Ephraim Jacobs v. Hector Diaz et al., SX-1982-CV-893 (V.I. 1983) [unpublished]
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS _ DIVISION OF ST. CROIX AT CHRISTIANSTED -EPHRAIM.JACOBS: as - wilsdies afb aceh oi oielacee axl Oak det Ba a ia P — CERT TS a PLAINTIFF ) . wo : re a) CIVIL NO. 893/82 vs. ) a) ACTION FOR DAMAGES _ HECTOR DIAZ and ‘REED, WIBLE ) : ‘and BROWN . : i) wd oy DEFENDANT ) - res ee _) - MEMORANDUM ORDER © This matter came before the Court on Defendant, Reed, Wible and Brown & Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon © Motion for leave of Court to Amend the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff in his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and proposed Amended Complaint, makes conclusory. allegations that defendant committed the tortious act while within the scope of employment. Based on this assertion, it, therefore, | appears that a granting of a Motion to Dismiss would not be proper at this juncture. …
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/Jacobs%20v.%20Diaz%20(IJS).pdf
SHA-256 8915b41f23ca2997bd75be7bdcfa80a1bfd9e1b9ba428a022a9a20632620f76c
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-8915b41f23ca
Document text
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS _ DIVISION OF ST. CROIX AT CHRISTIANSTED -EPHRAIM.JACOBS: as - wilsdies afb aceh oi oielacee axl Oak det Ba a ia P — CERT TS a PLAINTIFF ) . wo : re a) CIVIL NO. 893/82 vs. ) a) ACTION FOR DAMAGES _ HECTOR DIAZ and ‘REED, WIBLE ) : ‘and BROWN . : i) wd oy DEFENDANT ) - res ee _) - MEMORANDUM ORDER © This matter came before the Court on Defendant, Reed, Wible and Brown & Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon © Motion for leave of Court to Amend the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff in his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and proposed Amended Complaint, makes conclusory. allegations that defendant committed the tortious act while within the scope of employment. Based on this assertion, it, therefore, | appears that a granting of a Motion to Dismiss would not be proper at this juncture. The Court having read and considered the moving papers of both parties and the opposition thereto, and being , otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant, Reed, Wible and Brown's Motion to Dismiss will be DENIED; and it is further a JACOBS v. DIAZ, et. al. MEMORANDUM ORDER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that because Plaintiff's AM nded. fomplainty. particularly. din. ‘critical area ‘Of ‘the ‘scope. ‘of os peor couched in language as opposed to being "a short plain statement of the claim" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. B(a); 5 VIC App. 7 Rule 8 (a), the Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the Complaint will be | DENIED without prejudice to it being renewed. Counsel is directed to the Supreme Court's oft- ~quoted decision in Conley Vv. Gibson, 325 U. S. 41 (1957), where the court stated that the Federal Rules | j | require the complaint to give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it stands. "Implicit in this passage is. the notion that the: ‘ules contemplate rains eoarametcanierpepste niin IR, aheake + We WDM wt IRSA 4 of the claim being presented". WRIGHT & ‘MILLER, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §1215(1969). In this regard, a statement of i" facts rather than legal conclusions ¢ seems to be generally accepted, although the latter may be acceptable if such meets the test of fair notice. Id at g1216. The Court holds that the conclusory pleadings fail to give Defendant Reed, Wible and Brown the type. | of fair notice envisioned by the rules and therein lies the basis | €or the Court's denial of the Motion for leave to Amend the | ‘Complaint without prejudice to resubmission. | Dated: Januaryd¢, 1983