USVI Public Records

Document text

• • ? • ,. 111 'rilE 'J ··mr'l'OIUlIl;, COUHT OF TilE VII ~ l.sr..,\lmS ( DIVISION OF ST. CROIX: I<JHGSIIILT, lWLlIHD S)'lITl! MID ED)II\ 5H I 'I'll , l'luinliffs, vs. !lESS OIL VIRGIlI ISW/DS COllI'. JIl.IERADII IiESS COR PORlI'l'I 011 ; OHENs-corunilG 1'1 UEHGLIISS CORPORA'1'IOH, DcfcJ1l1ant5, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) , ) 7.7':'7:';:';:;-;:= ~- ) HESS OIL VIIlGIII ISLlIllDS COllP, ) MID l\J·:ER/, D,\ II r;SS COl1I'OR/,'I'I Oll ) 'l'hit'J- ['ul' Ly Plaintiffs, VS. l30IUHQUEN INSUI.Nl'ION COI-IPlIIIY, KEEllE COR PO Illl '1' I ON , IIIDIV I DUiII,LY AliD liS SUCCESSOR III I I I1'EHl;S'l' TO l3l1LDIHN EIIRET-llILL CO., KI,EIIl': BUILDING P110DUCTS ldlD Elllll::T HAGHESIA HJlJlUFlIC'l'UHIHG CO" Oh'NES-CorunNG F1RnI::l1GLlISS CORPORATION, 1'1 13EHDOlll1D , CORPORATION, PIII3CO lllDUSTHIAL PRODUCTS DIVIS10tl, l3l1l3COCK , WI LCOX, INC., HAIlVILLE PERSON ilL INJURY SETTLEl·IENT 'I'IlU5T, CLlIHIS RESOWTIOti FIICILITY FOR JOllN- HIINVI LLE CORPOR/,'nOll, PHEDECr..sOH TO ~WjVI LLE' s/, LES COHPOR/,'J'IOll k/n/a SCHULLEll IN'l'I::JUlllTIOtlllL, ItIC" ElIGLE PICllEl1 I1IDUS1'IU ES, IHC., PIT1'SDUJ1Gll COJ1IHI1G COllI'. , PPG ItlDUSTHIES, l11C" JOliN <: I1I1HI, PlICKING, STIITE 1 HSUIJ\'I'lOtI I CORPOIlll'l'IOI1, CEHTlIlli TEED I CORPORATIOIl, 1'110EIlIX lIS13 ES'l'OS I }W1UFlIC'l'UllIlIG . COllPOR1,'l'I 011 lItl \) il XYZ ASl3ESTOS HIINUFlICTUHING IIHD I DISTIU l3U1'11~G ,COl1P,og~:qON I "_ .. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) , ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) T )dJ'd-Put' l:y Oc Cc nd,lnL:;, ) --- ) i, :' t.. • CIVIL 110. 'In/1992 lI CTIOll FOn DMI,\GI :S SHITJ! IIHO !;IU'l'1I v. SSS OIL VIRGIN IGT.J\lI m; COHPORl\'l'IOJ/, E'1' ilL CIVIL HO. 721/1992 /'I£HORl\NDUH OPIHION lIlID ORDER P}\GE 2 'l'1I0H}\S I!. JlIlRT, III, ESQUIRE I3rady, lIart (, Jacobs #7 Church Stn~et Clristiansted, st. Cro ix u.s. Virgin Jslallds 00 020 (009) 773 - 33.22 ( (IIttorn e y r oc Plaillti[[s) STIICY L. I'IIIITE, ESQUIRE Bryant, White (, }\9soc iatcs, P . C. 47 King street Chri s ti ansted, st. CJ:oix u, s, Virgin Islallc.ls 00 0 20 (009) 773-2705 (Attorney [or HOVrC, llll\eraua He ss (, st. Cr o ix Petl-oc hemical Co rp.) RI CIIAHD E . DlITXY, ESQU 1 HE Law Office s of Pattie and Dal e y 1110<\ st1' ''l1d street Christians ted, st. Croix u.s. Virgin Islands 00 0 20 (809) 773-6650 I (IIttorncy [ o r st"te Insul"tion Corp . ) I ill-lARY FlIn'l! CIIRPElITEn, ESQUIRE II Law Offices of lIdriane Dudley ! 