We have, on multiple occasions, applied this principle in refusing to address superfluous issues where a case has been reversed and remanded for further proceedings on other grounds. See Gutierrez v. Guam Power Auth., 2013 Guam 1 ¶ 64 (citing Cepeda v. Gov't of Guam, 2005 Guam 11 ¶ 51); People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 85. This court has already determined above, see section IV.A.1, that Rekha did not present sufficient evidence to state a prima facie case for summary judgment.

The trial court's denial of a motion for new trial is similarly reviewed for abuse of discretion. People v. Flores, 2009 Guam 22 ¶ 59. Lastly, courts elsewhere review a trial court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to stay enforcement under the abuse of discretion standard of review. Bains v. Moores, 172 Cal. App. 4th 445, 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309, 337 (Ct. App. 2009) (citing Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct., 79 Cal. App. 4th 876, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 505, 513 (Ct. App. 2000) (applying the abuse of discretion standard of review to determine whether the trial court erred in denying party's motion to stay proceedings in light of pending related criminal proceeding.)