Adrian L. Cristobal v. Jeffrey Siegel

Good Law
26 F.3d 1488·94 Daily Journal DAR 8709·1994 WL 275586·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15462·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4693
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 23, 199492-16642California4,903 words

Opinion

Opinion

Poole, J.

Opinion by Judge POOLE.

Appellants (“the Cristobals”) challenge an order of the District Court of Guam Appellate Division (“Appellate Division”) affirming the grant of summary judgment by the Superior Court of Guam (“Guam Superior Court”) in favor of Appellees Jeffrey Siegel, Francis Gill, Brian Hanohano, and Coral Pit, Inc. (“Coral Pit”). Coral Pit filed a motion for summary judgment in early January 1991. The Cristobals failed to file a timely memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. Guam Rule of Court 3(c) provides that failure to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to a motion constitutes consent to the granting of that motion. The Guam Superior Court deemed that the Cristobals had consented to Coral Pit’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 3(c) because the Cristobals did not file opposition papers and entered summary judgment in favor of Coral Pit. We reverse and remand.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This appeal arises out of protracted litigation regarding a lease agreement. The Cris- tobáis brought suit against Coral Pit in June 1988 alleging fraud, cancellation of instruments, forgery, and slander of title. Coral…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.