19 Estate Thomn:; I!avensiyht Ii P . O. Box 6696 I St. Thomas, Virgin Is)ands 0000<\ I (B09) 776-7<\7<\ (lIttorncy [or Owens - Co rlling Fiberglass Co rp . ) I IJOHH R. COOH, ESQU1HE 6 Chandler's Hharf, Suite 202 I Christiu'nsted , st. Croix \ V.s. Virgin Islands 000 2 0 (009) -173-3681 1 (IItto rncy [or ,:ee ne COl:p., Ea rJle l'it clH~ r J ndu,;t J; ic!;, Illc.) II RICII}\HD I! . IIUWrlm, ESQUIRE IIHunter, Colianni, Cole (, Turne r il 1130 King street I, Christians ted, st. CL·oix 00020 II (009) 773-3 535 '/ (IItt,?rney [ o r FibcL-b o uL'd C,?J'p.; · Piltsl>uuJh 'l'lln1C!L' i, Corn~l1g Corp., PPG Tnuustrlcs, Inc .) il .! . ' , 1 'ISHITII M 'ID SIHTH V( " ESS OIL VIRGIN CORPORll'l'ION, E'l' II ... CIVIL NO. 721/1992 HEHOIIJINDUH O1'INIOII IIIW onOCH FREDEIUCl< \'iJl'l"l'S, ESQUIRE h'atts, Streibich (, ncnh<l1O P.O. Dox 11720 st. Thomas, Virgin IsI<lllds 00001 (009) 774-0673 J S LIIlIDS (l\ttorney [01,' nOl: inqucn Insulation Co,) Douglas Capdeville, E~quire 2191 Chlll'ch street Christiansted, st. Croix U. S; Virgin Islands 00020 (B09) 773-7275 l (llttorncy for Oahcod; "nu l'Iilcox, Inc., !'l.lIIviJ Ie COI'l).) J 1I1'IES L. lIYHCS, ESQUIHE P.O. nox 990 st. Thomas, V.I. 00004 '(809) 776-J470 I (lIttorney for John Crilne, Inc.) IGEJIJITJD '1'. GHOHEH, ESQUIHE \ 5211 Company street, suite 2 Christiansted, st, Croix ,U,S. Virgin Islands 00020 I (009) 77J-J660 I (lIttorney [or certainteed Corp.) 1 , Ii PETERSEN iI ' !, , I , Senior Sil.:tillg Judge HEBOIlJIllDUH OPINION (Jillluary JJ--, l'IllD OnDF:~ 1993) I This maLter is before the Court on TIJi l:d-Porl.:y Defe:ntl;Jl1t ! norinque'n , Insulation Company's Motion Lo Dismiss. the 'I il reasons stated he rein, Lhe I-Oo tion to Oi :; mic''; "'j 11 IJC 'J "':l l\\.:cd. :j " "!:"-- . ~ -. . .. ~ i " ,I F/ICTS I:,' ,' (hereinafter "HOVIC") ilnu IImerilua lIess C01:pol'atlol1 (llcl.'I', inaftel: On Oil Coq'or,-, Liol1 Virgin July Islon\\:; JO, 1992, lIess " :, , " SHI'!'H 1\11D SIH'1'1I v. " 1,55 OIL VIRGHI ISUIl1f)S CORPOllll'l'IOII, E'l' 1\i. CIVIL NO. 721/1992 HEHOHlIJlDUH OPINIOH 1\HD on DEn Pl\GE 4 ( I1l\Jnerada IIcss") filed a 'l'hird-P,Il:ty Cornpl.lint a'Jain!;t 'J'hird- Party Dc(cnd"nt l30rinquen InslIIution Compullj' "nol' inCj ~lcn") . On 1\u']ust 13, 1992, C"rol 1I. ',cevcdlJ, a lc,]"J. .:Issist.:lnt wi\:h the l"w finn of I3r1'unt, II/I.ite .111<1 lIc;:;ocjiltes, P. C., i\ttOl"\1CYS (or -the 'l'hird- Purty I'l"inti((s, m"ilcu 1»), UniLcd Stilte,; cel:ti(ied l"ilil, retuJ:n receipt l'Cflll()<;\:cd, u ,;\1011\10115 ;11'111 'rhird- Party c omplaint to 'J'hird - Pilrty Defend"nt DO'l"inlll\l.'I1. On December 21, 1992, the Law Office l"c c eivcd the rcLurncl] envelope. On Oe celllber Jl, 1992, Hs. 1\CCVI~ L]O ;I'J"ill :';(,l'VCe! Lhe summons .:Inu til i nl-pilrty compia int upon nor i nquen. 