Dorval v. Sessions et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN WILNICK DORVAL, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III; PREETINDER SINGH BHARARA; JOON H. KIM; JOAN LAUGHNANE; JAMES CORNEY; ANDREW G. MCCABE; JOSEPH M. DEMAREST; MARY JO WHITE; JAY CLAYTON; MICHAEL S. PIWOWAR; KARA M. STEIN; DENNIS DOREZA; THOMAS D. HOMAN; NICHOLAS GUS; FRANK FABIO; UNITED STATES SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; JET BLUE AIRWAYS CORP.; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; ST. MARY'S MEDICAL CENTER; ROBIN HAYES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2017-37 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEARANCES: Wilnick Dorval St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Pro se plaintiff, Mark D. Hodge Hodge & Hodge Law Offices of Wilfredo Giegel St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Jet Blue Airways Corp. Case: 3:17-cv-00037-CVG-RM Document #: 132 Filed: 03/28/18 Page 1 of 3 Dorval v. …
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_17-cv-00037/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_17-cv-00037-0.pdf
SHA-256 39d20d07458d2d4da14fafac21ac7f3580e7021ec177706bcd4249a542af14f7
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-39d20d07458d
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN WILNICK DORVAL, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III; PREETINDER SINGH BHARARA; JOON H. KIM; JOAN LAUGHNANE; JAMES CORNEY; ANDREW G. MCCABE; JOSEPH M. DEMAREST; MARY JO WHITE; JAY CLAYTON; MICHAEL S. PIWOWAR; KARA M. STEIN; DENNIS DOREZA; THOMAS D. HOMAN; NICHOLAS GUS; FRANK FABIO; UNITED STATES SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; JET BLUE AIRWAYS CORP.; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; ST. MARY'S MEDICAL CENTER; ROBIN HAYES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2017-37 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEARANCES: Wilnick Dorval St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Pro se plaintiff, Mark D. Hodge Hodge & Hodge Law Offices of Wilfredo Giegel St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Jet Blue Airways Corp. Case: 3:17-cv-00037-CVG-RM Document #: 132 Filed: 03/28/18 Page 1 of 3 Dorval v. Sessions, et al. Civ. No. 2017-37 Order Gretchen Shappert, United States Attorney Sansara Adella Cannon, AUSA United States Attorney’s Office St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the United States of America. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. Before the Court are the motions of Wilnick Dorval (“Dorval”) to amend his complaint. On May 30, 2017, Dorval commenced this action by filing a complaint in this Court. On June 1, 2017, Dorval filed an amended complaint. On June 7, 2017, Dorval filed a second amended complaint, which the Magistrate Judge struck from the record. Later that day, Dorval filed a motion to amend his complaint. On June 28, 2017, Dorval filed a second motion to amend his complaint. In support of both motions, Dorval averred that “none of the defendants would be prejudiced because none of the defendants have been served with a copy of the Complaint and Summons and none of the defendants have filed an answer to any of the complaints.” See ECF No. 28; ECF No. 30. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (“Rule 15”) provides that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it; or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Case: 3:17-cv-00037-CVG-RM Document #: 132 Filed: 03/28/18 Page 2 of 3 Dorval v. Sessions, et al. Civ. No. 2017-37 Order After a party amends its pleading as a matter of course, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The premises considered; it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to amend filed on June 7, 2017, and docketed at ECF Number 28 is MOOT; and it is further ORDERED that the motion to amend filed on June 28, 2017, and docketed at ECF Number 30 is GRANTED. S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge Case: 3:17-cv-00037-CVG-RM Document #: 132 Filed: 03/28/18 Page 3 of 3