USVI Public Records

Document text

For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS KELVIN B DENNIE ) S Ct Civ No 2020-0028 Appellant/Plaintiff ) Re Super Ct Civ No 586 2008 (STX) ) v ) ) OLYMPIC RENT A-CAR CENTERLINE ) CAR RENTALS BUDGET RENT A ) CAR RICHARD EVANGELISTA, ) COMMISSIONER V I DEPARTMENT ) 0F LICENSING AND CONSUMER ) AFFAIRS, TREVOR VELINOR, IN HIS ) OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ) COMMISSIONER OF THE VIRGIN ) ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT ) JOHN AND JANE DOE, AND ) KENDRICK ROBERTSON,l ) Appellees/Defendants ) ) On Appeal from the Supenor Court of the Vugin Islands Division of St Croix Superior Court Judge Hon Robert A Molloy Considered May 11 2021 Filed April 17 2023 Cite as 2023 VI 6 BEFORE RHYS S HODGE Chief Justice' MARIA M CABRET Associate Justice and IVE ARLINGTON SWAN Associate Justice APPEARANCES Beverly A Edney St Croix U S V I ' Robertson was not a party within the original complaint He was listed in the caption of Dennie 5 third amended complaint m his capacity as Commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of Licensing and Consumer Affaus ( VIDLCA’) (Vol 2 of IA Pg 46 of 76) However, Dennie removed Robenson as a party from his fourth and final amended complaint,(Sec Superior Court Docket Entry 169 of21 1, 05 03 16), and Denniemakes no argument aganst Robertson or the VIDLCA within his brief Additionally pursuant to Vtrgm Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) the Superior Court substituted Richard Evangelism and Trevor Velmor, In their officialcapacities, as patties (JA 47) Donnie makes no argument regarding Evangeitsta or Vclinor or against John and Jane Doe Only the car rental AttorneyfiJr Appellant Ryan C Stutzman, Esq St Croix U S V I Attorneyfor Appellees Olympic Rent A Car and Centerlme Car Rental H A Curt Otto, Esq St Croix U S VI Attorneyfor Appellee Budget Car Rental OPINION OF THE COURT CABRET, Associate Justice 1|] Kelvin Bennie appeals from the Superior Court's January 8, 2020 order, entered on a defendant’s motion for recovery of costs and fees following the granting of a summary judgment for the defense in this case However, for the reasons discussed below, the January 8, 2020 order is a non final order We therefore dismiss Dennie’s appeal for lack ofjurisdiction 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1[ 2 Dennie, a taxicab driver, alleges claims of business interference, unfair competition, and defamation against Appellees Budget Car Rental, Olympic Rent a Car, and Centerline Car Rental (the “car rental companies”) He also alleges a claim of defamation against Kendrick Robertson, a fonner Commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs, asserting that Robertson made false statements regarding the case in the St Crovc Avts newspaper In this appeal, Bennie does not bn'ef nor argue the claims of defamation made in the Superior Court, and we focus solely on his claims of busmess interference and unfair competition 11 3 As a courtesy, the car rental companies pick up customers near the Christiansted harbor on Saint Croix and provide rides to their car rental facilities for the limited purpose of leasing their fleet of vehicles Dennie owns a taxi medallion, which authorizes him to pick up and transport fares for a fee in the Virgin Islands He claims that the car rental companies’ courtesy rides deny him the business opportunities his medallion affords him, as the companies are collecting and transporting his would be passengers from the harbor without authorization under the automobile for hire statutes See 20 V I C §§ 407, 413 Therefore, he claims that the car rental companies are hable to him for damages stemming from the lost business opportunities 1] 4 On November 15, 2019, the Superior Court granted summary judgment to the car rental companies on Dennie’s clams, fmdmg that Dennie has no private cause of action under the automobile for hire statutes, and that car rental companies are excluded from the definition of “automobile for hire’ under 20 V I C § 101 Budget Car Rental filed a motion for recovery of its costs and fees on December 4, 2019, expressly referencmg the November 15 2019, judgment entered in its favor 2 Dennie filed a motion in opposition on December 9, 2019 3 Dennie’s opposition motion did not address Budget Car Rental 3 motion for costs and fees; Dennie alleged that the litigation was still ongoing, which, to him, meant that the merits ofthe motion need not be addressed because costs could not be awarded since at this stage ofthe proceedings there was as yet no prevailing party Cuiiously, despite this contention his motion nonetheless included a request for recovery of his own costs and fees 11 5 The Superior Court then issued the January 8, 2020, order, finding