Estate of Joseph Henry, et al. v. Hess Oil VI Corp, SX-2004-CV-609 (V.I. 2005) [unpublished]
o o IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ESTATE OF JOSEPH HENRY by LUCY ) CIVIL NO. 609/2004 MICHEAU as EXECUTRIX; and MARTIN ) EMMANUEL, ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES ) Plaintiffs, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) v. ) ) HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CORP. ) (HOVIq; HOVENSA L.L.C.; AMERADA ) HESS CORPORATION; LITWIN PAN- ) AMERICAN CORP.; 'LITWiN CORP.; ) FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC.; RIGGERS and ) ERECTORS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ) RARITAN SUPPLY CO., Iodlviduaily and as ) successor In interest to Bridge Supply Co.; » VIRGIN IS~S INDUCSTIRAL ) MAINTENTANCE CORP.; 3M a/kIaJ ) MINNESOTA MINING & ) MANUFACTURING CO.; A.W. ) CHESTERTON CO.; CERTAINTEED ) PRODUCTS CORP.; CRANE CO.; DURABLA) MANUFACTURING CO.; FOSTER ) WHEELER CORP.; GARLOCK SEALING ) TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., fIkIa GARLOCK, ) INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP.; ) INGERSOLL-RAND CO.; JOHN CRANE ) CO.; UNION CARBIDE CORP.; UNION ) PUMP CO.; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC ) CORP.; YARWAY CORP.; and JOHN DOE, ) ) Defendants. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://superior.vicourts.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810747/File/Opinions/Archive/Estate%20of%20Henry%20v%20HOVIC%20(EDR).pdf
SHA-256 01b2e8702ec5f32c267da13a2f949d867fd2185c6aed67b530cd934bb00f9590
Re-using this document
edicts of government — judicial opinions are not copyrightable by anyone. NOT 17 USC 105 (territorial court, not federal) and NOT 'rights unstated'.
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-01b2e8702ec5
Document text
o o IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ESTATE OF JOSEPH HENRY by LUCY ) CIVIL NO. 609/2004 MICHEAU as EXECUTRIX; and MARTIN ) EMMANUEL, ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES ) Plaintiffs, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) v. ) ) HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CORP. ) (HOVIq; HOVENSA L.L.C.; AMERADA ) HESS CORPORATION; LITWIN PAN- ) AMERICAN CORP.; 'LITWiN CORP.; ) FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC.; RIGGERS and ) ERECTORS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; ) RARITAN SUPPLY CO., Iodlviduaily and as ) successor In interest to Bridge Supply Co.; » VIRGIN IS~S INDUCSTIRAL ) MAINTENTANCE CORP.; 3M a/kIaJ ) MINNESOTA MINING & ) MANUFACTURING CO.; A.W. ) CHESTERTON CO.; CERTAINTEED ) PRODUCTS CORP.; CRANE CO.; DURABLA) MANUFACTURING CO.; FOSTER ) WHEELER CORP.; GARLOCK SEALING ) TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., fIkIa GARLOCK, ) INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP.; ) INGERSOLL-RAND CO.; JOHN CRANE ) CO.; UNION CARBIDE CORP.; UNION ) PUMP CO.; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC ) CORP.; YARWAY CORP.; and JOHN DOE, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION THIS MATTER is before the Court on Motion to Reconsider by Defendant Riggers and Erectors International, Inc. ("Riggers & Erectors"), whereby Riggers & Erectors moves the Court to reconsider its Order of January 24, 2005 denying the Motion to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims. A motion to reconsider shall be based on the following circumstances: (I) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) availability of new evidence or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See LRCi 7.4. In support of its Motion to Reconsider, Riggers & Erectors advises the Court of "additional information," namely, that Plaintiffs have filed four (4) asbestos cases and three (3) silica cases involving a total of 19 Defendants, excluding spouses. See Motion to Reconsider at p. 2. Estate ofJoseph HeD aI. v. HOVlC, et aI. Civil No. 609/2004 Memorandum Opinion 'Page 2 of2 o Foremost, Riggers & Erectors fails to offer any evidence corroborating its allegation that Plaintiffs have filed numerous other related cases. Nonetheless, even taking such proffered information as true, the Court hardly fiods that the aforementioned "additional infonnation" constitutes new evidence evincing Plaintiffs' failure to meet the standard for joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. htdeed, the Court will uphold its consolidation of this matter as captioned above on the grounds that Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel in this asbestos litigation, and at all times relevant herein Plaintiffs shared a common worksite, similar time of exposure, and as a result of asbestos exposure at Hess Oil Refioery Plaintiffs suffered from related diseases. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider by Ri!lge.J~ Bl~d ..JfrC1CtOl1; til DatC1d: March ~ 2005 ATI'EST: