Supreme Court No. CVA18-022 in the SUPREME COURT of GUAM
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Supreme Court No. CVA18-022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM DFS GUAM L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, vs. THE A.B. WON PAT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, GUAM, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. ________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam Superior Court Case Nos. CV0943-14, CV0094-15, CV0198-15 ________________________________________________________ REDACTED PRINCIPAL AND RESPONSE BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE / CROSS-APPELLANT DFS GUAM L.P. SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO JANUARY 31, 2019 ORDER MAURICE SUH G. PATRICK CIVILLE JAY SRINIVASAN JOYCE C.H. TANG GIBSON, DUNN & CIVILLE & TANG, PLLC CRUTCHER LLP 330 Hernan Cortez Avenue, 333 South Grand Avenue Suite 200, Hagåtña, Guam 96910 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (671) 472-8868 Telephone: (213) 229-7260 Facsimile: (671) 477-2511 Facsimile: (213) 229-6260 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee / Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant Cross-Appellant Pursuant to the Court’s January 31, 2019 Order on Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross- Appellant DFS Guam L.P.’s Motion to Seal Portions of DFS Guam L.P.’s Principal and Response Brief filed January 15, 2019, DFS hereby files its redacted version of the Principal and Response Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant DFS Guam, L.P. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of March, 2019. CIVILLE & TANG, PLLC By: /s/ G. Patrick Civille G. PATRICK CIVILLE Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant DFS Guam, L.P. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, G. PATRICK CIVILLE, hereby certify that on the 1st day of March, 2019, I caused the Redacted Principal and Response Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross- Appellant DFS Guam, L.P. Submitted Pursuant to January 31, 2019 Order to be served electronically under the Supreme Court’s electronic filing system and pursuant to the electronic filing rules, addressed to the following: Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant / Cross-Appellee Antonio B. Won Pat Int’l Airport Authority, Guam Kathleen V. Fisher, Esq. Genevieve P. Rapadas, Esq. Jay D. Trickett, Esq. Sarah L. Fabian, Esq. Calvo Fisher & Jacob, LLP 259 Martyr Street, Suite 100 Hagåtña, Guam 96910 Dated this 1st day of March, 2019. CIVILLE & TANG, PLLC By: /s/ G. Patrick Civille G. PATRICK CIVILLE Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant DFS Guam, L.P. Supreme Court No. C IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM DFS GUAM L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, vs. THE A.B. WON PAT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, GUAM, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. ________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam Superior Court Case Nos. CV0943-14, CV0094-15, CV0198-15 ________________________________________________________ [FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL] PRINCIPAL AND RESPONSE BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE / CROSS-APPELLANT DFS GUAM L.P. MAURICE SUH G. PATRICK CIVILLE JAY SRINIVASAN JOYCE C.H. TANG GIBSON, DUNN & CIVILLE & TANG, PLLC CRUTCHER LLP 330 Hernan Cortez Avenue, 333 South Grand Avenue Suite 200, Hagåtña, Guam 96910 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (671) 472-8868 Telephone: (213) 229-7260 Facsimile: (671) 477-2511 Facsimile: (213) 229-6260 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee / Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant Cross-Appellant CERTIFICATE AS TO INTERESTED PARTIES The undersigned, counsel of record for DFS Guam L.P., certifies that to the best of his knowledge, there are no known interested parties other than the parties and attorneys participating in the case. These representations are made to enable Justices of the Court to evaluate possible recusal. Counsel also certifies that the judge presiding over this case in the Superior Court of Guam, Case No. CV0943-14, CV0094-15, CV0198-15, was the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas. No Justice of this Court participated in this case. Respectfully submitted this 15th day of January, 2019. CIVILLE & TANG, PLLC By: /s/ G. Patrick Civille G. PATRICK CIVILLE Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant DFS Guam L.P. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT DFS Guam L.P. submits the following disclosure with respect to its ownership: DFS Guam L.P. is a Guam limited partnership. The general partner is DFS Group Limited, a Delaware corporation. The limited partners are LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Micronesian L.P., a Guam limited partnership. These representations are made to enable Justices of the Court to evaluate possible recusal. Respectfully submitted this 15th day of January, 2019. CIVILLE & TANG, PLLC By: /s/ G. Patrick Civille G. PATRICK CIVILLE Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee / Cross-Appellant DFS Guam L.P. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................... 4 III. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............................................................... 5 A. Issues Presented by GIAA’s Appeal ..................................................... 5 B. Issues Presented by DFS’s Cross-Appeal ............................................. 6 IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................... 7 V. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................... 8 A. GIAA and Lotte Engage in Substantial Misconduct. ............................ 9 B. DFS’s First Protest ..............................................................................15 C. GIAA’s Executive Manager Signs the Purported Contract the Very Next Day (A Saturday) After Denying DFS’s Protest. ..............15 D. DFS Challenges the Denial of its First Protest. ..................................16 1. The Trial Court’s Dismissal of the Initial Action, and GIAA’s Ensuing Appeal. ..........................................................17 2. The Public Auditor Declines to Hear DFS’s Appeal Of The First Protest. .......................................................................18 E. DFS’s Second Protest ..........................................................................19 F. DFS’s Third Protest. ............................................................................20 G. DFS Brings Three Consolidated Protest Actions in the Superior Court. ...................................................................................................22 1. The First Protest Action. ...........................................................22 2. The Second Protest Action. .......................................................23 3. The Third Protest Action ..........................................................23 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page H. The Superior Court Correctly Treated This Proceeding as a Civil Action and Diligently Moved the Case Forward. ......................24 I. Summary Judgment. ............................................................................25 J. DFS’s Rule 59(e) Motion, and GIAA’s Efforts to Circumvent the Superior Court’s Rulings and February 5 Judgment. ....................26 VI. STANDARDS OF REVIEW .............................................................................28 VII. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO GIAA’S APPEAL .......................................................................................................29 VIII. ARGUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO GIAA’S APPEAL ................................32 A. The Superior Court Properly Exercised Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over DFS’s Protest Actions. ...........................................32 B. The Superior Court Correctly Adjudicated the Protest Actions as Civil Actions, Not as a Narrow, Deferential Review of the Administrative Record. .......................................................................34 C. GIAA’s Exhaustion Arguments are Baseless. ....................................36 1. This Court Can Affirm Summary Judgment to DFS in the Third Protest Action Based Solely on DFS’s § 1203.1(a)(2) Claim, Which DFS Indisputably Raised in the Third Protest. .......................................................................37 2. The Superior Court Properly Exercised its Broad Jurisdiction Under § 5480. ........................................................38 3. GIAA Relies on Inapposite Case Law. .....................................42 4. In Any Event, DFS Was Exempt from Exhausting Pure Questions of Law. .....................................................................44 D. The Superior Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment to DFS on its Solicitation Method and Procurement Record Claims Even Though These Claims Were Not Included in DFS’s Complaint. ................................................................................45 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page E. The Superior Court Correctly Rejected GIAA’s Timeliness Arguments as to DFS’s Third Protest. ................................................47 1. DFS Timely Filed its Third Protest Within 14 Days of Learning the Facts Giving Rise to the Protest. .........................48 2. DFS’s Timely First Protest Equitably Tolled the Time for Filing DFS’s Third Protest. .......................................................52 F. Even if DFS’s Third Protest Were Untimely, the Superior Court Still Properly Considered DFS’s Claim Concerning GIAA’s Failure to Adopt Criteria Required by § 1203.1(a)(2). .......................53 G. The Superior Court Correctly Granted DFS’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Denied GIAA’s Motion, in the Third Protest Action. .....................................................................................55