that Dennie had not 2 This motion is not within the Appendix filed by Dennie The appellant must prepare and file an appendix to the briefs which shall contain relevant portions of the parts of the record referred to in the briefs at such length as may be necessary to preserve context ”V I R APP P 24(a) It is also “theJatntresponSIbzlity ofthe parties to ensure that the contents oftheJointappendix are sufficient to enable review[,]” Fontame v People, 56 V I 660, 665 n 2 (V I 2012) (emphasis kept) and therefore the appellee(s) are just as responsible for deficiencies within the appendices Deficient appendices waste scarcejudicial resources and delay the appellate process for litigants seeking redress in courts of the Virgin Islands To protect the appellate process, the failure to follow this Court 5 rules regarding appendices will result in sanctions against the appellant or his counsel or appellee or its counsel Id We note that, among other deficiencies, the pages of the appendix in this case are also not clearly and sequentially numbered, many pages require varying levels of zooming out or in, and they are in several separate document files See VI R APP P 15(a)( All pages of the appendix shall be clearly and sequentially numbered )Indeed the Clerk of the Supreme Court could have rejected this appendix VI R APP P 20 received a copy of the Judgment Therefore, the Superior Court granted Dennie more time to file a response addressing the merits of Budget Car Rental’s motion for costs (JA 40-41) But Dennie did not avail himself ofthe additional time to respond to the motion for costs Instead, on January 16 2020 Dennie filed a purpoxted motion to reconsider the January 8, 2020 order He argues that he filed the motion to dispute the Superior Coutt’s determination ofwho the prevailing party was in the underlying judgment (Appellant s Br at 20) Yet, this motion is not in the record, nor is it in the Superior Court docket 4 Indeed, Dennie states within his brief that “[t]he record shows that on Januaty 16, 2020, Appellant filed his motion for reconsideration of the Superior Court's January 8, 2020 Order,” without any citation to the record 5 Nonetheless Dennie also filed a motion to expedite ruling on this motion on February 27, 2020 However before the Superior Court ruled, Dennie filed a notice of appeal of the January 8, 2020 order with this Court on April 20, 2020 The following day the Superior Court issued an order reserving ruling on Budget Car Rental’s motion for costs and fees, concluding that it could not exercise jurisdiction over the motion while the case is on appeal II DISCUSSION 1} 6 Before considering the merits of an appeal, this CouIt must first determine whether it has appellate subject matter jurisdiction over the matter Ftrst Am Dev Group/Carzb LLC v WestLB 4 The Superior Court acknowledges in its order issued on April 21, 2020, thatsomemotion was filed on January 16, 2020, but states only that the motion “supplemented” Dennie’s earlier response in opposition to Budget s motion for costs, not that the motion was a motion for reconsideration (IA 66) Additionally, the docket sheet within the Appendix classifies the motion as a supplemental response to Budget’s motion for costs and fees (1A 9) The only individual that states that Dennie filed a motion for reconsideration on January 16,2020, is De mic, and even he contradicts this assertion within his brief (See Appellant’s Br at 7, 20 describing the motion as supplemental) He also contradicts this assertion within his reply brief (See Appellant's Reply Br at 7 claiming instead that Februaiy 27 2020 motion is the qualifyingmotion under Rule 59 for purposes of tolling time to appeal) 5 All assertions of fact within appellate briefs submitted to this Court need to be supported by a specific reference to Page 5 of9 AG, 55 VI 594, 601 (V I 2011) This Court has jurisdiction over all appeals arising from final judgments, final decrees or final orders of the Superior Court,’ 4 V I C § 32(a), and typically a notice of appeal must be filed withm thiIty days of the entry of a final order ” Szmpson v Bd of Directors ofSapphire Bay Condominiums W. 62 VI 728 730 (V I 2015) See VI R APP P 5(a)(1) Here, “[s]ince [Dennie] did not appeal the [November 15, 2019, j]udgment, and a motion for costs is not among the motions that toll the tune to file a notice of appeal of an otherwise final judgment, any challenge to the correctness ofthe underlymg [summary judgment rulmg] has been waived Terrell v Coral World 55 V I 580 583 n 1 (V I 2011) (internal citation omitted) See Bernhardtv Bernhardt 51 V I 341 345 (VI 2009) VI R APP P 5(a)(4) However despite this waiver, Dennie appears to be attempting to appeal the November 15, 20 I 9 Judgment by instead appealmg the January 8, 2020 order where the