ \fs20\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \'94)}{\fs20\insrsid10291321 (internal citation omitted).}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 -- something not at stake in this case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_3552}{\*\bkmkstart SR_3564}{\*\bkmkstart SR_3573}{\*\bkmkstart SR_3574}{\*\bkmkend SR_3552}{\*\bkmkend SR_3564}{\*\bkmkend SR_3573}{\*\bkmkend SR_3574} \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [24]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The more important question that the AG never addressed, however, is whether GMI is entitled to a hearing under Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s AAL.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Although our AAL}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 sets out the procedures for a hearing if licenses are revoked, it does not necessarily follow that there is a }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 right}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 to a hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 5 GCA \'a7 9202 (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [25]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In some jurisdictions, the administrative adjudication laws are clear in providing a right to a hearing when a renewal of a license is denied or a license is revoked.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See, e.g.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 5 M.R.S.A. \'a7 10003(1)}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 (2002) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [No agency may refuse to] renew any license unless it has afforded the licensee either an opportunity for an agency hearing in conformity with [Maine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Administrative Procedure Act] or an opportunity for a hearing in the District Court. . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ); N.J. Stat. Ann. \'a7 52:14B-11 (1995) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 No agency shall revoke or refuse to renew any license unless it has first afforded the licensee an opportunity for hearing. . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In contrast, Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Administrative Adjudication Law provides as follows:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK3}{\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK4} The procedure of any agency shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of this Title in any proceeding before an agency {\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK3}{\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK4} in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an agency hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par 5 GCA \'a7 9200 (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Illinois}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 statute is worded in a similar manner.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Its statute states that }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [w]hen any licensing is required by law to be preceded by notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the provisions of this A ct concerning contested cases shall apply.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 100/10-65.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On the basis of this language, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that this section did not establish a right to a hearing; rather, it directed that }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 procedural requirements apply where such a hearing is otherwise legally required. . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Borg-Warner Corp. v. Mauzy}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 427 N.E.2d 415, 418 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Mauzy}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the legal requirement of a hearing prior to agency action was to be found in Section 402(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Act. . . .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 419.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 After an analysis of the act, the court found that the party whose license was not renewed was }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 not}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 entitled to a hearing. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 420.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [26]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In Guam, the law pertaining to the r egistration of amusement devices is found in 11 GCA {\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK1}{\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK2}\'a7{\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK1}{\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK2}\'a7 22201-22211 (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Chapter 22 of Title 11 discusses the registration and liabilities of amusement devices for tax purposes.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 11 GCA \'a7\'a7 22202-22206.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 This chapter c ontains much of the law regarding what amusement devices can be registered and how licenses are issued.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 It was therefore pursuant to this chapter that DRT revoked GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s licenses.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Record on Appeal (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 RA}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ) at 52 \'b6 6 (Pet. Writ. Mand. July 11, 2008).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Citing to 11 GCA \'a7 22202, DRT states, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 pursuant to 11 GCA \'a7 22202, no slot machine or amusement device set to make progressive or automatic payouts shall be licensed or operate.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In addition to what type of amusement devices can be registered, this chapter also explains the consequences of the failure to register amusement devices.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Section 22211, for instance, provides that }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ] }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ny}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 revenue producing or revenue generating amusement device that is }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 not}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 registered and licensed according to this Chapter, }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 shall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 be subject to seizure and confiscation.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 11 GCA \'a7 22211.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The chapter adds that }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [t]he owner of such device }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 shall}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 be fined [$5,000.00] for each confiscated amusement device . . . [and] }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 shall}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 bear all the costs of the storage, handling, destruction and disposal of such device.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 11 GCA \'a7 22211 (emphases in original).