IPI wants Kan Pacific suit dismissed for failure to state a claim

Imperial Pacific International LLC has asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Kan Pacific Saipan against it for failure to state a claim.

Last Monday, Joey San Nicolas, counsel to IPI, filed an answer to Kan Pacific’s October 2021 complaint stating that the plaintiff’s lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice because it failed to state a claim against IPI or create a genuine issue of fact upon which relief may be granted

In addition, San Nicolas said, Kan Pacific’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations.

“Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by release, waiver, estoppel, impossibility, impracticability, ambiguity, immunity granted by the operation of law, and/or by the doctrine of laches,” he said.

In the initial complaint, Joseph Iacopino, who represents Kan Pacific, argues that the case is about a breach of a written agreement signed by Kan Pacific and IPI on or about May 9. 2016.

Iacopino said that prior to entering into the agreement, several disputes and potential causes of action developed between plaintiff and IPI that exposed each party to the potential for an adverse judgment, attorney’s fees, costs, expenditure of time and resources and other adverse consequences.

“Subsequent to substantial negotiations, the subject written agreement was entered into between Kan Pacific and IPI to incentivize and compensate Kan Pacific for the closure of Kan Pacific’s business operations prior to the termination of its lease agreement, and to resolve such disputes and potential causes of action, avert the potential of such an adverse judgment, avoid the need to incur attorney fees, costs, expenditure of valuable time and resources and other adverse consequences and for other good and valuable consideration,” Iakopino said.

As a material part of the consideration for entering into the agreement, Iacopino said, IPI became contractually and legally bound and obligated to pay to Kan Pacific the sum of $5 million which was to be satisfied by making 25 annual payments to Kan Pacific in the amount of $200,000 on June 1 of each calendar year commencing on June 1,2017.

Relying on this, he said, Kan Pacific refrained from pursuing legal action against IPI and others and otherwise changed its position and circumstances.

IPI thereafter made the first three annual payments in June 2017, June 2018 and June 2019.

However, IPI allegedly failed and refused to tender any portion of the amount that became due and owing on June 1, 2020. Kan Pacific sent IPI more than 10 days’ notice of such default, and IPI has refused to pay, including the annual payment that became due and owing on June 1, 2021.

Kan Pacific is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to rule in favor of Kan Pacific and issue a judgment against the defendants.

The lawsuit also asked that award of damages be issued in favor of Kan Pacific and attorney’s fees and costs.