USVI Public Records

Document text

IN THE SUPERlOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN ERNA WILLIAMS Plaintiff ) CASE NO. ST-10-CV-00002S7 ) ) ACTION FOR: DAMAGES - CIVIL ) vs ) SEABORNE VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC. ) ) ) Defendant NOTICE OF ENTRY OF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO: CHAD MESSIER, ESQ. ARTURO WATLINGTON, JR., ESQ. LAW LIBRARY, CLERK OF THE COURT SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES, SUPERIOR COURT MAGISTRATES IT,"6RDER BOOK AND LAW CLERKS Please take notice that on November 04,2010 a(n) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dated November 03,2010 was entered by the Clerk in the above-entitled matter. Dated: November 04,2010 Venetia H. Velazquez, ES~ um~ecourt ~4/>L> ­ AUDREY BRIN COURT CLERK /I SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN ERNA WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) ) SEABORNE VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC. and ) VIRGIN ISLANDS PORT AUTHORITY, ) CASE NO. ST-IO-CV-2S7 ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is Defendant Virgin Islands Port Authority's ("VIPA") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint. For the following reasons, VIPA's motion will be denied. ANALYSIS FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), made applicable to the Superior Court through SUPER CT. R. 7, provides that upon motion by the pleader, a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim shall be dismissed when there is a "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" to the claimant. A motion to dismiss a complaint should be denied if the factual allegations are "enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 2008 WL 305025, at *6 (3d Cir. 2008). Under the standard of notice pleading, a plaintiff need only "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a Williams v. Seaborne Virgin Islands and VIPA, Case No. ST-10-CV-257 Memorandum Opinion, November 3, 2010 claim, the court is limited to the allegations contained in the pleadings themselves. Williams v. Kmart Corp., 2001 WL 304024, at *2 (D.V.I. 2001). Documents incorporated by reference into the pleadings and documents attached to the pleadings as exhibits are considered part of the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). "The inquiry is not whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims." Fin. Trust Co. , Inc. v. Citibank, NA., 268 F.Supp.2d 561, 570 (D.V.1. 2003) (quoting In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc., 311 F.3d 198, 21S-(3d Cir. 2-(02)). On May 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging negligence. VIP A contends that the pleadings do not make an allegation that would establish a claim of premises liability against VIP A. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that "upon Seaborne's property, which is leased from VIPA ... she stumbled over an impediment and fell, injuring her face, head, chest, and hands." (Complaint, at page 2). Plaintiff also alleged that "VIPA is responsible for the overall construction, configuration, and use of the ramp and surrounding area leased by Seaborne." (Jd.). Based on the allegations, VIP A has been given fair notice of the claims against it. Of course, VIP A may avoid liability by establishing that it does not have control over the premises, did not know of a dangerous condition, or has some other valid defense. However, a determination of the extent of VIPA's knowledge and control over the premises requires the consideration of discovery material that is not currently before the Court and which could not be considered at this early stage of the proceedings. Moreover, Rule 56(f) permits the Court to deny a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in order to permit factual discovery. 2 Williams v. Seaborne Virgin Islands and VIPA, Case No. ST-10-CV-2S7 Memorandwn Opinion, November 3, 2010 Page 3 of3 As a result, VIPA's Motion to Dismiss will be denied without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Opinion shall follow. Dated: November '3,2010 ~=====""".,.,_____=~~~~~~_-_---.....­ ' ~ HON. MICHAEL C. DUNSTON ATTEST: Venetia H. Velazquez, Esq. JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT -' Clerk of Court __1__1__ OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ~(j$~S CllmFIEDA TRUE COPY - i4Griffith JL' //\ 1IIr.~~~ ___ Court Clerk Supervisor I3 I-'-JJ.. 3 ----------------- ----------- ~ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN ERNA WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) ) SEABORNE VIRGIN ISLANDS, INC. and ) VIRGIN ISLANDS PORT AUTHORITY, ) CASE NO. ST-IO-CV-2S7 ) __~D=e=f=endant. ) -=-- -~.---~­ ) ORDER UPON CONSIDERATION of the premises, it is hereby ORDERED that VIPA's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice; and it IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit a Rule 26(f) discovery plan and proposed scheduling order on or before November 15,2010, or the Court will impose an expedited scheduling order of its own design; and it is ORDERED that a copy of this Order be directed to counsel of record. Dated: Novembe~, 2010 '---- G)-­ HON. MICHAEL C. DUNSTON ATTEST: Venetia H. Velazquez, Esq. JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Clerk of Court / / OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ~~5'GdG::cGZ' ==::. Rofalie Griffith tI Court Clerk Supervisor iL)3 /-'1J