IN FILING 3RD PETITION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION AGAINST IPI,
In a bid to recover costs and get paid for the work it did on the Garapan casino resort of Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC, Pacific Rim Land Development LLC now wants to collect and sell properties inside the Imperial Pacific Resort & Casino in Garapan.
Pacific Rim, through counsel Colin M. Thompson, asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI on Tuesday to issue a third writ of execution that would allow it to remove or identify IPI’s personal property at the resort and casino to satisfy a $6.9-million judgment against IPI. That includes furniture, fixtures, equipment, cash, and vehicles in the casino, such as two limousines, three buses, seven vans, and four trailer trucks.
The lawyer asked the court to have such personal property either removed by Pacific Rim for safekeeping or preserved in place pending judicial sale—all under the authority of the District Court and U.S. Marshals Service.
Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona earlier granted Pacific Rim’s petitions for two writs of execution that order the U.S. Marshals Service to seize IPI’s money from four banks and two title companies on Saipan to satisfy the $6.9-million judgment. It is not clear yet whether the U.S. Marshal Service has already done that. Manglona found Pacific Rim’s applications for the writs of execution to have met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a Commonwealth statute.
Last April 27, Manglona entered a judgment in favor of Pacific Rim in the amount of $5.65 million against IPI for breach of promissory note. She later amended the judgment to incorporate pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees, boosting the amount to $6.9 million, plus post-judgment interest. IPI then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Pacific Rim is suing IPI and five unnamed alleged co-conspirators for breach of contract (construction and promissory note), and unjust enrichment.
IPI brought counterclaims against Pacific Rim for promissory fraud, fraud in the inducement as to the promissory note, violation of Consumer Protection Act, and breach of contract.