The Bank of Nova Scotia v. Duberry et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Plaintiff, v. CONRAD J. DUBERRY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, VIRGIN ISLANDS BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2015-67 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEARANCES: Ryan C. Meade Quintairos, Prieto, Wood, & Boyer, P.A. Miami, FL For The Bank of Nova Scotia, CONRAD J. DUBERRY St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Pro se plaintiff, Ronald Sharpe, United States Attorney Joycelyn Hewlett, AUSA United States Attorney’s Office St. Thomas, VI For the Internal Revenue Service, Claude E. Walker, AG Dean Barnes, AAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. Before the Court is the motion of The Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”) for attorney’s fees and costs. Case: 3:15-cv-00067-CVG-RM Document #: 45 Filed: 09/05/17 Page 1 of 3 The Bank of Nova Scotia v. Conrad J. Duberry, et al. Civ. No. 2015-67 Order On October 14, 2016, the Court granted BNS’s motions for summary judgment and default judgment and entered judgment in favor of BNS. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_15-cv-00067/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_15-cv-00067-1.pdf
SHA-256 3304fb56305e54ba7678c27a301df301a80f4c053d7b4d7f3db7d24861827922
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-3304fb56305e
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, Plaintiff, v. CONRAD J. DUBERRY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, VIRGIN ISLANDS BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2015-67 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEARANCES: Ryan C. Meade Quintairos, Prieto, Wood, & Boyer, P.A. Miami, FL For The Bank of Nova Scotia, CONRAD J. DUBERRY St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Pro se plaintiff, Ronald Sharpe, United States Attorney Joycelyn Hewlett, AUSA United States Attorney’s Office St. Thomas, VI For the Internal Revenue Service, Claude E. Walker, AG Dean Barnes, AAG Virgin Islands Department of Justice St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. Before the Court is the motion of The Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”) for attorney’s fees and costs. Case: 3:15-cv-00067-CVG-RM Document #: 45 Filed: 09/05/17 Page 1 of 3 The Bank of Nova Scotia v. Conrad J. Duberry, et al. Civ. No. 2015-67 Order On October 14, 2016, the Court granted BNS’s motions for summary judgment and default judgment and entered judgment in favor of BNS. On February 20, 2017, BNS filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (“Rule 54”) provides the time within which a motion for attorney’s fees must be filed. See Hall v. Hall, No. 2011-civ-54, 2016 WL 8650484, at *8 (D.V.I. Mar. 30, 2016). Rule 54 provides, in relevant part, that motions for “attorney’s fees or related nontaxable expenses” must “be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). Judgment was entered in this matter on October 14, 2016. BNS filed its motion for attorney’s fees on February 20, 2017, well outside the 14-day time limit. Accordingly, the request for attorney’s fees is untimely. The time-limit for motions for costs is set by local rule. See LRCi 54.1.The relevant local rule provides: Within thirty days after the entry of a final judgment or a judgment allowing costs, the prevailing party shall serve on the adverse party and file with the Clerk of the Court a Bill of Costs, together with a notice of motion when application will be made to the Clerk to tax the same. LRCi 54.1(a). Judgment was entered in this matter on October 14, 2016. BNS filed its motion for costs on February 20, 2017, also Case: 3:15-cv-00067-CVG-RM Document #: 45 Filed: 09/05/17 Page 2 of 3 The Bank of Nova Scotia v. Conrad J. Duberry, et al. Civ. No. 2015-67 Order well outside the 30-day time limit. Accordingly, the request for costs is also untimely. Nevertheless, the Court may extend the time for filing a motion after the time has “expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, BNS has not argued that there was excusable neglect nor provided any evidence of excusable neglect. The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion of BNS for attorney’s fees and costs docketed at ECF Number 43 is DENIED. S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge Case: 3:15-cv-00067-CVG-RM Document #: 45 Filed: 09/05/17 Page 3 of 3