In People v. Tennessen, 2011 Guam 2, the defendant was being prosecuted for theft and other crimes, and then-Attorney General Douglas Moylan was ordered not to participate in the prosecution of the case, as a result of a conflict of interest. 2011 Guam 2 2-3. The order was later vacated, but the trial court declined to do so nunc pro tunc, and Moylan sought to appeal that aspect of the decision. Id. 6. Moylan styled himself as a "Real Party in Interest" in the case, but did not enter an appearance as a party. Id. 5, 7. The Court stated that whether a party is in fact a "real party in interest" is governed by the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, and specifically GRCP 17, rather than the party's own designation. Id. 13. The Court looked to the analogous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") Rule 17 in determining its meaning, holding that the Federal Rules define it as "the party that has a substantive right that is enforceable under the applicable substantive law." Id. The Court explained that "ordinarily, an appeal from a judgment may be taken only by a party-litigant adversely affected by it, but occasionally when they are the real parties in interest, attorneys are entitled to a day in court." Id.