Joel Holt v. Vacation Ownership Marketing, Inc. et, SX-1982-CV-434 (V.I. 1982) [unpublished]
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX AT CHRISTIANSTED JOEL HOLT, Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 434/1982 vs. ACTION FOR DEBT VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING, INC., and JAMES C. GARDNER Defendant. ee Se See ee ee Se? Suet nee ne ee eet eet eet Se WARREN B. COLE, ESQUIRE Isherwood Hunter and Diehm 46 King Street Christiansted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00820 (809) 773-3535 (Attorney for Plaintiff) ISAAC H. NUNN, ESQUIRE 2701 E. Sunrise Boulevard Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 (305) 561-4500 (Attorney for Defendant Vacation Ownership Marketing, Inc.) PETERSEN, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION September ly el 1982 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Vacation Ownership Marketing, Inc., Motion to Dismiss. However before the Court is able to consider the merits of Defendant's motion, an even more fundamental issue is presented which must be resolved. …
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/Holt%20v.%20Vacation%20Ownership%20(ERP).pdf
SHA-256 c3be67757127d61d02428405c29d4fa670a973dab939a008124a17d93e7a9061
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-c3be67757127
Document text
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX AT CHRISTIANSTED JOEL HOLT, Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 434/1982 vs. ACTION FOR DEBT VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING, INC., and JAMES C. GARDNER Defendant. ee Se See ee ee Se? Suet nee ne ee eet eet eet Se WARREN B. COLE, ESQUIRE Isherwood Hunter and Diehm 46 King Street Christiansted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00820 (809) 773-3535 (Attorney for Plaintiff) ISAAC H. NUNN, ESQUIRE 2701 E. Sunrise Boulevard Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 (305) 561-4500 (Attorney for Defendant Vacation Ownership Marketing, Inc.) PETERSEN, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION September ly el 1982 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Vacation Ownership Marketing, Inc., Motion to Dismiss. However before the Court is able to consider the merits of Defendant's motion, an even more fundamental issue is presented which must be resolved. Title 5, Virgin Islands Code, Appendix V, Rule 57 (b) provides that "[n]o attorney may practice law in the Virgin Islands who is not an active or government member of the Virgin Islands Bar Association or admitted pursuant’ to paragraphs (f) and {g) hereunder. There is no averment as to whether Isaac H. Nunn, Esquire is a member of the Virgin Islands Bar. @ @ CINTRON vs. ISLAND CARS, INC.,& (BMW A.G.) ACTION FOR DAMAGES Paragraph (f£) of Title 5, Virgin Islands Code, Appendix V, Rule 51 provides for the admission, pro hac vice, of “an attorney who is currently in good standing as an active member of the bar of any state or Territory of the United States or any foreign country..."1/ As amended the rule further provides that an attorney admitted to practice pro hac vice, must associate himself with local counsel.2/ Because there has been no showing that Isaac H. Nunn, Esquire has been admitted to practice in this i/ (£) An attorney who is currently is good standing as an active member of the bar of any State or Territory of the United States or of any foreign country, who has not suffered any disbarment or suspension of his or her license to practice before any jurisdiction and who has been retained or requested to represent any party involved in any litigation filed in a court of the Virgin Islands may, in the discretion of the judge before whom such litigation has been assigned or is pending, on motion or any attorney of record in such litigation, be admitted pro hac vice to participate in the litigation in the same manner as permitted an active member of the Virgin Islands Bar Association. An attorney admitted pro hac vice shall be bound by the grievance procedures established in the Rules of the Virgin Islands Bar Association and shall be subject to the disciplinary and contempt jurisdiction of any court of the Virgin Islands, in the course of his practice during his pro hac vice admission, whether such disciplinary action is taken before or after termination or revocation of his or her admission pro hac vice. (g) An inactive member of the Virgin Islands Bar Association in good standing who is interested in litigation filed in a court of the Virgin islands may, at the discretion of a judge of the District Court or a judge of the Municipal Court, or any court of the territory of the Virgin Islands hereinafter established by the Legislature of the Virgin Islands, be permitted to participate in the action as an active member of the Virgin Islands Bar Association.--Added and eff. Jan. 1, 1975. 2/ An attorney from another jurisdiction, in good standing there may at the discretion of the Court in which a cause is pending, be admitted to practice pro hac vice, to participate in the conduct of such cause, but only upon association with an attorney admitted to practice before the Courts of the Virgin Islands. Local counsel shall at all times be responsible to the Court in which the cause is pending and no pleadings, papers, motions or other documents shall be filed unless signed by local counsel who shall be responsible for the form and substance thereof. Service of any documents in a pending cause which may otherwise be served upon an attorney, shall not be deemed served or effective for any purpose, unless served upon local counsel pursuant to local rules of practice. Except by stipulation between counsel and with the approval -of the Court in which the action is pending, no postponement of a cause shall be granted on the ground that counsel admitted pro hac vice 15 unable to attend because of conflicting settings in another jurisdiction. @ e CINTRON vs. ISLAND CARS, INC.,& (BMW A.G.) ACTION FOR DAMAGES jurisdiction, nor has it been shown that he has become associated with local counsel, he may not properly file any legal documents on behalf of Defendant Vacation Ownership Marketing, Inc. For that reason this Court is unwilling to consider Defendant Vacation Ownership Marketing, Inc., Motion to Dismiss. Ze EILE *“R. PETERSEN Judge