Superior Court made clear its November 15, 2019 order was a final judgment in favor of the car rental company defendants, which completely disposed of all matters pertaming to this case (IA 5) (See Appellant 3 Br at 7) But the January 8, 2020 order is not the judgment, and its mere reference to the November 15, 2019 ruling that disposed of all the matters then before the Superior Court thus qualifying that ruling as a final judgment does not allow Dennie to reach and resurrect that judgment to argue its merits by appealing the entirely separate January 8, 2020 order, as he is attempting to do Terrell, 55 V I at 584 n 1 In re Lang 414 F 3d 1191 1196 (10th Cir 2005) (on appeal from a ruling on a post Judgment motion, the scope ofthe stand alone appeal should be restricted to the questions properly raised by the post judgment motion and should not extend to revive lost opportunities to appeal the underlying judgment) 5 Additionally, as explained below, the January 8, 2020 order 6 There are circumstances where this Court may obtain jurisdiction over an underlying judgment where a notice of appealdoes not expressly designate the judgment as an order thatthe appellant wantsthe Court to review See e g , is not a final order capable of appellate review Nevertheless, we conclude that even if it were, Dennie could still not use it to obtain review of the judgment on its merits In re Lang, 414 F 3d 1196 11 7 Regardmg the Januaty 8, 2020 order, while “an order granting or denying costs is itself an appealable final judgment[,]’ Terrell, 55 V I at 584 n 1, see VI Gov’t Hosps & Health Facdmes Corp v Govtofthe VI 50 V I 276 279 (V I 2008) the Superior Court 3 orderdid not grant or deny costs, but merely permitted Dennie additional time to address Budget Car Rental’s motion for recovery of its costs Indeed, the Superior Court reserved ruling on the motion for costs by written orderon April 21, 2020, pending this appeal (JA 66) Therefore, the order Dennie purports to appeal is a non fmal order, and we do not have jurisdiction under 4 V I C §32(a) 1] 8 Although we do not have jurisdiction over the appeal of a non final order, even assuming Dennie’s appeal encompasses the November 15, 2019, judgment, the appeal is nevertheless untimely, and must be dismissed Dennie asserts that his appeal is timely under either Virgin Islands Rule ofAppellate Procedure 5(a)(10) or Rule 5(a)(4) (Appellant 3 Br at 27' Reply Br a1 5 6) We address each argument in turn 1| 9 Dennie argues that his Notice of Appeal was fiie[d] April 20, 2020, in accordance with the provisions of Appellate Rule 5[(a)](10) (Appellant 5 Br at 27) Rule 5(a)(10) reads in pertinent part The Superior Court, if it finds (a) that a party entitled to notice of the entry of a judgment or order did not receive such notice from the Clerk of the Superior Chavayez v Buhler No 2007 060 2009 WL [810914 at ‘1 n 2 (VI 2009)(where a notice ofappealonly seeks review of a motion to alter or amend a judgment, but the motion to alter or amend is filed within ten days of the judgment, and the appellant’s intent to appealthejudgment is clear, this Court in ay obtainjurisdiction); Virgin Islands Tax: Ass’n v Virgin Islands Port Auth , 67 VI 643, 673 74 (V I 2017) (where the appellant indicated in its notice of appealthat it was appealing [a]ll rulings adverse to it, and the appellees claimed no prejudice from the appellants failure to identify the order and both parties briefed the issue this Conn addressed the merits ofthe appeal) However, Court or any party and (b) that no party would be substantially prejudiced, may, upon motion filed within 90 days after entry of thejudgment or order or within 14 days after receipt of such notice, whichever is earlier, reopen the time for appeal for a period of 14 days after the date of entry of the order reopening the time for appeal Dennie argues that his January 16 2020 motion would reopen the time to appeal, and validate his untimely April 20, 2020 appeal (Appellant’s Br at 27) However, Dennie did not file this motion within 14 days of receivmg notice of the judgment, as expressly required by the Rule 1] 10 The Superior Court’s January 8, 2020 order states that it appeared as if Dennie did not receive the November 15, 2019 judgment (JA 40) However, Budget Car Rental’s December 4, 2019 motion expressly moved for costs and fees in light of the Memorandum Opinion and Judgment that were entered on November 15, 2019 ” (emphasis added) Thus, pursuant to the terms of the Rule, Dennie received “notice of the entry of a judgment from [a] patty” on December 4 2019 VI R APP P 5(a)(10) Under Rule 5(a)(10) Dennie had until fourteen days after receiving this notice to file a motion to reopen the time to appeal 7 The time to file a motion reopening the time to appeal ran on December 18, 