FINDING that the attorneys for the plaintiff deliberately caused the disruption and delay in resolving a dispute over Tanapag real estate properties, Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho denied Jiang Zheng Asset Management LLC’s request for a protective order.
The judge said, “Irrelevant questions asked during a deposition do not, in and of themselves, sufficiently constitute embarrassment, annoyance, harassment, or oppression to justify terminating deposition.”
Because the plaintiff’s attorneys improperly impeded deposition, the judge granted the defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.
Judge Camacho likewise granted the defendant’s request to continue the deposition of Eric Guo, JZAM principal, for four more hours.
The judge said he will also issue a separate order setting a hearing date and deadlines for the submission of attorney’s fees and costs, and an opportunity to file oppositions/replies.
The lawsuit
In August 2021, Jiang Zheng Asset Management or JZAM, through attorneys George Hasselback and Jordan Sundell, filed a complaint against Vincent DLG Torres and Wang Tao to enforce a May 19, 2019 option agreement regarding Lot Nos. 016 B 02, 016 B 03, and 016 B 22 in Tanapag.
The lawsuit alleged that Torres entered into an agreement with JZAM, received a $100,000 payment, and then breached the agreement.
According to the plaintiff’s attorneys, the deal was as follows:
1) On May 18, 2019, a third party was in contract to acquire the Tanapag property no later than July 31, 2019.
2) If that deal fell through, JZAM wanted first dibs. As a result, it paid Torres a fee of $100,000 to sign an option.
3) In the process of negotiating the option, JZAM gave Torres a written list of people who JZAM had recently introduced to the property in anticipation of the option being executed. JZAM also verbally discussed the list with Torres on two other occasions. Each time he said that none of the names were familiar, the plaintiff said.
4) But a few days after saying that none of the names were familiar, Torres executed an agreement to sign the lease with Wang Tao — one of the names on the list. In so signing, both knew that they were breaching the option, the plaintiff said.
5) July 31, 2019 came and went without the first buyer acquiring the property. That failure triggered JZAM’s option. But Torres liked his agreement with Wang Tao better, so he and Wang Tao raced to close that deal while denying the validity of JZAM’s option, the plaintiff said.
Torres and Wang entered into an agreement to assign leases on the Tanapag properties, and on July 31, 2019, Torres delivered a letter to JZAM styled as a “Notice of Cancelation of Option Agreement” with enclosed check for $100,000 as a refund of the option fee, the plaintiff said.
Counterclaims
Torres, represented by attorney Matthew Holley, denies the plaintiff’s allegations and has filed counterclaims against JZAM.
The counterclaim demanded a jury trial. Torres also sued JZAM for tortious interference with a contractual relationship, slander of title, quieting of title to leasehold, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
According to Holley, JZAM filed the lawsuit and notice of lien to wrongfully hinder and prevent Torres, a person of Northern Marianas descent, from exercising his right to his property.
JZAM’s lawsuit includes numerous misrepresentations and unfounded allegations, Holley added.
He said Torres has the right to secure a buyer before JZAM’s option agreement began, which was Aug. 1, 2019.
Moreover, under the option agreement, Torres had an “unequivocal right to return the $100,000 to JZAM,” Holley stated.
In his counterclaims, Torres is asking the court for an award of damages of more than $3 million, including attorney’s fees and costs.
