Cromwell, Chester v. Innovative Communication, Inc. D/B/A Innovative Telephone D/B/A Vitelco

Collection: Courts
Sub-shelf: District Court of the Virgin Islands (federal)
Kind: Court Record
Date: 2009-08-11
Pages: 4
Text: Native Text

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_07-cv-00056/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_07-cv-00056-1.pdf

SHA-256 7fa0350ee43143437a9b345eb7b3114914d622abd8e19ee3fbd37356d9f3d466

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-7fa0350ee431

Document text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN CHESTER CROMWELL, Plaintiff, v. INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION, INC., d/b/a INNOVATIVE TELEPHONE, d/b/a VITELCO, Defendant. ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2007-56 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEARANCES: Chester Cromwell P.O. Box 303297, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 00803 Pro se plaintiff, Bernard VanSluytman, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Innovative Communication, Inc. d/b/a Innovative Telephone d/b/a Vitelco St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Pro se defendant. ORDER GÓMEZ, C.J. On June 26, 2009, the Court entered an Order stating that there was no proof in the record that Innovative Communication, Inc. d/b/a Innovative Telephone d/b/a Vitelco (the “Vitelco”) Case: 3:07-cv-00056-CVG-GWB Document #: 5 Filed: 08/11/09 Page 1 of 4 Cromwell v. Innovative Communication, Inc. d/b/a Innovative Telephone d/b/a Vitelco Civil No. 2007-56 Order had been served with Chester Cromwell’s (“Cromwell”) complaint and summons in this matter. The Order also directed Cromwell to either file proof of service on Vitelco or show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of proper service no later than July 13, 2009. In response to the June 26, 2009, Order, Cromwell filed a document styled as a “Motion for Reconsideration.” In that document, he states that on March 22, 2007, he hired Renix Charles (“Charles”) to serve the original complaint and summons on Vitelco. Charles thereafter instructed Cromwell to amend the complaint. On July 24, 2007, Cromwell hired Charles to serve the amended complaint on Vitelco. Charles further states that he contacted Charles on July 11, 2009, and Charles represented that he did in fact serve the amended complaint and summons on Vitelco and file them with the Court. The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that, no later than August 25, 2009, Cromwell shall file an affidavit drafted and signed by Renix Charles, which affidavit shall include: 1. The name of the person who was served with Cromwell’s complaint and summons in this matter; 2. The date on which service was made; 3. The place where service was made; and Case: 3:07-cv-00056-CVG-GWB Document #: 5 Filed: 08/11/09 Page 2 of 4 Cromwell v. Innovative Communication, Inc. d/b/a Innovative Telephone d/b/a Vitelco Civil No. 2007-56 Order 4. A copy of the complaint and summons that were served. S\ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ Chief Judge Case: 3:07-cv-00056-CVG-GWB Document #: 5 Filed: 08/11/09 Page 3 of 4 Case: 3:07-cv-00056-CVG-GWB Document #: 5 Filed: 08/11/09 Page 4 of 4