Henry, Josephat (Harvey) v. St. Croix Alumina, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX JOSEPHAT HENRY, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : ST. CROIX ALUMINA, LLC, et al. : NO. 1999-0036 MEMORANDUM Bartle, C.J. October 7, 2009 Defendants St. Croix Alumina, Alcoa, Inc., and Glencore, Ltd. have moved for clarification and partial reconsideration of our Order of August 28, 2009 and accompanying Memorandum in which we granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions for summary judgment. We will not review the factual background of this case, as it is well known to the parties. Rule 7.3 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party "may file a motion asking the Court to reconsider its order or decision based on ... the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." L.R. Civ. 7.3 (2008). "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985); Bostic v. AT&T, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (D.V.I. 2004). …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_99-cv-00036/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_99-cv-00036-11.pdf
SHA-256 2dd105cb5fb46d52d21c2086b68166c9441b23f771093dcff616877a046fd25b
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
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-2dd105cb5fb4
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX JOSEPHAT HENRY, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : ST. CROIX ALUMINA, LLC, et al. : NO. 1999-0036 MEMORANDUM Bartle, C.J. October 7, 2009 Defendants St. Croix Alumina, Alcoa, Inc., and Glencore, Ltd. have moved for clarification and partial reconsideration of our Order of August 28, 2009 and accompanying Memorandum in which we granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions for summary judgment. We will not review the factual background of this case, as it is well known to the parties. Rule 7.3 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party "may file a motion asking the Court to reconsider its order or decision based on ... the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." L.R. Civ. 7.3 (2008). "The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985); Bostic v. AT&T, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (D.V.I. 2004). The defendants' present motions are without merit except in certain limited respects. First, the court included Case: 1:99-cv-00036-HB Document #: 1357 Filed: 10/07/09 Page 1 of 3 plaintiffs Jose Berrios, Julian St. Brice, and Antonia Cruz among the twenty named plaintiffs in its order. In 2004, when this case was assigned to another judge, these three plaintiffs were dismissed from the action. Accordingly, we will remove them from this court's August 28, 2009 Order. Second, Glencore points to our reference to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 389 in connection with the possible liability for an abnormally dangerous activity in supplying bauxite to the refinery. Glencore is correct that § 389 deals with negligence. The reference should have been to § 519 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Our memorandum will be corrected at page 13, footnote 5, to read § 519 in place of § 389. Third, Glencore requests clarification as to whether its motion for summary judgment was granted in its favor on plaintiffs' negligence claim (Count VIII) to the extent that the claim is based on Restatement (Second) of Tort § 324A. In our August 28, 2009 Memorandum and Order, we did not decide this issue. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence demonstrating the existence of any duty by Glencore to inspect the Refinery. We will grant summary judgment in favor of Glencore on plaintiffs' negligence claim (Count VIII) to the extent that the claim is premised on § 324A. Finally, Glencore requests clarification that plaintiffs have not brought a negligent abatement claim (Count V) against Glencore. Glencore is correct. The August 28, 2009 -2- Case: 1:99-cv-00036-HB Document #: 1357 Filed: 10/07/09 Page 2 of 3 Order shall be amended to delete Glencore from paragraph five of the order. -3- Case: 1:99-cv-00036-HB Document #: 1357 Filed: 10/07/09 Page 3 of 3