USVI Public Records

Document text

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN TANEKO O’NEAL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. ST-12-CV-388 ) PMST, LLC a/k/a PRICESMART, JEMARI ) FORDE, and PRICESMART, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is Defendant PMST, LLC’s motion for reconsideration challenging this Court’s Order' that granted Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint to add PriceSmart, Inc., (“PSI”) as a Defendant. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion will be denied. STANDARD Motions for reconsideration are governed by LRCi. 7.3, which provides that: Such motion shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the order or decision unless the time is extended by the Court ... A motion to reconsider shall be based on: 1. intervening change in controlling law; 2. availability of new evidence, or; 3. the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A motion for reconsideration to correct “clear error or manifest injustice” is “appropriate ” 2 when [the] court overlooked dispositive factual or legal matters presented to it. Motions for reconsideration are granted sparingly, and are “not to be used as ... * The Order was issued on November 5, 2012. ? Castillo v. Kmart Corp., No. 2001-CV-0133, 2007 WL 4973940, at *1 (D.V.I. July 6, 2007) (citing Anderson v. Corr. Med. Serv., No. 04-3410, 2007 WL 4973940 (D.N.J. June 15, 2007)). O’neal v. PSMT, et al. ST-12-CV-388 Memorandum Opinion, December 3, 2012 vehicle[s] for registering disagreement with the court’s initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been 393 raised before but were not.”” A court may exercise its discretion and extend the fourteen day filing requirement when a party “seeks reconsideration of an order not amounting to a final judgment.” ANALYSIS Defendant first challenges this Court’s Order on the grounds that Plaintiff violated Rule 15.1 of the Local Civil Rules of the District Court, which provides that “except as otherwise ordered by the Court,” an amended pleading must specifically delineate the changes and additions made to the prior pleading. The plain language of LRCi 15.1 indicates that the Court has the discretion to waive the technical requirements of LRCi Ls Defendant also asserts that it would be futile to permit Plaintiff to amend the pleadings. An amendment can be considered futile if the proposed amendment is frivolous, would be barred by the statute of limitations, or would otherwise not survive a motion to dismiss. Defendant asserts that the amended pleadings contain no facts that could establish PSI’s liability and only set forth legal conclusions. While it would be futile to grant leave to amend a pleading that fails to meet the minimum pleadings > Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F. Supp.2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). * Smith v. Virgin Islands Port Authority, Civil Action No. 02-227, 2009 WL 3417592, at *2 (D.V.1. October 19, 2009). > Choate v. Skinner, 19 V.1. 399, 407 (Terr. Ct. 1983); see also Rodriguez v. U.S., 286 F. 3d 972, 980 (7th Cir. 2002). O’neal v. PSMT, et al. $T-12-CV-388 Memorandum Opinion, December 3, 2012 standard under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007),° Plaintiff has in fact made several factual allegations that could establish PSI’s liability, including allegations that PSI “owns and operates ... the PriceSmart store on St. Thomas” where Plaintiff was assaulted;’ that PSI “controlled and directed Plaintiff's work; that Plaintiff expressed her concerns over security issues with her supervisor, Nelly Conception, at PSI;° and that PSI “did not alter its termination procedures to reflect Plaintiff's concerns.”' As a result, the Court finds that it was not futile to have granted Plaintiff leave to amend the pleadings. In addition, Defendant cites a New York case'! to support its contention that the amendment should be denied because Plaintiff's amended pleading was not verified. The Court notes that there is no local statute or rule requiring that pleadings be verified and finds the New York case concerning New York procedure to be inapposite. Finally, it was not an abuse of discretion to grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint in the absence of a response from Defendant.’ Accordingly, Defendant’s motion will be denied. ° Twombly establishes that a motion to dismiss a complaint should be denied if the factual allegations are “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Moreover, allegations that are no more than legal conclusions are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Santiago v. Warminster Tp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 881 (2009)). ” Amended Complaint, 3. 1d,4 8. ° Id. 9 18. 0 Id., $22. '' Primeau v. Town of Amherst, 757 N.Y .S. 2d 201 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). "2 See LRCi 7.1e(3). O’neal v. PSMT, et al. $1-12-CV-388 Memorandum Opinion, December 3, 2012 An Order consistent with this Opinion shall follow. Dated: December_” , 2012 wa COL y HON. MICHAEL-€-DUNSTON JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ATTEST: Venetia H. Velazquez, Esq. Clerk of Co / OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS by ori Tyson Court Cle ypervisor Vien 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN TANEKO O’NEAL ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS ) CASE NO. ST-12-CV-388 PMST, LLC a/k/a PRICESMART, JEMARI FORDE, and PRICESMART, INC Defendants ORDER The Court having issued a Memorandum Opinion on this date, it is ORDERED that Defendant PMST, LLC’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED and it is ORDERED that a copy of this Order and the accompanying Memorandum Opinion shall be directed to counsel of record Dated December_S 2012 OSS HON. HON MICHAEL C-DUNSTON JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT etia H. Velazquez, Esq “ Clerk of Court OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS by orl Tyson Court Clerl/Supervisor / IS If 2