SUPERIOR Court Associate Judge Teresa Kim-Tenorio found USRN LLC, doing business as Golden Park Apartments, liable to pay its former tenant, Amy Faith Castro Reyes, a total of $8,205.20 in damages.
In an 18-page order issued on Jan. 10, the judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and ruled in her favor.
The court finds the defendant liable to the plaintiff for $2,686 in compensatory damages, $5,372 in punitive damages, and $147.20 for utility overcharges in violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
Background
In 2019, Reyes leased a unit at Golden Park Apartment for one year.
From March 6 through March 10, 2020, and again from May 6 through June 3, 2020, or 34 days total, the defendant shut off the plaintiff’s utilities, water and electricity.
The defendant stated that the shutoffs stemmed from late utility payments, failure to pay a late fee, and an unsatisfied personal loan between the plaintiff and the defendant’s building manager.
According to Reyes, however, the defendant had “overcharged” her for utilities by $73.60.
She said the defendant had charged her a rate above the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation’s published residential rate for power.
“[Defendant] shut off [Plaintiff’s] utilities in retaliation for [Plaintiff] not paying a penalty fee for a prior late payment on utilities and a dispute over whether [Plaintiff’s] May payment was $150 versus $120,” the court stated.
But the alleged penalty fee for the prior late payment of utilities was not authorized by the lease and was otherwise unlawful, the court added.
On June 1, 2020, the plaintiff “filed the instant action, stating that the utility shutoffs were unlawful and unauthorized in the lease.”
On June 3, 2020, the defendant was served with the plaintiff’s complaint, and the defendant restored the plaintiff’s utilities that day.
On June 5, 2020, the defendant, through then-counsel James Sirok, filed its answer and affirmative defenses, along with a counterclaim for eviction.
At a June 9, 2020 conciliation hearing, the plaintiff agreed to vacate the lease premises.
On July 9, 2020, the plaintiff vacated, and the parties stipulated to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim.
On July 13, 2020, the court granted Sirok’s motion to withdraw as defendant’s counsel while noting that as a corporation, the defendant could not appear in CNMI legal proceedings without counsel.
On July 28, 2020, the defendant appeared for a status conference with an authorized representative but without counsel. The court ordered the defendant to appear with licensed counsel and continued the status conference.
On Sept. 1, 2020, attorney Joe Hill entered a special appearance for the defendant and requested to further continue the hearing. On Oct. 22, 2020, the defendant again appeared via an authorized representative and informed the court that it had been unable to retain counsel.
On March 5, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to include damages and remove causes of action rendered moot by her departure from the lease premises.
On April 21, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default, citing the defendant’s repeated failure to retain and appear with counsel.
On April 26, 2022, the court entered default against the defendant. On June 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment.
On July 27, 2024, attorney Stephen Woodruff filed an entry of appearance for the defendant and consequently filed a motion to set aside entry of default and strike amended complaint.
On Sept. 24, 2024, the court denied the defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default and strike amended complaint.
Meritorious
In her order, Judge Kim-Tenorio said based on the factual allegations in the complaint, the “Plaintiff sets out meritorious substantive claims.”
“These include breaches of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment and the Implied Warranty of Habitability. Defendant shut off Plaintiff’s utilities for failures to make payments at an unlawfully inflated rate. The facts set out further claims for Unjust Enrichment and violation of the Consumer Protection Act. Finally, Plaintiff’s severe distress, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, supports a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,” the judge said.
The judge also found the defendant’s conduct “outrageous.”
The plaintiff “had her power and water cut off [when] she was not delinquent at all on her payments to [the defendant],” she said.
“The shutoffs were instead based on failure to pay for utilities at an unlawfully inflated rate. Defendant intentionally shut off plaintiff’s electricity and water and refused to reactivate them. Plaintiff experienced severe distress because of defendant’s conduct…. This stress and hardship included inability to use plaintiff’s daughter’s asthma nebulizer, the apartment’s lights, and the toilet. All of this occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic when all non-essential workers were ordered to stay home,” Judge Kim-Tenorio said.
“The Court finds, in light of the pandemic and the thirty-four total days of unauthorized utilities shutoff, that plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe,” she added.
