Phillip A. Tutein, Jr. v. Ford Motor Co., et al., SX-2010-CV-018 (V.I. 2017) [unpublished]
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX PHILLIP A. TUTEIN, JR., PLAINTIFF, SX-2010-CV-018 V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND METRO Morors §.C., INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court on Defendant Ford Motor Company (hereinafter “Ford”) and Defendant Metro Motors S.C., Inc.’s (hereinafter “Metro” and together with Defendant Ford, “Defendants”) motion to strike Plaintiff Phillip Tutein’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) request for punitive damages in his proposed verdict form, filed on September 26, 2016. No opposition has been filed. On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed his proposed verdict form. As the title of the document indicates, Plaintiff merely filed a proposed verdict form. The Court has not accepted or approved Plaintiff's proposed verdict form. As such, it is unnecessary for Defendants to file a motion to strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in Plaintiff's proposed verdict form, and deplete the Court’s already limited time and resource. …
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/Tutein%20v.%20Ford%20Motor%20Co%20(HWLW).pdf
SHA-256 3aab598feb6325f04b9536e9490fb0414bf7a5c0f1edcc87ff2e05ce5ba9d579
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-3aab598feb63
Document text
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX PHILLIP A. TUTEIN, JR., PLAINTIFF, SX-2010-CV-018 V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND METRO Morors §.C., INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court on Defendant Ford Motor Company (hereinafter “Ford”) and Defendant Metro Motors S.C., Inc.’s (hereinafter “Metro” and together with Defendant Ford, “Defendants”) motion to strike Plaintiff Phillip Tutein’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) request for punitive damages in his proposed verdict form, filed on September 26, 2016. No opposition has been filed. On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed his proposed verdict form. As the title of the document indicates, Plaintiff merely filed a proposed verdict form. The Court has not accepted or approved Plaintiff's proposed verdict form. As such, it is unnecessary for Defendants to file a motion to strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in Plaintiff's proposed verdict form, and deplete the Court’s already limited time and resource. It has been the practice of this Court to review and discuss with parties prior to finalizing jury instructions and verdict form. Thus, while the Court can appreciate Defendants filing an objection to Plaintiff's proposed verdict form out of an abundance of caution, they should not have filed this instant motion to strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in Plaintiff's proposed verdict form. This is especially true in light of the fact that Defendants had already Tutein v. Ford Motor Company, et al. SX-2010-CV-018 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER previously filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence related to punitive damages or claims that Defendants’ conduct rises to the level sufficient to award punitive damages.' Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages in Plaintiff's proposed verdict form, filed on September 26, 2016, is DENIED. _— DONE and so ORDERED this_ 77 _ day of January, 2017. ATTEST: HAROLD W.L. WILLOCK: Administrative Judge of the Superior Court 1 The Court has since granted Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence related to punitive damages or claims that Defendants’ conduct rises to the level sufficient to award punitive damages, filed on August 29, 2016, and ordered that “Plaintiff shall not include any evidence related to punitive damages or claims that Defendants’ conduct rises to the level sufficient to award punitive damages at trial.”