IMPERIAL Pacific International LLC has no valid contract agreement with Sardini Group Inc., an engineering firm based in New York, attorney Samuel W. Salyer said.
Salyer represents IPI in the civil complaint of the engineering firm which sued the casino developer for breach of contract in the amount of $1.95 million.
In a 50-page summary judgment motion filed in federal court on Monday, Salyer said IPI is entitled to summary judgment because there was no valid contract between IPI and Sardini.
Summary judgement is appropriate on the unjust enrichment claim because all services were performed pursuant to Sardini’s contract with “Chinafu,” Salyer said.
“It is undisputed that, in November 2015, IPI entered into a contract with Shanghai Chinafu Structural Design Inc., or ‘Chinafu,’ ” Salyer said.
“It is also undisputed that Qing (Steve) Zuo, the principal of Sardini Group Inc. was thereafter involved in providing services to IPI under that contract. What is in dispute is Sardini’s claim that, despite the fact that — by the admission of Mr. Zuo and based on the evidence presented — Sardini acted as Chinafu’s subcontractor, it now has causes of action directly against IPI for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Any dispute in this matter is between Sardini and Chinafu,” Salyer said.
According to the lawyer, the complaint “makes the bold an unsubstantiated assertion that Chinafu assigned Sardini its rights and benefits to a portion of the November 2015 contract, some time prior to July 11, 2016.”
“The complaint is silent as to precisely how, when, and by whom this assignment was made, and Sardini has not and cannot provide any additional evidence indicating how or when the alleged assignment took place,” Salyer said.
“The parties, and by extension this court, are therefore left only with Sardini’s baseless assertions, contrasted against significant evidence indicating that no legally valid assignment took place and that there was no enforceable contract between Sardini and IPI,” Salyer added.
Similarly, neither Sardini nor the evidence in this case provides any explanation of how IPI has been unjustly enriched at Sardini’s expense, the lawyer said.
“To the contrary, the services for which Sardini claims to be owed compensation were provided to IPI pursuant to its valid agreement with Chinafu. What’s more, IPI has fully performed its obligations to its counterparty under that contract by making full payment of all invoices presented by Chinafu,” Salyer added.
“The record is clear that Sardini acted as a subcontractor to Chinafu — any claim that Sardini has for unpaid invoices is against Chinafu, not IPI,” Salyer said.
He said Sardini has provided no evidence — and has not pled — that there is any reason it cannot bring a claim against its contractual counterparty, Chinafu, which precludes a claim for unjust enrichment against IPI.
“There is no question of material fact and IPI is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It may be more convenient for Sardini to bring this action against IPI than against Chinafu. Sardini may believe that IPI has deeper pockets. Sardini’s principal may hope to avoid becoming involved in litigation against a colleague, or to avoid personally angering a friend and business partner. But Sardini’s preference does not create a legally viable cause of action where none exists. Sardini has failed to show that a reasonable fact finder could conclude that it has a viable claim against IPI on either cause of action,” he said.
Salyer asked the court to issue a summary judgment in favor of IPI.
Including the memorandum in support of the defendant’s motion for a summary judgment, Salyer filed a total of 288 pages of declarations and exhibits.
Sardini Group, according to the lawsuit, agreed to provide structural engineering and design services, connection design services, site engineering support services, and additional services as required for the construction of the IPI hotel-casino.
Additional services included all design services that were not explicitly described in the scope of work in the contract; onsite consultation revision to designs produced according to scope of work; change orders; onsite engineering consulting services; and other engineering services outside the “core and shell” of the project.
On July 11, 2016, Sardini Group provided IPI with a summary of all services it performed up to June 30, 2016, amounting to $1.22 million.
Sardini Group billed IPI on Oct. 26, 2016.
On Nov. 8, 2016 Sardini Group issued an invoice of $200,000 to IPI representing a partial invoice of the outstanding amounts owed.
On Nov. 23, 2016, IPI paid Sardini Group $100,000.
According to attorney Joe McDoulett, who represents the plaintiff, IPI assured Sardini Group that additional payments would be provided to encourage the engineering firm to continue providing additional services under the contract.
“Despite the failure to pay the amount owed, IPI continued to demand additional services from Sardini Group,” McDoulett said.
Sardini Group on Jan. 2, 2017 issued a second invoice in the amount of $400,000 and provided an updated summary of services rendered amounting to $1.78 million on Oct. 5, 2017.
Another request for payment for services rendered was made by Sardini Group on Jan. 19, 2018.
By March 5, 2018, the total calculated fee for services provided by Sardini Group to IPI was $2 million, the lawsuit stated.
IPI has never paid Sardini Group after the first initial payment of $100,000, the lawsuit added.