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 No where in this chapter, however, is there a discussion on how to appeal a determination by DRT that an amusement device is illegal, or how to appeal a revocation of a license.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [27]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Section 22101, the }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Administration and Enforcement}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 provision, states that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [t]he provisions of Chapter 26, Article 1, of this Title . . . shall, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, apply to taxes imposed under this Chapter.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 11 GCA \'a7 22101.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Title 11, Chapter 26 of the Guam Code Annotated , otherwise known as the Business Privilege Tax Law, therefore, provides added enforcement provisions to this chapter of the code.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Chapter 26, however, contains no explicit clause on how to appeal a revocation of an amusement device license or appeal a determination by DRT that an amusement device is illegal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 11 GCA \'a7\'a7 26101-26120.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 General Provisions}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 of the Business Privilege Tax Law, the right to an informal hearing is established if a taxpayer or person believes that he has been aggrieved by a tax assessment under this section of the code.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 11 GCA \'a7 26105 (2005).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 There is no discussion of a right to a formal hearing, however, in Article 1 of Chapter 26.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [28]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 On the other hand, with regard to certa in other types of licenses in the Guam Code, the revocation of a license or a denial of a renewal prompts a hearing under the Administrative Adjudication Law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See, e.g.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 21 GCA }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \'a7}{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 70117}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart DO_TE}{\*\bkmkend DO_TE}(a) (2005) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In every case where it is proposed to refuse to . . . }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 renew}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_266}{\*\bkmkend SR_266} a license, the Contractors License Board }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 shall}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 give the person concerned notice and }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 hearing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_280}{\*\bkmkend SR_280} in conformity with the Administrative Adjudication Law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 );}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 22 GCA }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \'a7 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 32121(g) (2005) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 No certificate of registration or authori zation [of Professional Engineers, Architects or Land Surveyors] shall be suspended, revoked or denied }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 renewal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_742}{\*\bkmkend SR_742} by the Board, except after a }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 hearing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 {\*\bkmkstart SR_749}{\*\bkmkend SR_749} in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Adjudication Law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ); 10 GCA }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \'a7}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 7123}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 (a) (2005) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 No nursing home license may be suspended, revoked, denied or renewal denied without a hearing . . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Furthermore, a number of sections in the Business License Law discuss the requirement for a }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 formal hearing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 if a general Business license is revoked.}{\cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \chftn }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 In many sections of Business License Law, the revocation of a business license requires a \'93formal hearing. \'94 }{\i\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 See}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 11 GCA }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \'a7 70120}{\insrsid10291321 (2005)}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 (revoking license when it is found that the business is being operated inimical to public interest);}{\insrsid10291321 }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 11 GCA }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \'a7}{\insrsid10291321 }{ \insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 70127}{\insrsid10291321 (2005)}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 (revoking a license when a business fails to certify the intended departure of any alien labor); }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 11 GCA }{ \insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \'a7}{\insrsid10291321 }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 70129}{\insrsid10291321 (2005)}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 (revoking a license when the business engages in employment discrimination). }{ \insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Section 70131 describes in greater detail what a formal hearing entails: }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li720\ri720\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Any person engaging in, transacting, conducting, continuing, doing, or carrying on a business within Guam which is otherwise required by law to have a current business license and, as may be required by all applicable laws of Guam, a certificate of authority from the Director of the Department of Revenue and Taxation, or other applicable regulating agency or board, but does not have one, shall be closed promptly by the Department of Revenue and Taxati on, }{\i\insrsid10291321\charrsid873885 after a hearing pursuant to the Administrative Adjudication Law}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 , until all required returns are filed and all taxes paid or arrangements are made to pay them . . . \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 11 GCA }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \'a7 70301(a)}{\insrsid10291321 (2005)}{ \insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 (emphasis added). In contrast, no where in the registration provision of amusement devices (11}{\insrsid10291321 GCA}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 , Chapter 22) or the Business Privilege Tax Law (11}{ \insrsid10291321 GCA}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 , Chapter 26) is the revocation of a license to operate an amusement device subject to a \'93formal hearing.\'94 The closest right one has to a hearing is an \'93informal hearing\'94 when the business owner disagrees with an assessment under the Business Privilege License Law. 11 GCA \'a7 26105. