The federal court on Monday directed Jung Ja Kim to explain why the court should not deny her request for an order on how to collect the $2.6-million judgment against disbarred lawyer Ramon K. Quichocho and his wife, Frances. <\/p>\n
U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona issued the order to show cause after no papers were filed in court in connection with Kim\u2019s application and no hearing date has been set since the last hearing on Feb. 22, 2018.<\/p>\n
Manglona gave Kim until Friday, May 25, to explain why her application for an order in aid of judgment should not be denied. <\/p>\n
Kim filed her application for order in aid of judgment last January. At a Feb. 22 hearing, Manglona ordered Kim\u2019s counsel, Robert T. Torres, to serve the Quichocho couple with fact information sheets by Feb. 23, 2018.<\/p>\n
Manglona gave the Quichochos 30 days to respond.<\/p>\n
Torres earlier stated that he would send the information sheets containing the questions to the Quichochos about their assets to determine how they can pay Kim the $2.6-million judgment. <\/p>\n
Soon after Kim sought to collect the money from the Quichochos and Quichocho\u2019s then-law office, the couple filed for bankruptcy.<\/p>\n
Because of the bankruptcy filing in May 2015 U.S. District Court for the NMI Senior Judge Alex R. Munson suspended proceedings relating to Kim\u2019s motion for an order in aid of judgment. <\/p>\n
Kim then prosecuted an adverse complaint before the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy judge, however, denied the discharge of the $2.6-million judgment and maintained it as a continuing debt.<\/p>\n
With the judgment still owing, Kim re-filed her motion seeking an order in aid of judgment.<\/p>\n
Kim\u2019s racketeering lawsuit filed against the Quichochos and Quichocho\u2019s law firm ended in 2014 with the federal jury holding the couple liable to pay $2.4 million in damages to Kim.<\/p>\n
The court later awarded Kim $387,791 for her damages, costs, and attorney\u2019s fees. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The federal court on Monday directed Jung Ja Kim to explain why the court should…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[93,2441,259],"class_list":["post-276643","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news","tag-district-court","tag-jung-ja-kim","tag-lawsuit"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276643","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=276643"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/276643\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=276643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=276643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=276643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}