'J'lIc Unitel1 states Post"l Service l"ctul:ned to nrY<ll1t, ""hitt! and ;,';:,;0<.: i iltc,; the Law Office, the United Stiltes milil cCl"tiriel] i:elllL")) receipt addressed to Dorinquen <1nd received by Dc(endilllt on J.:II1Uill·y 4, 1993. "I II Third-Party Dc(cnc]ilnt norinquen filed a Hotion to Llj,;mis:.: II Ii on 1I0vember 19, 1992. 'l'he motion argued th<1t the actioll ,;houl,l be dismissed because the Third- Party pl<lil1ti((s (idled l',o serve the third-party complaint and summons within I"cll.n.eiv.!'. 4 (j) 120-day time limit . Third-Party Pl"intif(s cOllb'I"] L11i11: • i Borinquen intentional.ly avoided service of ,procc:';G. ' Tid n] - I';) :ty , !I il Plaintiffs also <ll"<Jue t.hat. Third-Party Defe ndant: 1301"j Ilfjucn hwu :i I: actual notice of the complaints "nel ,,'ilS not P,"cjurJ.ice cl by thr. iI I delay in service.":". ' .. - . , . -. --.. I " ii " ii " I I I I I i . S/-lITl! l\ND SH1'l'l! v. t- 'GS OIL VIHG;LII IGrAHDS ( CORPONl'rION, E'l' ilL I. CIVIL 110. 721/1992 NENORl\NDUH OPHIIOH IIIID OHDER Pl\GE 5 Federal nule of civil Procedure ~(j) J:ec]uires c1iGllri5!;al 'without prejudice if a plaintiff fails to serve the :;U\II1I10n'3 and complaint upon the de[cndant within 120 dayG \lnle~s 'Jo0t1 c..:"UGf~ is shOlm. 'l'he 'pui'pose 'of the rule is to encollJ:il<Je Pill:Lio:::; nnLl their attorneys to be c1i1i,)ent in P~ll:t;\lintj Lhclt· Ga\l:~e o[ .1cl:ion I-Io"'e) ) ---.~--, G02 l". SUl>P. 501 (S.D.II.Y.l')O~) . The blll:den to ensure pl:oper and timely :;crvicc rc:.;l:; (,n Lhe plaintiff.Fed.H.Civ.l'. 4(a). burden of shol~ing fJood Ciluse (01' (ailure to GCL'V'~ Lhe ,;uli,mons and complaint within the prescribed 120 - day time period. ~;qgi!2. v. Pilt·t.~nJ:eedcL'ci I·I.S. Yankee CJ.jm~ru:, 112 F.H.I). ))5 (l1.C. Hass. 190G). The "good cause" required to excuse the p1ainLiff's [ailure .. I. to serve the defendant within this 120 dilY period i,. 110\: t1erincL1 i by the 1.'1l1e. The Third Circuit has stated Lhat Lhe <jQorJ COlUGe I posited by the plaintiff should require "at leas\: as 1I111c..:h ilS I .... 'ould be required to show . excusable neglect. ".!l!.:.il}: .. LQn ..... y._II)!~, I 817 F.2u. 2JO (Jl:d Cir. 1~07). Excusablc ne'Jl er;t "~;cel\ls Lo r\reQUire a 'demonstration of 'good - fuith on Lhe pill·t of l.he l';-\I:ty \ seeking un clIlilL'gemcnt ilnd some reasonable l';lsi ~;' [or non- compli<lnce \<iLhin the time specified in the rules" . li1j:'I!'.\; .... !1ncl Hi 1 J . .9.£1 Federal- Practice ' and Procedure, § 11G~ (190'1). v'II·.i QU'; [actors con!,;idel'ed ill determining whether Lhere ..... ,," c;':':I1",,/)1e , j SNI'l'1! IIliD SH1'1'11 v. "ESS OIL VIHGIH ISUIIDS COR PO HlI 'l'I ON , E'l' IIf. CIVIL NO. 721/1992 HEHORllllDUH OPIIIIOH liND ORDER . . P('\GE G ( negl ec t [or [<:I i 1 u t'e to timely serve proce"s i lIel tide whe l.h<")l· the inadvertence reflected professionill incompetence ~.al,;h ilG ignol'<:Incc of rules, whether ilsscrted advcl·tcnce l:cfJ.'"cl:; ,~a".il~' lnanu[acturcd··. Cl\cu::;e incapable of vel·ificaU.oll tll'-' COli l' I: , counscl's [ailur.e to provide [01.