Winzy says it didn’t complete work because of IPI’s nonpayment

Winzy Corp.’s lawyer said the general maintenance and repair company completed 95% of the work under its contract with Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC and the reason it didn’t finish the remaining 5% was because it “became tired” of waiting for IPI to pay its bills.

In a response filed in the U.S. District Court for the NMI last May 10, lawyer Mark Scoggins, who represents Winzy Corp. in its breach of contract lawsuit against IPI, addressed the claims made in Poon’s declaration of support of IPI’s motion to vacate entry of default. First, IPI failed to meet the May 3 deadline set by the court to provide evidence of a meritorious defense to the lawsuit, Scoggins said. Second, even if IPI made the May 3 deadline, IPI still has not shown that it “might have a defense to this matter.”

In Poon’s declaration, he mentions the Feb. 18, 2020, contract between IPI and Winzy Corp. and the alleged details that made Poon conclude that, to the best of his knowledge, Winzy’s work was “short of full completion and certification.” However, Winzy maintains that Poon’s declaration “contains very little in the way of new, substantive information.” Firstly, there should no longer be any dispute in regards to the validity of the contract, its terms, or the price, Winzy said. Secondly, Winzy has previously explained to the court that the $162,925 in non-payments it is suing IPI for represents the cost of approximately 95% of the required work completed by Winzy that IPI has not paid for at all.

“Winzy therefore agrees with IPI that Winzy’s work was short of full completion, but this does not mean that IPI has shown a meritorious defense,” Winzy’s May 10 response states.

The portion of Poon’s declaration that Winzy responded to involved Poon’s claims about Roger Deducin’s alleged last documented site visit on May 27 last year. Winzy maintains that— from mid-February up to when Winzy quit working on the project due to IPI’s non-payment in mid-August— Deducin, along with at least four other Winzy employees, were at the project site every business day, and that Deducin provided written monthly reports on work progress to the CNMI Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services.

Copies of those written reports were always shared with IPI, and Winzy maintains that Deducin was present for all construction meetings that were held at least once a month. Winzy further claims that IPI construction director Jing Zhou and Poon himself were present at these monthly meetings as well. Additionally, Winzy claims that numerous IPI employees and representatives, including IPI engineers Jojie Montenegro and Kelvin Ng, were aware that there were people from Winzy at the project site every day from Feb. to Aug. 2020.

Winzy’s May 10 response concluded by saying that Winzy was on site and performed 95% of the work it had agreed to perform until it “became tired” of waiting for IPI to pay its bills. Winzy maintains that IPI has still not provided any meaningful evidence to dispute the percentage or the $162,925 it owes Winzy, and as such the motion to set aside the entry of default should be denied.