2019 Dennie’s January 16, 2020 filing was nearly a month past this deadline, and his argument under this Rule therefore must fail 3 1[ 11 Regarding Dennie s timeliness argument under Appellate Rule 5(a)(4), a party must timely file a motlon to alter or amend the judgment in order to toll the time to take an appeal ‘ A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment V I R CIV P 59(e) Because Dennie received notice of the judgment on December 4, 2019 he 7 The reopened period to appealwould have only lasted fourteen days as well VI R APP P 5(a)(10) 3 Additionally, the rule Dennie invokes Rule 5(a)(10), explicitly states that the “Rule shall not be construed as excusmg the parties from their affirmative responsflaility to regularly monitor the statusof their case in the Supenor Court ’Id Dennie assexts thathe was unawareofanyjudgment untilJanuary 16 2020 (Appellant’s Br at 27) This was required to file a motion to alter or amend by January 1, 2020 in order to receive the benefit of a tolling of the time to appeal under the provisions of Appellate Rule 5(a)(4) Since his January 16, 2020 filing was made fifteen days past the deadline imposed by Rule 59(e), it does not qualify as a motion to alter or amend the November 15, 2019 judgment Rather, it could only be considered as a motion seeking relief from a judgment underthe provisions ofRule 60(b) ofthe Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure,9 and such a motion does not toll the time to appeal Bamster v Dams, 140 S Ct 1698 1703 1710 (2020) (observing that [t]he filmg of a Rule 59(e) motion within the 28 day period suspends the finality ofthe original judgment for purposes of an appeal,” that “[b]y contrast, a Rule 60(b) motion does not affect the [original] judgment's finality or suspend its operation, and that absent a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion, “a litigant must take an appeal no later than 30 days from the court’s entry ofjudgment”) (citing FCC v League ofWomen Voters of Cal 468 U S 364 373 n 10 (1984) FED R CIV P 60(c)(2) 1° and FED R APP P 4(a)(l)(A)1 l) Therefore, Dennie’s argument premised on Rule 5(a)(4) also must fail 1[ 12 This Court Strictly construes all temporal deadlines V I R APP P 17 Indeed relaxing the requirements of Rule 5 undernormal circumstances would severely undermine and weaken the rule's purpose ” Sampson, 62 V I at 732 Dennie presents no grounds to support the view that this is a rare circumstance where this Court should overlook its own rules to hear an appeal Id 9 See eg 3SM Realty& Dev Inc v FDIC 393 Fed Appx 381 383 & n 1 (7th Ctr 2010)(noting thatunder Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which 18 identical to Rule 59(e) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, a litigant has 28 days from the date of entry ofa judgment in which to file a motion seeking to alter oramend suchjudgment,and concluding that even if [a] motion sa [ys] that it sought Rule 59(e)re1ief, [because] it was not filed within [28] daysofjudgmentas Rule 59(e) require[s] it still would be[ ] construed asa motion under Rule 60(b) )' Shepherdv Inthaper Co 372 F3d 326 328 n 1 (5th Ctr 2004) '° This rule is identical to Rule 60(c)(2) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure ” Rule 5(a)(1) of the Virgm Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure smilarly provides thatthe notice of appeal “shall Therefore even assuming, arguendo, that Dennie’s appeal raises the November 15, 2019, judgment for review on its merits, his appeal is untimely, and would be dismissed III CONCLUSION 1] 13 This Court does not have jufisdiction over Dennie’s appeal of the Superior Coult’s non final January 8, 2020 order Additionally, assuming arguendo that Dennie’s appeal could raise the November 15, 2019judgment for this Court’s review on the merits, his appeal was untimely under Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(4) and 5(a)(10) We therefore dismiss Dennie’s appeal for lack ofjurisdiction Dated this 17th day of April 2023 BY THE COURT E 5" a ‘7?” I C MARI CAB ET As . - Justaée ATTEST VERONICA J HANDY, ESQ Clerk of e Court By Deputy Clerk + I ’7 a0623 1| 14 Although I agree that Dennie did not timely file his notice of appeal, I disagree with the analysis employed by the majority, specifically its interpretation ofRule 77(d) ofthe Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure 1] 15 Rule 77(d)(l) requires that the clerk immediately serve all orders or judgments on all parties not in default for failing to appear Civil Rule 77(d)(2) provides that lack of such notice does not affect the time for filing a notice of appeal except as authorized by Rule 5(a) ofthe Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure Although Appellate Rule 5(a)(8) authorizes the Superior Court to extend