Alphonsus Denis v. Hess Corporation et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ALPHONSUS A. DENIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) HESS CORPORATION, HESS OIL ) NEW YORK CORP., as successor by merger ) of HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CORP., ) GLENCORE LTD., and COSMOGONY ) II, INC., ) ) Civil Action No. 2021-0177 Defendants, ) ) ) HESS CORPORATION and HESS OIL ) NEW YORK CORP., ) ) Cross-Claimants/ ) Cross-Defendants, ) ) v. ) ) GLENCORE LTD., ) ) Cross-Defendant/ ) Cross-Claimant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: J. Russell B. Pate, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Korey A. Nelson, Esq., New Orleans, LA Warren T. Burns, Esq., Dallas, TX For Plaintiff Carl A. Beckstedt, III, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. Case: 1:21-cv-00177-WAL-GWC Document #: 51 Filed: 04/07/22 Page 1 of 3 2 Carolyn F. O’Connor, Esq., Florham Park, NJ For Defendants Hess Corporation and Hess Oil New York Corp. Richard H. Hunter, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendant Glencore Ltd. …
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_21-cv-00177/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_21-cv-00177-0.pdf
SHA-256 5327e4adfc5c0a4f4ab585e1fb2a545bb07e04eabbe618aaafe43e3b929c6e2b
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-5327e4adfc5c
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ALPHONSUS A. DENIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) HESS CORPORATION, HESS OIL ) NEW YORK CORP., as successor by merger ) of HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CORP., ) GLENCORE LTD., and COSMOGONY ) II, INC., ) ) Civil Action No. 2021-0177 Defendants, ) ) ) HESS CORPORATION and HESS OIL ) NEW YORK CORP., ) ) Cross-Claimants/ ) Cross-Defendants, ) ) v. ) ) GLENCORE LTD., ) ) Cross-Defendant/ ) Cross-Claimant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: J. Russell B. Pate, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Korey A. Nelson, Esq., New Orleans, LA Warren T. Burns, Esq., Dallas, TX For Plaintiff Carl A. Beckstedt, III, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. Case: 1:21-cv-00177-WAL-GWC Document #: 51 Filed: 04/07/22 Page 1 of 3 2 Carolyn F. O’Connor, Esq., Florham Park, NJ For Defendants Hess Corporation and Hess Oil New York Corp. Richard H. Hunter, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendant Glencore Ltd. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Lewis, District Judge THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the “Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, to Deny Joinder” (“Motion to Strike”) (Dkt. No. 27) filed by Defendant Glencore Ltd. (“Glencore”). Plaintiff Alphonsus Denis (“Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition to the Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 33) and a “Motion to Remand This Action to the Superior Court” (“Motion to Remand”) (Dkt. No. 34). Glencore then filed a “Reply” in support of its Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 36), and an Opposition to the Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 35). Subsequently, Glencore also filed a Motion to Supplement the Record (“Motion to Supplement”) (Dkt. No. 49) and then withdrew, without explanation, the Motion to Supplement. (Dkt. No. 50).1 The substantive issues raised by Glencore’s Motion to Strike and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand have already been addressed by the Court in its recent opinion in Gregory Mathurin v. 1 Glencore’s Motion to Supplement raised claims of deliberate, false representations allegedly made by Plaintiff’s counsel in his Renewed Motion for Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 49 at 1, 4-7, 10-11). A knowingly false representation to the Court is, of course, a serious allegation which the Court does not take lightly. Nor does the Court take lightly when such serious allegations are made and then withdrawn without explanation. However, because the alleged misrepresentations do not affect the Court’s findings in its Remand Opinion, the Court will leave any issue of allegedly false representations to be addressed, as appropriate, in the context of the Renewed Motion for Default Judgment where they were asserted. Case: 1:21-cv-00177-WAL-GWC Document #: 51 Filed: 04/07/22 Page 2 of 3 3 Glencore Ltd., Case No. 1:2021-cv-0176, 2022 WL 991378 (D.V.I. Mar. 31, 2022). The Court’s analysis of the relevant issues and its rationale for denying the Motion to Strike and granting the Motion to Remand in Mathurin apply equally here and are incorporated herein by reference. UPON CONSIDERATION of the aforementioned motions and responses, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion entered in Mathurin v. Glencore Ltd., Case No. 1:2021-cv-176, 2022 WL 991378 (D.V.I. Mar. 31, 2022), it is hereby ORDERED that Glencore’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 34) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to REMAND the above-captioned matter to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED. SO ORDERED. Date: April 7, 2022 ________/s/_________ WILMA A. LEWIS District Judge Case: 1:21-cv-00177-WAL-GWC Document #: 51 Filed: 04/07/22 Page 3 of 3