- . l·cad.i ly forcGccablc consequence, cOl',plete l<:lck of di 1 iqencc, \~hclhcl' inadvcl."tcncc rC'sulted dcspite COUll!:;cl's substantial <Jood [;-.i\.11 ef[orls tow<:Irds compliancc ilnd ,,'hethcr enlal'<jcTolcnt of timc ""iJ 1 of Dela\,'ilrc v. T .. ilrson, 027 1'. 2d 916 (Jrd Cir. 190'1). n!~ll~L!1i . !<. 1908) . Thc Third Circuit has strictly applicd Fcd.R.Civ,p.·I(j)'s 120 day limit to effcct service of process. J,ovclacc v. lIcm~ Harkets, Inc., 820 F.2d 01 (Jrd eir. 1907); !,l"i'1.;~~.!;9Jl,L:t .. PD!.; Dorninic,s\lpra.. 'rhe Third Circuit has held Lhilt J ,",ck of tluc diligence and inadvertencc of counsel will not C~:CLlse cOl11pli ilnce with RU~C 4 (j). In . I...ovelacc, supra; the trial ' COUl'l:"" tI i "l1li:;~'e<l -. the plaintiff's racial discrimination 5uit ""ilhout l'l.""jutlicc based on plaintiff's failure to wilkc timcly GcrvicQ or Pl'UCCUG upon deLe!ndant. .The! plaintiff had relie!u upon the PI:OCC:;'; server's bill <:IS proof th<:lt process had beclI :;cl'ved "1'(>11 the dcfendant. ' :. 'fhe altorncy ·· had only' re!que::;tcd adequatc" l'l'OO[ Q[ I service on the 120th <lily of thc prcscribcd Ul1lC poriot1. The I I .\ II I \ \ SNI'rJl liND SNIT/[ V.( ';$$ OIL VIHGIll ISJ,JdW$ ( COHPOM'l'ION 1 E'l' l\IJ CIVIL NO. 721/1992 ~IEHOMNDUH OPINION liND ORDEn PIIGE 7 'I'll i rd Circuit COUl:t found Lhat pla1nl:if[':.; :; L torne~y illadvertently permitted tIle 120 day period to lapse. TIle COllrl: also found that the plaintiff [ailed to ilet dili'Jcnl:ly. Consequently ,.' the Thinl CircLlit Court o[ lIPPcills ilrfi l'llIed lhe~ decision. sel.:vice had not becn lI1aue but failed Lo ta};c :Jtepe; Lo inslIl:e timely Gerv icc 0 f pl.:ocess. 'l'hc <':Olll.:t [ound lll;:1.t tile inadvertence of counsel did not constitute goou cau:~e 11l1do:'r Hule 4 (j). '1'he trial court's di.smissal of the action "'as lI[,hclu. The 120-day limit i:.; not "absolutely in(le:-:ible" . .r\Gt:-;.to!l, The leCji,;) aLive history of Hule " (j) notes LIl'-lt intenti onal eVClsioll of service of process consLiLutes <Jooll C;:1.\I:::e~ I [or an extension of t.ime to serve process. 120 Con,]. Hee. 1119848, 9852 N. 25 (daily cd. Dec. 15, 1902), rC;:P):il)te~clj.!l )902 !'U.S. Code Long. and lIumin. Hews 4434, 4446 IL 25. The Thinl Circuit has stated that CJooo cause mi.ght be sholm if the defendant intentionally eVCldes sCl-vice of pJ:oce~;s. I,<:~:'. e) "c~, I supra,Dominic,supra. '1'he COU1't in nui ... Varela v. ::>anch.9.?