Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1) concerns a court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case. You can not just bring a lawsuit where you want against someone because you want to. If a judge decides that a plaintiff doesn’t have standing or the proper connection to an injury, the court will not have jurisdiction to hear the case and must dismiss it.   

Continue Reading Standing Needed to Bring Suit in Federal Court for the U.S. Virgin Islands

For those who practice in the courts of the Virgin Islands, there is a weary acceptance that justice will come, but it might not come quickly.  Sometimes—either due to the complexity of a case or a court’s congested docket—a motion or petition will linger on a judge’s docket for months or (in extreme cases) even years.  In these situations, a litigant has only two choices:  Sit back and wait for a ruling or try to get the case moving with a writ of mandamus.

Continue Reading No Escape from Limbo: The Virgin Islands Supreme Court Denies a Writ of Mandamus

Summary judgment is a decision by the judge that the claim asserted has no factual issues that need to be given to the jury, and the case may be decided as a matter of law. This rids the court of factually unsupported claims and defenses where one of the parties convinces the judge that the factual issues either do not exist or they are not material, thereby avoiding trial and allowing the judge to make the decision.  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 speaks to this type of motion and states that summary judgment may be entered after adequate time for discovery against the party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, which that party would bear the burden of proof at trial.

Continue Reading Summary Judgment Used to Filter Out Unsupported Claims

Stotesbury v. Pirate Duck Adventure, LLC, Slip Copy, 2013 WL 5508131 (D.V.I. October 1, 2013).

 

In a recent case in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas-St. John, Defendants sought to exclude portions of Plaintiffs’ proposed experts’ testimony. Senior District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose of the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands, applying Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), wrote that in order to decide Defendants’ motions to exclude expert testimony the trial court judge must determine whether the proposed expert will testify to expert knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact at issue. This means that a preliminary assessment must be conducted of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.

Continue Reading Evaluating the Admissibility of Expert Testimony

The Virgin Islands Casino Control Commission and the Office of the Governor recently confirmed the legality of the "Virgin Islands Internet Gaming Act".  “This marks a turning point in the diversification of our gaming industry from land-based casinos and racinos, to internet gaming. The implementation of this Act will fulfill our mission of attracting very successful global internet gaming companies to the Virgin Islands, and encourage new investments to our struggling economy." Governor de Jongh said.

Continue Reading VI Attorney General OK’s Internet Gaming Law

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a freight transportation company did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other antidiscrimination laws when it terminated an alcoholic employee who violated a Return to Work (RWA) agreement. In Ostrowski v. Con-way Freight, the RWA violation occurred when the employee suffered a relapse after returning from a leave of absence to undergo rehabilitation for alcoholism.

Continue Reading U.S. Third Circuit Holds Firing Alcoholic Employee for Relapse Not ADA Violation

In a recent case, the Appellant, Hani Khalil, asked the Supreme Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands to hear his argument concerning the Superior Court’s orders, which ruled on his motion in opposition to a motion for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest filed by the Appellee, Guardian Insurance Company. 

Continue Reading Rules Are Meant to be Followed, Especially When Appealing a Case

A preliminary injunction is a court order where a party is instructed to perform, or is restrained from performing, a specific act. A preliminary injunction is deemed to be an extraordinary remedy, which is reserved for special situations where it is necessary to maintain the status quo for a period of time.

Continue Reading The Third Circuit Holds that a Statement that the Motion is “Moot” Needs Factual Support

Carole Chestnut appealed a judgment in favor of her aunt, Elsa Goodman. The jury found Chestnut liable for negligent misrepresentation when she convinced Goodman to give her an interest in her property on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands in exchange for Chestnut’s promise to move in and care for Goodman in her advancing age. Continue Reading Misrepresentation Requires a Promise to Act Now