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [29]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Although DRT, in a letter to GMI revoking its licenses, states that there is a right to a hearing under the Administrative Adjudication Law, our review of 11 GCA }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \'a7\'a7 22101-22211}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 and 11 GCA \'a7\'a7 26101-}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 26120}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 leads us to conclude that DRT was incorrect.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Br. 1 at 6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In this case, GMI has lost its individual amusem ent device licenses.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The revocation of individual amusement device license does not trigger the right to a }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 formal hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Only an }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 informal hearing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 is allowed when a party disagrees with a tax assessment, and presumably, the result of this informal hearing is appealable to the Superior Court of Guam.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 11 GCA \'a7 26105.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 This parallels the manner in which Business Privilege Tax laws operate elsewhere.}{ \cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \chftn }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 In other jurisdictions, a formal administrative hearing is not provided when a business privilege taxpayer disagrees with the actions of the tax authority. Instead, the taxpayer seeks remedy at the trial court. }{\i\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 See}{\i\insrsid10291321 , e.g.}{\insrsid10291321 ,}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 D}{ \insrsid10291321 .}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 C}{\insrsid10291321 .}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 }{\insrsid10291321 Code}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \'a7 47-3303}{\insrsid10291321 (2011)}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 (}{ \insrsid10291321 \'93}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Any person aggrieved by any assessment by the District of any}{\insrsid10291321 . . .}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 business privilege . . . tax or taxes . . . may within 6 months after the date of such assessment appeal from the assessment to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia}{\insrsid10291321 }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 .}{\insrsid10291321 . . .\'94}{ \insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 ); }{\i\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 Ad Hoc Comm}{\i\insrsid10291321 .}{\i\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 for Keeping New Brighton Progressive v. Borough of New Brighton}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 , 471 A.2d 609}{\insrsid10291321 (Pa. }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 1984}{\insrsid10291321 )}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 (}{\insrsid10291321 finding that w}{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 hen a committee challenged the borough\rquote s business privilege tax, the common pleas court ruled on the committee\rquote s petition without an evidentiary hearing). }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [30]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 After a review of the law, we find that GMI is not entitled to a hearing pursuant to the procedures set forth in the AAL.}{\cs16\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s15\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs16\super\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 \chftn }{\insrsid10291321\charrsid8782761 GMI argues that this court should mandate DRT to reissue GMI\rquote s licenses until the completion of AAL proceedings. GMI\rquote s Br. 1 at 29. Even if this were proper procedure under the AAL, GMI\rquote s licenses will not b e reissued because GMI is not entitled to a hearing under the AAL.}{\insrsid10291321 }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Because GMI is not entitled to a hearing under the AAL, we remand this case to the trial court to determine what remedies are available to GMI, including any remedies under the Business Privilege Tax, Title 11, Chapter 26, Article 1 of the Guam Code Annotated.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We therefore need not address the individual issues raised in CVA10-002 concerning whether the trial court erred in denying GMI}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Petition for Writ of Mandate, in dismissing GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s petition for Writ of Mandate, or in granting summary judgment in favor of the AG.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We are not herein mandating DRT to reissue GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s licenses.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Similarly, we need not address the issues raised in CVA10-003, namely, whether the trial court erred in denying GMI}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Motions to Set Aside, for New Trial, and to Stay Enforcement Proceedings or for Rule 60(b) relief on the ground of mootness.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Nor do we reach the issue of whether the trial court violated our mandate issued in CVA08-010.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 C.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Should the Trial Court Allow Parties to Brief the Court o n Mootness?}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par [31]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In the past, this court upheld trial court decisions that did not extensively address the merits of a motion when the trial court found the underlying basis for the motion was moot.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 See Duenas v. Brady}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 2008 Guam 27 \'b6 29 (finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s denial of a motion to set aside its dismissal of the complaint); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Santos v. Carney}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 1997 Guam 4 \'b6 10 (finding that it is not }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 per se}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 abuse of discretion to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute without first issuing advance warnings or lesser sanctions).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [32]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Courts elsewhere also have great latitude in dismissing cases }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 sua sponte}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , but exercise caution when such a dismissal denies a party the opportunity to respond.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Doe on Behalf of Doe v. St. Joseph}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Hosp. of Fort Wayne}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 788 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1986), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 overruled}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 on other grounds by}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Alexander v. Rush N. Shore Med. Ctr.