IPI’s summary judgment motion should be denied, says Pacific Rim lawyer

  • Smaller Small Medium Big Bigger
  • Default Helvetica Segoe Georgia Times

ATTORNEY Colin Thompson said the federal court should deny Imperial Pacific International’s summary judgment motion.

Thompson, who represents Pacific Rim Land Development LLC in its lawsuit against IPI, stated that the motion should be denied “because the case has not proceeded to the discovery phase…and Pacific Rim has not conducted discovery.”

IPI has asked the court to dismiss the breach of contract lawsuit of Pacific Rim, saying that “no mediation has taken place.”

Thompson said his client “currently is unable to fully present facts about IPI’s intent, state of mind, and reason for its failure to mediate this case.”

“These facts may be essential to Pacific Rim’s opposition to IPI’s motion for summary judgment,” Thompson added.

He asked the District Court for the NMI to deny or defer consideration of IPI’s motion to allow time to conduct discovery.

In addition, Thompson said, Pacific Rim cannot identify the specific types of evidence it intends to present to the court “because such evidence is in the exclusive control and/or custody of IPI.”

He said the following discoverable information may be essential to Pacific Rim’s opposition to IPI’s motion, but is unavailable to Pacific Rim without discovery:

• IPI’s intentions when negotiating the dispute concerning the nonpayment of the amounts due under contract.

• IPI’s intentions when negotiating the dispute concerning the nonpayment of amounts due under the promissory note.

• IPI’s motives in delaying payments under the contract and promissory note.

• Whether IPI was acting in good faith when negotiating with Pacific Rim.

• Whether IPI intended to use the dispute resolution clause to delay or avoid payments due to Pacific Rim.

• Why IPI has not participated in mediation with Pacific Rim.

“As required under their contract, before taking the case to court, any dispute between Pacific Rim and IPI was supposed to go through mediation first,” said IPI attorney Joseph E. Horey who asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit until such time the parties have attempted to resolve the dispute through mediation.

Thompson said, “If IPI refused to negotiate or mediate in good faith, then Pacific Rim should be excused from any condition requiring negotiation or mediation. This evidence would show that it would be futile to mediate with IPI or negotiate any further and that the litigation is timely because any condition precedent to filing litigation should be excused.”

Pacific Rim filed a second amended complaint against IPI alleging breach of contract and breach of promissory note after the original lawsuit was dismissed by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona on Dec. 3, 2019.

Pacific Rim sued IPI for breach of contract for refusing to pay for services in the amount of $5.65 million after Pacific Rim substantially completed or completed the agreed-upon construction work for IPI’s casino-resort project on Sept. 30, 2018.

Pacific Rim also filed an application for a mechanic’s lien on the IPI hotel-casino project and on the land where it sits.

A mechanic’s lien refers to a security interest in the title to property for the benefit of those who have supplied labor or materials that improve the property.

In response to the lawsuit, IPI said Pacific Rim intentionally overstated the costs it incurred in the construction of IPI’s hotel/casino project in Garapan.

IPI also alleged that Pacific Rim fraudulently obtained from IPI a promissory note, which is therefore unenforceable, the casino investor added.

previous arrow
next arrow

Read more articles

Visit our Facebook Page

previous arrow
next arrow