Opinion
Supreme Court Case No. CVA13-009
April 22, 2013, Decided. April 22, 2013, Filed
ORDER
This matter comes before the court upon the filing of a Verified Petition for Permission to Appeal ("Petition") on April 5, 2013. The Petition is made pursuant to Rule 4.2 of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure ("GRAP"). According to Rule 4.2(a)(1), the Petition must justify this court's grant of discretionary interlocutory appeal under the standard set forth in 7 GCA § 3108(b). After examining the relevant factors in section 3108(b), we have determined that the Petition should be GRANTED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the instant case, Plaintiff-Appellant Guam YTK Corporation ("Guam YTK") entered into a Development Agreement and Lease ("Lease") with Defendant-Appellee Port Authority of Guam ("PAG") relative to the construction, operation, and maintenance of a fisheries facility at Hotel Wharf. See Dec. & Order at 2, CV1170-12 (Mar. 12, 2013). Article 17, Section 17.1, of the Lease provides that "all disputes and controversies of every kind and nature between the parties . . . shall be submitted to final, binding arbitration." Id.; see also Pet. at 4 (April 5, 2013). On October 16, 2012, YTK filed a Complaint to Compel Arbitration in the Superior Court of Guam, asserting that all existing disputes between the parties fall within the scope of this provision and that the entire controversy should be subject to an order compelling arbitration, Dec. & Order at 1. In a decision and order filed March 12, 2013, the trial court denied Guam YTK's motion to compel arbitration. Id. at 5.
Guam YTK timely filed this Petition as a result. PAG did not file an answer as allowed by the rules. GRAP 4.2(b)(3). Guam YTK presents a single issue for review: Whether the Superior Court erred in denying Guam YTK's motion to compel arbitration where the Lease entered into by Guam YTK and PAG contains a provision wherein the parties agreed that all disputes and controversies between them, including issues regarding the validity and enforceability of the Lease, would be submitted to final, binding arbitration.
II. DISCUSSION
A decision and order denying a motion to compel arbitration is not made specifically appealable under Guam law. However, this court may, in its discretion, hear an appeal of such an order if it satisfies one of the criteria set forth in 7 GCA § 3108(b):
§ 3108. Appealable judgments and Orders.
....
(b) Interlocutory review. Orders other than final judgments shall be available to immediate appellate review as provided by law and in other cases only at the discretion of the Supreme Court where it determines that resolution of the questions of law on which the order is based will:
(1) Materially advance the termination of the litigation or clarify further proceedings therein;
(2) Protect a party from substantial and irreparable injury; or
(3) Clarify issues of general importance in the administration of justice.
7 GCA § 3108(b). An interlocutory appeal must satisfy at least one of these conditions, which exist to "ensure that such appeals are granted only when the necessity of immediate review outweighs the general policy against piecemeal disposal of litigation." Shin v. Fujita Kanko Guam, Inc., 2007 Guam 18 ¶ 7 (quoting People v. Angoco, 2006 Guam 18 ¶ 14) (alteration omitted). A threshold question is whether the issue on appeal will be a question of law. See. 7 GCA § 3108(b) (referring to "resolution of the questions of law"). In this case, the issue presented for appeal is purely one of law.
Guam YTK asserts that the grant of interlocutory review would protect it from irreparable injury that would result if Guam YTK were required to pursue its claim through the Claims Act before appealing the decision and order to this court, because it would be forced to litigate the merits of the dispute before this court could determine the proper forum for doing so. See Pet. at 13. In addition, Guam YTK argues that the loss of its bargained-for right to quickly and efficiently resolve its claims through a process to which PAG allegedly agreed would similarly result in irreparable harm. Thus, Guam YTK asserts, it meets the second prong of the interlocutory appeal analysis. Id. at 13-14.
Guam YTK states that the issue presented would also clarify an issue of general importance in the administration of justice, citing this court's opinion in Brown v. Dillingham Construction Pacific Basin Ltd., 2003 Guam 2. In that case, we stated that the resolution of whether an arbitration clause applies in a particular dispute will "clarify further proceedings" and "[c]larify issues of general importance in the administration of justice." 2003 Guam 2 ¶ 12.
III. CONCLUSION
Because the interlocutory appeal would involve purely a question of law, and because the issues on appeal would satisfy at least one of the criteria of 7 GCA § 3108(b), the Petition is hereby GRANTED. Guam YTK is reminded that, pursuant to GRAP 4.2, the date of this order shall be treated as the date of the filing of the notice of appeal, triggering all applicable GRAP deadlines. GRAP 4.2(d).
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of April, 2013.
/s/ F. Philip Carbullido
F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
Chief Justice
/s/ Katherine A. Maraman
KATHERINE A. MARAMAN
Associate Justice