UMDA says lawsuit against Wickline not time-barred

The United Micronesia Development Association Inc. has asked the federal court to deny former UMDA president and chief executive officer David L. Wickline’s motion to dismiss UMDA’s lawsuit against him.

UMDA counsel Rodney J. Jacob urged the U.S. District Court for the NMI to find UMDA’s claims in the lawsuit to be adequately pled.

Jacob also asked the court to find UMDA’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment to be within the six-year statute of limitations.

In the alternative, Jacob asked the court to certify the question of the applicable statute of limitations to the CNMI Supreme Court.

UMDA filed its lawsuit against Wickline “to protect its shareholders from dilution of their interests in the company, to recover substantial damages that UMDA discovered during the course of its investigation, and to stop Wickline from working behind the scene to undermine shareholder confidence.”

Wickline also sued UMDA, seeking monetary damages. The court consolidated the cases.

Last month, U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Consuelo B. Marshall dismissed with prejudice UMDA’s lawsuit against Wickline. Dismissed with prejudice means UMDA cannot re-open its claims for declaratory relief, fraud, and wrongful dilution.

In that same order, Marshall dismissed without prejudice UMDA’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

The judge gave UMDA up to Oct. 22, 2014, to file an amended complaint.

Dismissed without prejudice allows UMDA to re-file the case in the future.

UMDA subsequently filed its second amended complaint for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Wickline, through counsel Colin Thompson, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. He asserted that the court has already found that the allegations underlying UMDA’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment are “time-barred.”

Wickline argued that a two-year statute of limitations applies to all torts, including UMDA’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Wickline also asserted that UMDA has not adequately pled damages.

In UMDA’s opposition, Jacob argued that the plain language of the relevant statutes and the case law by the CNMI Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California courts, and the majority of the CNMI Superior Court judges, all support a finding that UMDA’s claims are subject not to the two-year statute of limitations for “injuries to the person” but to the catch-all six-year statute of limitations.

“Given the strength and clarity of the legal authority supporting UMDA’s position, the court should simply hold that the six-year statute of limitations applies,” Jacob said.

As alternative, Jacob said UMDA requests that the court certify the question of the applicable statute of limitations to the CNMI Supreme Court.

UMDA has concurrently submitted a request for such certification.

Jacob said the federal court has not ruled on whether UMDA’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment are barred by the statute of limitations.

Jacob said UMDA’s damages allegations are more than enough to satisfy the applicable standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Jacob said since UMDA’s second amended complaint adequately alleges that Wickline willfully and deliberately breached his fiduciary duties to UMDA, and violated his duty of loyalty, UMDA is entitled to seek a refund of the compensation it paid him during his periods of disloyalty.

UMDA alleged that Wickline “willfully and deliberately used UMDA’s assets and resources for his own personal use and business ventures.”

Jacob said UMDA is not required to plead this claim with specificity, or to provide an accounting of its damages at this time.