the time to file a notice of appeal for no more than 30 days after the expiration of the time to appeal, it may do so only “upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause,” while Appellate Rule 5(a)(10) permits the Superior Com, if it “finds that a party entitled to notice ofthe entry ofa judgment or order did not receive such notice,” to “re0pen the time for appeal for a period of 14 days ” 1] 16 While Dennie did not file an affidavit in this case stating that he did not receive the November 15, 2019 opinion and order, the Superior Court expressly made a finding in its January 8, 2020 order that Dennie had not received those documents Although the Superior Court did not state in the January 8, 2020 order that it would extend any deadline other than the time to respond to the attorney’s fees motion, the same reasoning that justified reopening the period to respond to that motion would not only justify, but requzre, reopening those deadlines as well, including the time to appeal and to file post judgment motions Accord Harris v Garcza, S Ct Civ No 2008 0082 2010 WL 330331 at *4 (VI April 18 2016) (unpublished) 11 17 The majority acknowledges the Superior Court’s finding in its January 8, 2020 order that Dennie had not received the November 15, 2019 judgment Nevertheless, the majority would not apply Appellate Rule 5(a)(10) to this case because Dennie supposedly received “notice of entry of [the] judgment from a party” on December 4, 2019 The majority reaches this conclusion by holding that Budget Rental Car’s December 4, 2019 motion for costs and attorneys’ fees, which stated that it was seeking “costs and fees in light ofthe Memorandum Opinion and Judgment that were entered on November 15, 2019,” provided “notice” to Dennie that the Superior Court had entered the November 15, 2019 judgment 1] 18 If Appellate Rule 5(a)(10) permitted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal if “a party entitled to notice of a judgment did not receive such notice from the Clerk of the Superior Court or any party,” I might agree with the majority that this fleeting reference to the November 15, 2019 judgment in Budget Rental Car’s motion for costs may be sufficient But Appellate Rule 5(a)(10) does not use the phrase "notice ofajudgment” rather, it uses the phrase “notice ofentry of a judgment ” This Court construes the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure and other court rules using the same rules of construction that traditionally apply to statutes In re Petztzon fi)r Disbarment ofPlaskett 56 VI 441 447 (VI 2012) (citing Corraspe v People 53 VI 470 480 (VI 2010)) see also Nichmo America Inc v Valent USA LLC 44 F 4th 180 184 n 8 (3d Cir 2022) This necessarily includes the longstanding principle that we must interpret words pursuant to their common and approved usage in the English language, mp; for technical words and phrases and other terms of art which have acquired a peculiar or appropriate meaning in the law See Greer v People 74 VI 556 580 (VI 2021) (citing 1 VI C § 42 and collecting cases) Umted States v Melvin 948 F3d 848 851 52 (7th Cir 2020) (in applying court rules the ordinary contemporary, and common meaning of their words is applied by looking at what those words meant when the rules were promulgated oftentimes by referencing contemporary dictionaries) 1| 19 The phrase “notice of entry of a judgment” is such a term of art A “notice of entry of judgment” refers to a written document produced by the Clerk of the Court that accompanies the judgment and states the date that thejudgment was entered onto the docket See Bass v US Dept ongrzculture 211 F 3d 959 963 64 (5th Cir 2000) (applying federal law) Acevedo v Capra 545 F Supp 3d 107 110 n 7 (S D N Y 2021) (applying New York law) Alan v American Honda Motor Co Inc , 152 P 3d 1109 1113 14 (Cal 2007) In other words a court rule that requires that a party receive “notice of entry of a judgment” from the clerk or another party does not mean that a party must merely receive notice ofthejudgment, such as through an oral communication from opposing counsel See Benavides v Bureau ofPrisons, 79 F 3d 1211, 1215 (D C Cir 1996); Avolzo v County ofSuflolk 29 F3d 50 53 (2d Cir 1994) Rather the party must receive notice of entg of a judgment” which, if served by another party rather than by the clerk, must nevertheless be served in the same manner as would be done by the clerk Bass, 211 F 3d at 963 64 11 20 Rule 77(d) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, like its federal counterpart, provides that a party who elects to serve “notice of the entry” of a judgment must do so “as provided in Rule 5(b) ” Rule 5(b) reads, in its entirety, as follows (b) Service How Made (1) Serving an Attorney If a party is represented by an attorney, service under