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 101 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 1996) (warning that }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 sua sponte}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 dismiss als on the grounds of 12(b)(6) without prior notice or opportunity to be heard are }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 hazardous.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Neiderhiser v. Borough of Berwick}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,\~840 F.2d 213, 216 n.6\~(3rd Cir. 1988) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 While the district court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s consideration of the jurisdictional issue }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 sua sponte}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 was proper, the court did not afford the parties the opportunity to brief or present evidence on this issue . . . [and we find this] . . . to be improper.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Prakash v. Am. Univ.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ,}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 727 F.2d 1174, 1179-80 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 (D.C. Cir. 1984)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 (}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The court has considerable latitude in devising the procedures it will follow to ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction. . . .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [It] must, however, afford the nonmoving party }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 an ample opportunity to . . . present evidence relevant to the existence of jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '"}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [33]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In SP0219-08, the trial court cited to Rule 12(c) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [a]fter the pleadings are closed . . . [i]f, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside of the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as a motion for summary judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Guam R. Civ. P. 12(c).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The trial court further stated }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 that parties have presented documents and affidavits outside the pleadings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 ER1, tab 3 at 4 (Dec. & Order).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The trial cour t, therefore, reviewed the AG}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s motion to dismiss using the summary judgment standard.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 } {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Addressing the summary judgment standard, the trial court stated that if }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the movant can demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on allegations contained in the pleading but must produce at least some significant probative evidence to support the pleading.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 (citing }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Edwards v. Pac. Fin. Corp.,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 2000 Guam 27 \'b6 7).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 The court ultimately held that the relief G MI requested (the June 2008-July 2009 licenses) was moot and that it is undisputed that GMI had not requested licenses to be reissued for the present year.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 5-6.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 As a result, the trial court found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 at 6.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [34]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI is not entitled to a hearing under the AAL but this does not prevent GMI from seeking review of DRT}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s actions in the Superior Court.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Limtiaco v. Camacho}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 , 2009 Guam 7, this court found that GMI had a }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 significantly protectable }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 interest }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 in its gaming licenses which were connected to its ownership of property, i.e. the gaming machines . . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 2009 Guam 7 \'b6 31.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 DRT revoked GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s June 2008 - July 2009 licenses on the basis that the amusement devices were illegal gambling devices.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Moreover, GMI was never given a hearing on this issue.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 Therefore, we find that the trial court erred in failing to allow GMI to present evidence and brief the court on the mootness issue. The trial court should have allowed GMI the opportunity to do so because the outstanding issue of whether the licenses were properly revoked has never been adjudicated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 V.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 CONCLUSION}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid10291321 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par [35]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We hold th at the trial court erred in finding mootness because it did not consider the remedies GMI was entitled to under the administration and enforcement guidelines of Article 1 of the Business Privilege Tax Law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We further hold that the trial court should have provided GMI with the opportunity to present evidence and arguments on the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 sua sponte}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 finding of mootness.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 In order to find mootness, the trial court should have determined whether GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s amusement devices were in fact illegal gambling devices.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 This is be cause although the trial court could not have ordered reissuance of expired licenses, it could have determined whether the licenses were properly revoked.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 GMI}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s right to operate the amusement devices would not have been properly revoked if the trial court found that the amusement devices were not gambling devices.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 [36]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 For the reasons set forth above, we }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 REVERSE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the trial court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 '}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 s Decision and Orders in SP0219-08 and SP0141-08.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 We }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 REMAND}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 the matters for determination of what remedies GMI is entitled to, including any remedies under the Business Privilege Tax, Title 11, Chapter 26, Article 1 of the Guam Code Annotated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10291321\charrsid10291321 \par }}