In Amsden v. Yamon, 1999 Guam 14 15-16, the Court held that dismissal of a complaint was proper where the plaintiff relied on a tolling statute to avoid his claims being barred by the statute of limitations, but failed to affirmatively plead specific facts invoking the statute. In Amsden v. Yamon, an amended complaint was filed after the statute of limitations had run, and the complaint failed to indicate the date of the original accident. Id. P 3. Furthermore, the complaint failed to "plead affirmatively specific facts" showing that tolling had operated to overcome the statute of limitations. Id. P 16. The phrase "affirmatively specific facts," id. P 12, appears to be our interpretation of language in Ponderosa Homes Inc. v. City of Ramon, 23 Cal. App. 4th 1761, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 26, 29 (Ct. App. 1994). However, Ponderosa only requires that one "plead facts which show an excuse, tolling, or some other basis for avoiding the statutory bar." Id. There is no suggestion that those facts be any more specific than required for an ordinary complaint. See id.