Joshua Gray has opposed Century Estate Investment’s bid to intervene.
Northern Mariana Islands.- Joshua Gray, a former director of operations who won a discrimination lawsuit against Imperial Pacific International (IPI), has filed an opposition to the intervention motion requested by creditor Century Estate Investment.
The creditor of IPI has filed a motion to intervene in Gray’s pursuit of receivership in the US District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands. The company argues that its loan to IPI provided in February 2022, should take precedence over Gray’s claims.
Gray, represented by attorneys Aaron Halegua and Bruce Berline, contends that Century Estate has not demonstrated a valid claim to intervene in the matter.
According to Saipan Tribune, to qualify for intervention, four key criteria must be satisfied: timeliness, a direct interest related to the litigation, potential impairment of the intervenor’s interest without intervention, and inadequate representation by existing parties to the action. Gray’s opposition motion asserts that Century Estate has not provided evidence to substantiate its claim under these criteria.
Century Estate delayed its motion to intervene, waiting approximately ten weeks from Gray’s initial application for a writ of execution. Gray’s legal team argues that this delay prejudices their client, who had proceeded under the assumption that no other claims were being made on the property in question.
Regarding the second criterion, Gray’s lawyers dispute Century Estate’s assertion of a valid security interest, suggesting that the evidence presented could be fraudulent. They contend that the mortgage documents submitted by Century Estate may stem from a fraudulent conveyance and should be invalidated.
Gray’s lawyers stated: “In fact, Century Estate [previously] stated that it seeks to intervene in this action in order to have the right to move forward and order liquidation of assets to mitigate its losses.
“If this is truly what Century Estate seeks—as opposed to obstructing other creditors from liquidating IPI’s assets and satisfying their debts—then it has not carried its burden of showing why plaintiff cannot adequately represent its interest to liquidate those assets.”
The dispute is scheduled for a hearing before U.S. District Court for the NMI chief judge Ramona V. Manglona on October 26.