- V"lc7.., 11814 F.2d 821 , (1st Cir. II 1907 ) found that the e1c[cndilnl: II intentionally evaded service of process where co\lcft~I)lI ;\llt" h;)e] '. n [uiled to provide addrcss in plaintif['s intcrLO\]'iILoci,cc; ,,1)U !\ !i boLh defendants had mr.l t ufter one dc[eI1l1<l.nt I.'a,; ,;cl:vc':d ~Iith amended campI a int '" -. . 5 j toilil rly, good cau::;c lo c:·: tend l.i lilt:! Lo I if sel-ve ~Ias found ill Bi\)c l'ni<l HaU.onCll :1 ;1 " :! I I I I SIHTII lIHD 5111'1'11 v. ( COHPOHlI'l'IOIi, E'l' liT, 55 OIr, VII~GIN ISI..lIIlDS CIVIL NO. 721/1992 HEHOMHDUH OPINION liND onDER PlIGE (l ( I supp. 3Cl2 (t!. D. J-1I 1.991) where a proccss I I defendClnt was home but refused to answer. lIpplying Lhe f Ol:C(Joing princi.ples to U,is cilse, tile C ~l\ ll: t notes that tllci" plaintiff h e rein mailed thc ,al1111nOnS ilnu c;o'"I'J;lil!l: by United Statcs certified milil, return l'cccipt J:C!'1lle,';LeoJ )0 days aftcr Lhe filing of the cOlllplaint tl i\ te. 1'''1' lhc Co lllJ ... ·in'.l 110 dilYS, Lhe Third-Pil1'Ly Plai.ntiffs' atLornci':; diu notldn'J Lo ensure that the defendant hild receivc d LI,e ,;tllllll,on,; iln(1 complaint. It Wil5 only on December 21, 1!:l!:l2, 20 t1.1Y:; 80[1.",: Lhe end of the In-escribed time period, thilt ThiJ:tl-P;-'l' Ly Pl ,dlltlff iatto l"l)e y's leCji\l ilssi s Lilnt resolved to cOlltact the l'O:;till l\serVice. Coincidentally, this was the same tlilY that U,e [ina '\ . ! received the returned envelope. Thinl-rarty Plililltiff !\ attorney's fa ilu1"e to properly moni tor the sel'V i c c of proces:.; II over Lhe 120 day period amounted to a lack of tluc tlil i<)cllcc 01' " I I inadvel' tcnce. The leCJill assistant stated that:. the cnvelope \.:.1:; I i stampeu "rcason ched;ed ullclaimeu" incliciltinCJ l.hal: tile 'J"ltiru- .1 i! Party De-fendant chose not:. to accept the envelQl'c. '1'h i :;' :.. Liltn[l Ii II alone h Ol-levcr, docs not indicate an intcnti o n"J. eVil,.; i o ll o[ , ;. i\process s ufficient· to · const.it.ute · good cul1~r. - '[01 00 (\'J Jay of II :: n service. Con~eCjuently, 'l'hit'd - ParLy Plilintiff I,;-,s not 1' 1: Q '·/ide~1 Ii this Court with "good c<luse" fOl' tile e xtension of the U mc \:0 !I :: serve process"-' :1· . . . . : Tlll,rd- Party l'lillntlff: ar'Jues that. DOl") I "JUCll',; appca"illlCC 111 iI :j ~ \ I I , I , I I I I . :. SNITII liND ~IU'l'lI vt 1l,SS OII~ VIHGHI ISLAlIDS COHPORlI'l'ION, l!;'l' ,,~ ( CIVIL NO. 121/1992 HEHORllNDUN OPINION AlII) OHDER PlIGl:: 9 this uction by counsel evidences a l<lck of prejudicc. The Tllinl Circuit ill Dominic,I>upr<l, (lddressetl uClllul nol.icc illll! il}):;c llc e of !prejudice witllill tIle CO!ltext of a Hule 4(j) !llulio!) to di~misG. Tn Domini...£, "u HOJ.