CHIEF Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI has ordered American Sinopan LLC to explain “why it should not have its answer stricken and default entered against it for its failure to continuously defend itself” in the lawsuit filed by an engineering firm alleging breach of contract.
The judge on Friday also granted attorney Jordan Sundell’s request to withdraw from representing American Sinopan.
Sundell had informed the court that he would be moving off-island indefinitely and was seeking to find substitute counsel to replace him.
“Several months later in November 2021, Sundell represented to the court through a motion to withdraw that while substitute counsel was ready to take over the matter, defendant had continuously failed to secure an agreement with substitute counsel. Sundell also conveyed that defendant was unresponsive to his communications,” Judge Manglona said.
An order to appear was subsequently issued against American Sinopan, mandating that it appear with a representative along with Sundell.
The court warned Sundell and American Sinopan that failure to appear “may prompt the court to order defendant to show cause why it should not be subject to sanctions.”
A hearing on Sundell’s motion to withdraw as counsel was held on Dec. 15, 2021 at which time the lawyer once again informed the court that his client was unresponsive to his communications.
At the status conference hearing on Jan. 27, 2022, American Sinopan again failed to submit a notice of appearance for new counsel and failed to appear.
Judge Manglona said the court is determined to issue the order to show cause and require the plaintiff to service the order upon any agent of the defendant.
Previously, American Sinopan, through Sundell, asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by an engineering firm, Henry K. Pangelinan & Associates or HKPA.
HKPA, through attorney Colin Thompson, sued American Sinopan, whose sole member was Imperial Pacific Real Estate & Hotel Management Company, for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and quantum meruit.
HKPA demanded a jury trial and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, taxable court costs, and pre-judgement and post-judgement interest.
According to Sundell, the lawsuit should be dismissed “because HKPA did not attach the relevant contract or incorporate the relevant provisions by reference. And, second, because the complaint did not present specific facts (as opposed to conclusory statements) showing that HKPA complied with the contracts and was thus entitled to payment.”
The third cause of action, Sundell said, should be dismissed because the complaint did not adequately allege that HKPA acted reasonably in relying on American Sinopan’s alleged promises.
Finally, the lawyer added, the fourth cause of action should be dismissed because quantum meruit is not an available remedy if, as the complaint alleges, an enforceable contract exists.
According to an online legal dictionary, quantum meruit means “the amount he deserves” or “as much as he has earned.” In most cases it denotes a claim for a reasonable sum in respect of services or goods supplied to the defendant.
HKPA stated that on Dec. 21, 2017, American Sinopan entered into a contract with the engineering firm to provide civil engineering, design, drawings and related permitting services for a project known as Saipan Garden Resort Development in Tanapag.
The complaint stated that on June 6, 2018 American Sinopan entered into another contract with HKPA to provide design and construction services for the Saipan Garden resort and Heaven II Development project in Savanna.
American Sinopan received the original or duplicates of invoices for the services provided by HKPA for services performed pursuant to the contracts stated in the complaint.
The prices charged by HKPA pursuant to the contracts were the fair and reasonable market prices that prevailed at the time of the transactions.
Moreover, the prices charged by HKPA pursuant to the contracts were the prices American Sinopan agreed to pay.
According to Thompson, American Sinopan received and accepted the services provided by HKPA and neither rejected nor revoked its acceptance thereof.
“During the relevant time periods, HKPA provided services to American Sinopan pursuant to the contracts, but American Sinopan has not paid HKPA for its work,” Thompson said.
American Sinopan failed and refused to pay HKPA for the services and work pursuant to the contracts. The amount owed to HKPA is $421,800 plus interest, the lawsuit added.
