USVI Public Records

Document text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN IDA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ALL PERSONS CLAIMING A PRESENT OR FUTURE INTEREST IN ESTATE 13, FRIIS, LINDA V. SMITH-FRANCIS, WILLIAM E. SMITH, ELOISE V. SMITH- HENDRICKS, BAB FRIIS NO. 1, PAUL HOFFMAN, JANE HOFFMAN-WALKER, ELEANOR ADAMS HOFFMAN, MAXWELL ADAMS HOFFMAN, GLORIA FRANCOIS MCGOWAN, DAVID A. BORNN AS TRUSTEE TO THE GAF TRUST ESTATE 14 JOHN’S FOLLY EXCLUDING ALL HEIRS AT LAW, ESTATE 15 CONCORDIA A, CORAL BAY QUARTER, ST JOHN UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, LAND RESOURCES DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STANLEY SELENGUT, WILLIAM B. POPPELTON, LORRAINE A. POPPELTON, KEVIN M. WALSH, MARIA K. STURATIS, SCOTT E. WILMOSKI, CHARLES M. PERDUE, MONICA PERDUE, JOZSEF NEMETH, NANCY NEMETH, FRED S. PATTERSON, MARGARET D. PATTERSON, JOHN R. PERGOLIZZI, TREASURE VIEW LLC, GEORGE PILLORGE, DEBORAH PILLORGE, SCOTT L. HARTSHORN, CLAUDETTE C. HARTSHORN, HEINZ G. FISHER, LINDA G. BURDET TRUSTEES OF THE HEINZ G. FISHER TRUST, DONALD DURANTE, SAFIA B. DURANTE, CRAIG E. MITCHELL, ALAN MARTIN KAUFMAN, RACHELLE KAUFMAN, JEFFREY J. McCRAVE, ANN McCRAVE, DOROTHY K. JANOSKO, WILLIAM R. KINCER, SUSAN B. KINCER, SUSAN GREER LITTLEFIELD, WAYNE CHESTERFIELD, MONIQUE FRANCOIS, PEDRITO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2011-41 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7 Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. Civil No. 2011-41 Order FRANCOIS, SALT POND VISTA LLC, V.I. JOSEPH PALMINTERI, CARRIE GLENN, MARC KAVE, EMILY J. BRATTON, RICK HATHAWAY, RENE A. SERVANT aka RENE H. SERVANT, MARIE THERESE L. SERVANT, LORI JANE SNACK, BRIAN K. WALDEN, MINISTER ISHMAEL R. MUHAMMED, MICHAEL CARPER, REUBEN WHEATLEY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEARANCES: Ida Smith New York, NY Pro se plaintiff, Ronald W. Sharpe, USA Jason Cohen, AUSA St. Thomas, VI For the United States National Park Service, Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq. Hodge & Francois St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Paul Hoffman; Jane Hoffman Walker; and David A. Bornn, Trustee of the GAF Trust, Rafael F. Muilenburg, Esq. Morrisette & Muilenburg St. John, U.S.V.I. For William E. Smith; Eloise V. Smith; Deborah Pillorge; Claudette C. Hartshorn; Scott L. Hartshorn; Linda V. Smith- Francis; and George Pillorge, Gloria McGowan Pro se, Wayne Chesterfield Pro se, Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 2 of 7 Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. Civil No. 2011-41 Order Monique Francois Pro se, Pedrito Francois Pro se, Joseph Palminteri Pro se, W. Mark Hillsman, Esq. Law Offices of Norman P. Jones, P.C. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Carrie Glenn; Lori Jane Snack; William B. Poppelton; Lorraine A. Poppelton; Maria K. Sturaitis; Charles M. Purdue; Monica Purdue; Salt Pond Vista, LLC; Heinz G. Fisher; Linda G. Burdet, Trustee of the Heinz G. Fisher; Safia B. Durante; Donald Durante, Marc Kave Pro se, Emily J. Bratton Pro se, Rick Hathaway Pro se, Rene A. Servant Pro se, Marie Therese Servant Pro se, Brian K. Walden Pro se, John H. Benham, III, Esq. Watts, Benham & Sprehn, P.C. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Stanley Selengut, Mark D. Hodge, Esq. Hodge & Francois St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Kevin M. Walsh and Treasure View LLC, Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 3 of 7 Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. Civil No. 2011-41 Order Scott E. Wilmoski Pro se, Jozef Nemeth Pro se, Nancy Nemeth Pro se defendant. Fred S. Patterson Pro se, Margaret D. Patterson Pro se defendant. John R. Perqulizzi Pro se, Terryhill Enterprises, II Pro se, Missouri LLC Pro se, Craig E. Mitchell Pro se, Michael E. Fitzsimmons, Esq. Stryker, Duensing, Casner & Dollison St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Alan Martin Kaufman, Ann McCrave Pro se, Jeffrey J. McCrave Pro se, William R. Kincer Pro se, Susan B. Kincer Pro se, Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 4 of 7 Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. Civil No. 2011-41 Order Susan Greer Littlefield Pro se, Kurt Shore Pro se, Suzanne L. Shore Pro se, Dorothy Janosko (also known as “Dorothy K. Janoko”) Pro se. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. In an August 1, 2016, order, the Court dismissed Ida Smith’s (“Smith”) claims against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because (1) she failed to comply with the pleading requirements of the Quiet Title Act; and (2) she failed to adequately allege she had standing to bring those claims. See ECF No. 505. In its August 1, 2016, order, the Court observed that “Smith’s complaint contains no factual allegation showing that the United States has injured her. That is, there are no allegations showing that the United States had laid claim to any real property that she claims.” Id. at 12. Rather, Smith’s complaint included only a bare assertion that “[t]here exists a dispute or controversy as to the location of the boundary lines” between two parcels of property. Id. at 12-13 (quoting ECF No. Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 5 of 7 Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. Civil No. 2011-41 Order 268). This “conclusory assertion of a dispute,” the Court explained, “is not sufficient to establish standing.” Id. at 13. Reviewing Smith’s complaint and the record, it appears to the Court that each of Smith’s claims against the remaining defendants may suffer from the same deficiency. Additionally, there is no record evidence that every remaining named defendant has been served with process or waived service of process. Where, as here, a district court raises an issue with a complaint’s deficiency, the plaintiff must be given notice and an opportunity to respond. See Lassiter v. City of Philadelphia, 716 F.3d 53, 57 (3d Cir. 2013) (“We have concluded that a district court may sua sponte raise the issue of the deficiency of a complaint so long as the plaintiff is accorded an opportunity to respond.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Wallace v. Fed. Emp. Of U.S. Dist. Ct., EDPA, 325 Fed. App’x 96, 101 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) (explaining that a district court must provide plaintiffs with “notice and an opportunity to respond before sua sponte dismissing their claims”). The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that no later than November 21, 2016, Smith shall file a brief that will show cause why this complaint should not be dismissed for: Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 6 of 7 Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. Civil No. 2011-41 Order (1) want of subject matter jurisdiction over this matter; (2) lack of standing by Smith to bring her claims; and (3) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and it is further ORDERED that the trial in this matter, previously scheduled for Monday, November 28, 2016, is RESCHEDULED to commence promptly at 9:00 A.M. on Monday, January 23, 2016. S\ CURTIS V. GÓMEZ District Judge Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 7 of 7