Marianas Variety

Last updateThu, 21 Nov 2019 12am







    Wednesday, November 20, 2019-3:57:11A.M.






Font Size


Pacific Rim lawsuit ‘usurious,’ says IPI

PACIFIC Rim Land Development LLC’s lawsuit is “usurious,” says Imperial Pacific International attorney Phillip J. Tydingco.

In response to Pacific Rim’s complaint, IPI, through Tydingco, denied all allegations and demanded a jury trial.

Pacific Rim sued IPI in federal court for breach of construction contract and breach of promissory note.

Represented by attorney Colin Thompson, Pacific Rim also asked the court for a mechanic’s lien against the real property occupied by the hotel-casino.

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

Pacific Rim named IPI and five unknown individuals as defendants in the civil lawsuit, which seeks an award of contract damages in the amount of $10 million; $5.65 million mechanic’s lien plus interest and cost; an additional award of $5.65 million due under the promissory note; and interests, legal fees and other relief the court may deem proper.

In answer to the complaint, Tydingco admits that Pacific Rim was a general contractor for IPI, but denies all other allegations, inferences and conclusion in the lawsuit “as they mischaracterize, misstate, and or contain material omissions relating to the dealings and contractual obligations between IPI and Pacific Rim.”

IPI admits that Pacific Rim requested payment of amounts it claimed were due, “but such requests were not in compliance with Pacific Rim’s contractual obligations governing dispute resolution set forth in Construction Contract Article 20 which, pursuant to Construction Contract Article 15, survived termination of the construction contract.”

IPI also does not deny the provisions contained in the promissory note, but denies Pacific Rim’s “unqualified legal and factual characterization and interpretation of the note and the factual circumstances relating to the note.”

IPI likewise denies that it authorized Pacific Rim to perform any services outside the scope of the construction contract.

“IPI does not admit that the services performed by Pacific Rim were in full compliance with industry standards and/or its obligations and duties under the construction contract,” Tydingco said, as he asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

Moreover, Tydingco said the promissory note lacks sufficient consideration and the interest Pacific Rim seeks to collect is usurious and violates 4 CMC§ 5301.

According to the lawsuit, Pacific Rim stopped work on the casino construction project because IPI refused to pay the amount owed to Pacific Rim for work completed under the construction contract.

The lawsuit stated that on Sept. 21, 2018, the plaintiff and the defendant executed a notice of mutual termination.

Pursuant to the notice of mutual termination, the defendant agreed to pay Pacific Rim all amounts due and owing for the work performed on the project, the lawsuit stated.

It added that on Sept. 21, 2018, IPI executed a promissory note in favor of Pacific Rim for the payment of $11.3 million to be paid in full on or before June 15, 2019.

Of this amount, IPI paid $5.65 million toward the principal, but still owes $5.65 million, the lawsuit stated.

The lawsuit stated that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the promissory note, IPI is in default for failure to make payments in full when due.