H.E.M. Trading Corp. v. Construction Services, Inc.

Good Law
13 F. App'x 696
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 17, 2001No. 99-17292; D.C. No. CV-99-00051-JSUCalifornia818 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

H.E.M. Trading Corporation (“HEM”) brought this diversity action against Construction Services, Inc., Allan Cobb, and Barry McComish (collectively, “CSI”) to recover: (1) monies owed under a consignment agreement between HEM and CSI (the “Agreement”); and (2) equipment belonging to HEM that was in the possession of CSI. On CSI’s motion, the district court dismissed the action on the ground that HEM did not have a license to conduct business on Guam and was therefore barred from maintaining a lawsuit in a Guam court. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with our disposition.

The Business License Law of Guam (“BLLG”), 11 GCA section 70101, et seq., requires any “person” 1 conducting “business” 2 on Guam to obtain a business license. 11 GCA §§ 70102, 70119. The purpose of this statute is twofold — (1) to “proteet[ ] the health, safety and morals of the people of Guam,” 11 GCA § 70102; and (2) “to obtain compliance and collection of gross receipts taxes,” Taijeron v. Kim, 1999 Guam 16 n. 5.

The BLLG imposes certain restrictions on persons who conduct business on Guam without a proper license. Relevant here, “[n]o person engaged in commercial…

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.