this rule must be made on the attorney unless the court orders service on the P311)! (2) Service m General A paper is served under this rule by (A) handing it to the person, (B) leaving it (i) at the person’s office with a clerk or other person in charge or, ifno one is in charge, in a conspicuous place in the office, or (ii) if the person has no office or the office is closed, at the person's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; (C) mailing it to the person's last known address in which event (D) leaving it with the Virgin Islands Marshal for service, ifpossible, ifthe person has no known address; (E) sending it by electronic means if the person has consented in writing in which event service is complete upon transmission, but is not effective if the serving party learns that it did not reach the person to be served, or (F) delivering it by any other means that the person has consented to in writing in which event service is complete when the person making service delivers it to the agency designated to make delivery Civil Rules 77(d) and 5(b), when read together, thus require that a party electing to serve a notice ofentry of ajudgment must actually serve the notice of entry of the judgment that is, duly serve the other party with the written document produced by the Clerk ofthe Court that accompanies the judgment and states the date the judgment was entered onto the docket It is not sufficient for the party to simply tell the other party that there was a judgment, or indirectly refer to the notice of entry of a judgment without serving the written document See Bass, 211 F 3d at 963 64 Benavzdes 79 F 3d at 1215 Avolzo 29 F 3d at 53 1| 21 Here, the record contains no indication whatsoever that Budget Rental Car served Dennie with notice of entry of the November 15, 2019 judgment in the manner required by Civil Rules 77(d) and 5(b) Thus, under the Rules, Dennie did not receive “notice of entry of [the] judgment from a party” for purposes oprpellate Rule 5(a)(10) so as to preclude him from receiving an extension of time to file a notice of appeal 1| 22 Nevertheless, I ultimately would conclude that Dennie did not timely file his notice of appeal While Appellate Rule 5(a)(10) authorizes the reopening ofthe time to appeal if a party did not receive notice of the entry of a judgment, it also expressly provides that “[t]his Rule shall not be construed as excusing the parties from their affirmative responsibility to regularly monitor the status oftheir case in the Superior Court ” While I do not believe the reference to a November 15, 2019 judgment in Budget Rental Car’s December 4, 2019 motion for costs and attorneys’ fees constituted “notice of entry of [the] judgment from a party” so as to immediately trigger the start of the 30 day period to file a notice of appeal, that Budget Rental Car’s motion mentioned a judgment that Dennie had not received should have then alerted him of the need to check the docket to see if such ajudgment had in fact been entered Even if that failure could be excused, I can discern no legitimate reason for the failure of Dennie who at all pertinent times was represented by counsel to take any meaningful action after receiving the Superior Court’s January 6, 2020 order confirming that a judgment did in fact issue on November 15, 2019 While Dennie asserts that he filed a motion for reconsideration on January 16, 2020 a document which, as the majority correctly notes, is not in the record a motion for reconsideration is not among the motions listed in Appellate Rule 5(a)(4) that tolls the time to file a notice of appeal And while this Court has construed documents captioned as motions for reconsideration as motions under Rules 59 or 60 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, see Ruiz v Jung, S Ct Civ No 2008 0035 2009 WL 3568182 at *3 (VI Oct 19 2009) (unpublished) (collecting cases) Appellate Rule 5(a)(4) expressly provides that the time to file a notice of appeal is only tolled by a Rule 59 motion if it is timely filed and by a Rule 60 motion if filed within 28 days Thus, even if Dennie actually filed a motion with the Superior Court on January 16, 2020, that motion would not have been sufficient to toll the time to appeal from the November 15, 2019 order And while for the reasons given above I believe Dennie could have filed a notice of appeal from the November 15, 2019 order pursuant to Appellate Rule 5(a)(10), based on the findings in the Superior Court’s January 6, 2020 order, he did not file a notice of appeal until April 20, 2020, several months after the time for him to do so expired Consequently, I concur in the dismissal of this appeal as untimely /s/ Rhys S Hodge RHYS S HODGE ChiefJustice ATTEST VERONICA J HANDY, ESQ Clerk 0 he Court By Deputy Clerk ft I 7 o?083