ATTORNEY Mark Scoggins has asked the federal court to rule in favor of Winzy Corp. in its lawsuit against Imperial Pacific International LLC for breach of contract.
Scoggins, who represents Winzy, told the court that IPI was given an opportunity to file supplemental briefing on the issue of “meritorious defense” on the plaintiff’s claims. He said the deadline was on May 3.
“IPI has failed to file a supplemental brief by the deadline, and also has failed to identify any meritorious defense,” he added. “Winzy Corporation therefore asks the court to deny IPI’s motion, to vacate the hearing on May 14 as unnecessary, and to set a hearing on Winzy Corp’s motion for default.”
IPI attorney Juan T. Lizama had asked the District Court for the NMI to vacate the entry of default.
In a recent declaration filed in court to support IPI’s motion to set aside the motion for default on May 5, IPI chief engineer Eric Poon stated that Winzy Corp. did not do its job as required by its contract.
According to Poon, on Feb. 18, 2020, a contract between IPI and Winzy Corp. was entered for supervision and consultation regarding a fire protection system project for IPI’s resort hotel project, which had a working end date of Sept. 15, 2020.
“Winzy Corp. agreed to conduct testing, consult on the installation, do the final completion commissioning, and aid IPI in acquiring fire-safety certifications for the resort hotel,” Poon added.
“Winzy also agreed to conduct field inspection and testing with the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services at later dates, which are further requirements in acquiring a fire permit for the resort hotel,” Poon stated.
He said according to IPI construction engineer’s email records, “Roger Deducin from Winzy Corporation conducted a site visit on May 27, 2020, and that was the last site visit we have on record.”
Poon said, “to the best of my personal knowledge, the work done on the project was short of full completion and certification.”
According to Winzy’s lawsuit, in the early part of 2020, it entered into an agreement with IPI to provide supervision and consulting services for the casino project.
The agreement was a binding and enforceable contract between Winzy and IPI, the lawsuit added.
“Winzy performed under the terms of the agreement in good faith, and in a good and workmanlike manner,” it stated.
But IPI has failed to pay amounts owed under the agreement totaling $162,925, the lawsuit stated.
“IPI has breached the agreement with Winzy to Winzy’s damage and in the alternative IPI is unjustly enriched by the services that Winzy provided to IPI,” the lawsuit added.
