Previous Story
Manglona: Dismissal of case vs IPI inappropriate
Although Pacific Rim Land Development LLC’s has already asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to dismiss its recent case against Imperial Pacific international (CNMI) LLC, doing so would be “inappropriate” pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure, said Chief Judge Ramona Manglona.
According to Manglona’s order, Pacific Rim made a motion in court last week, asking it to dismiss its recent case against IPI with prejudice, meaning it cannot be filed again.
Manglona
Upon review of the motion, Manglona said she found that the dismissal, under federal rule of civil procedure 41, is inappropriate and thus denied Pacific Rim’s motion for dismissal without prejudice. Manglona allowed Pacific Rim to file an amended motion by Feb. 18.
“If the intent of Pacific Rim was to have its two sole remaining claims—breach of the construction contract and unjust enrichment—dismissed, a Rule 15 amendment is the appropriate mechanism,” Manglona said.
The judge explained that Rule 41 allows for the voluntary dismissal of an action by a plaintiff without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before an answer or motion for summary judgment is filed, or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties. Otherwise, Rule 41 states that a court may dismiss an action at a plaintiff’s request on terms it considers proper.
In this case, however, the court found that dismissal of the entire action against IPI is inappropriate because one of Pacific Rim’s claims has already been decided and judgment was entered and affirmed.
She explained that on April 23, 2020, the court entered a decision and order granting Pacific Rim’s motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of the promissory note claim. An amended judgment was entered in favor of Pacific Rim on May 28, 2020, in the amount of $6,909,333.43 for that claim.
On Oct. 19, 2021, the 9th Circuit affirmed the court’s decision and order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Pacific Rim.