·};er lJL'ought a product liubi)iLy !;u.il uCpill!,.l the suppl ier of i\ solvent. "'hen Dominic (irr;l filcLl hi::; complaint iI'Juin:;t He,;z oil; 11c named a Julln Do.~ ·Corpol·;,U.on .~ : ; a codefendant on (Foulllls of stl:ict liu})iliLy. A YCill: liller, after Hess oil had CJ:osscl<limecl <l<]ainsl Shell on an jmlclllnity ag reelne> nt, Dornil1 ie Ollnencled his comp 1 u i 11 t Lo j !H.:) IIl k ~;hL!l. I. 'I'he Third Circuit COllrt of IIPpcOlls held lhat Lhe Lr .i ill COll!;t did not abuse its di5CL'etion in illlowing OOlldnic a(lt.3iLion011 UIIIC Lo complete serv icc of pror.:css. The Court fOllnd tllut SI1(:ll hau actual notice of Lhe l'luintif('s cliliJn ilnd 5uffel:C:u IlO unuue i prejudicc. It noted thut lless Oil had sel"Vcd ~;hcll 1;11:h the Ii original compluint and i\ claim (or indemnific,Il:.ioll. Thc COUI: t !! ulso noted thut Shell hud appeared be [ore Lhe Lli.:;tric:t com·t ut II approximately the same time that the umenuctl cOlllpl..,lnt \,'.):; II filcd. rinully, t.hc CoUt·t noted that thcre ",'a:; no evhlcllce .. • ! !! indicating lack of lliliCjence or inudvertcnce of cO\1115c1. 'I \! Consequently, the Court iI[(inned Lhe Lriill CO\lI:t'5 Lleci:-.j,)n Lo " ,! \i extend the time limit to SCl.-ve process. Unli);c po",lnJ..£:, Ll1et"(~ \1 is some evidence herc indicating ' luck o[ <1u,~ dllirJC'/I'; '~ of Ii counsel. Thil-d-Purty P1ujnti[[z aLtol:ney's rai. l\l)"(~ Lc) m(I/litoL' :1 !I thc 5el.-vicc of Pl."OCCSS ovel>lhclJn5 any clilim of .,,,LlI.)l lluti.CC ;lilt.! 'j .. . ' I I I SloJITlI liND SNI'J'I! v.' ·"ESS OIL VIHGIN ISLII1H)S ( COHPOHlI'l'ION, 1;'1' ALl - CIVIL NO. 721/1992 NEHORANDUl-I OPINION 11110 OHDER PIIGE 10 absence of prejudice. Unfortunately (or 1']<I .inti[(:;, l.he -'; Ol·C isslle in ~ervice of process disputes j:; pl<li.nti[('s di.ljrJ"·i1 C '~, Phil<1deljJhi<l LiUS"UOll, 123 F.n.D. 515 (E.D. I'll 19UU). Third-I'ilrty Plilintif(s <lIsa "rguc lhilt \ he 'rId n.l·-Pill"Ly Defendant should not b,mefit by having wilhh,}hl its o\.'j', c:t.i e>n to scrvice until ,,[tel" l.hl! )20 day period hild eJ.'psed. I hy.·,'c!V c r I Third-Party Defendilnl: is under no 0})li9"tion lo he) l' 'I'lc .i l:cl - l'ilrLy This Court re<llizes that the tlisml~sill of Lhe 'l'ld nl - I ' ~'l:ty complaint agilinst GOl"inguen might Geem raLher h:\l":;h. 1I00·: ,~ \'er, Rule 4(j) will no\: pel"mit this Court to iCjnol"e cOllllsel's l ;,-.; k or due diligence or inildvertellce. Moreover, Rule 4(j) 's prl Milry \ concern is the due diligence of '\ of the consequences. Sec Fl"iedman v. the plaintiff, 110t lhe ,;evcrity Estiltc or 929 F.2d 1151 (6th cil'. 1991) (complaint dismissecl under HuJ c '\ (j) despite fact that dislnissal mily render :;uit time b"rrcd) .