FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION ) CASE NO SX 16 CV 065
Plaintiff, )
) ACTION FOR DECLARATORY IUDGMENT
V I
) [URY TRIAL DEMANDED
MANAL MOHAMMAD YOUSEF )
Defendant/ ]
Counterclaimant )
HISHAM HAMED derivatively on behalf
5
] CASE NO SX 16 CV 650
of SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION )
Plaintiff ) DERIVATIVE SHAREHOLDER SUIT ACTION
) FOR DAMAGES AND CICO RELIEF
V )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
FATHI YUSUF ISAM YOUSEF and JAMIL )
YOUSEF ]
Defendants, )
)
and ]
)
SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION )
Nominal Defendant )
;
MANAL MOHAMMAD YOUSEF a/k/a ) CASE NO SX 17 CV 342
MANAL MOHAMAD YOUSEF ]
Plaintiff ) ACTION FOR DEBT AND FORECLOSURE OF
) REAL PROPERTY MORTGAGE
V )) * * *
SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION )
Defendant / Counterclaimant / ) Consolidated with 8X 16 CV 065
Third Party Plaintiff, )
)
V )
FATHI YUSUF )
Third Party Defendant )
I
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp, er al 2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS SX 16 CV 065 / 8X 16 CV 650 / 5X 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 2 of 17
Cite as 2020 VI Super 43
Appearances
JOEL H HOLT ESQ
Law Offices of Joel H Holt
Christiansted VI 00820
For Sixteen Plus Corporation and stham Horned
CARL] HARTMANN Ill ESQ
Christiansted VI 00820
For Sixteen Plus Corporation and Hisham Hamed
MARKW ECKARD ESQ
Hamm Eckard LLP
Gallows Bay VI 00820
For Sixteen Plus Corporation and Hisham Hamed
GREGORY H HODGES ESQ
CHARLOTTE PERRELL ESQ
LISA MICHELLE KOMIVES ESQ
Dudley Newman Feuerzeig LLP
St Thomas V100804
For Fathi Yusuf
JAMES L HYMES III
Law Office ofjames L Hymes, P C
St Thomas Vi 00802
For Mann] Mohammad Yousefi lsam Yousefi and jam! Yousef
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MOLLOY judge
111 THESE MATTERS came before the Court for a hearing on whether they require exceptional
judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to
expedite the case keep costs reasonable and promote effective decision making by the court the
parties and counsel VI R Civ P 92(a) Although this Court does believe that these cases do
warrant exceptional judicial management, the Court concludes that transferring them to the
Complex Litigation Division would be counterproductive Several related cases are being presided
over by another judge with the assistance of a judicial master Assigning related cases to the same
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ flamed v Yusuf, et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 V1 Super 43
CASE NOS 8x 16 CV 065/SX 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 3 of 17
judge can be more efficient because the judge then has knowledge of both cases and their respective
procedural histories and can issue any other orders short of formal consolidation to avoid
unnecessary cost or delay In re Kelvm Manbodh Asbestos thlg Series 69 V l 394, 422 (Super Ct
2018) (quotingV I R Civ P 42(a)(3) However only the above captioned cases were referred for a
determination whether they should be designated as complex Accordingly for the reasons stated
below, the Court declines to designate the cases as complex
I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
112 In an August 16, 2019 Order the Honorable Iomo Meade referred the above captioned cases
to the undersigned judicial officer pursuant to Virgin islands Rule of Civil Procedure 92(e)(1] to
consider and determine whether th[e] case[s] should be treated as complex subject to the
provisions of (b)(c) and (d) of this Rule (Order 2 entered Aug 21, 2019) The Clerks Office
forwarded the cases to the Complex Litigation Division after which this Court issued an order
scheduling a hearing and granted each party leave to file one brief as to whether the cases should
be designated as complex The Court also directed that any party 5 appearance at the hearing
[would not] be construed as a waiver of any preserved defense or objection to the jurisdiction of
the Superior Court ofthe Virgin Islands (Order 2 entered Sept 3 2019 ) Manal Mohammad Yousef
( Manal ) Isam Yousuf( Isam ) and lamilYousuf( Jamil”), and Hisham Hamed( Hisham ), Sixteen
Plus Corporation ( Sixteen Plus ) and Fathi Yusuf ( Fathi ) filed briefs 1 Counsel for Fathi and
counsel for Hisham and Sixteen Plus appeared at the hearing and argued their respective positions
Counsel for Manal Isam and Jamil had asked to be excused
113 Some background is necessary to explain what Fathi refers to as the protracted and
acrimonious litigation related to the families long term ioint business interests which
encompasses multiple civil cases pending in the courts of the Virgin islands including the main
case between the parties Hamed v Yusuf, et a] Case No SX 12 CV 370 and assigned to the
Honorable Douglas A Brady (Fathi s Opp n to Transfer to Complex Lit Div 2 filed Sept 3 2019
(hereinafter Fathi Opp n ) ) The dispute between Fathi and Mohammad A Flamed ( Mohammad ]
specifically and the Hameds and the Yusufs in general has generated no fewer than nineteen cases
1 Because several parties are both plaintiffs and defendants and further because multiple people with the same last
names are parties to several cases related to the above captioned cases the parties will be referred to by their first
names throughout this Opinion to avoid confusion
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi er a1 / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp , at a] 2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS 8x 16 CV 065 / 5x 16 CV 650 / 8X 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 4 of 17
in the Virgin Islands courts judge Meade only referred the three cases captioned above for a
determination because the other cases are assigned to different judges But the Court must address
all the cases to tell the broader story
‘[[4 The dispute between the Hameds and the Yusufs was summarized in Yusufv Horned 59 V l
841 [2013)
Yusufand Hamed grew up as neighbors in a village in the West Bank In 1973 Hamed
immigrated to the United States settling on St Croix where Yusuf lived with his wife
Several years later in 1979 Yusuf incorporated United Corporation as a Virgin
Islands corporation and began constructing the Plaza Extra supermarket in a
shopping center owned by United in Estate Sion Farm on St Croix After Yusuf was
unable to secure funding to complete the store Hamed sold his two grocery stores
and invested a total of $400,000 into the Sion Farm store According to Hamed, this
investment resulted in an equal partnership between Yusuf and Hamed after other
investors abandoned the project
The Sion Farm store opened in 1986 with Yusufhandling the financial aspects
ofthe business and Hamed managing the store 5 inventory and warehouse The Sion
Farm store (colloquially known as Plaza East ] proved successful, leading to the
construction of two more stores one in Tutu Park Mall on St Thomas in 1993 and
another in Grove Place on the west end of St Croix (referred to colloquially as Plaza
West ) in 2002 in 1996 Hamed retired from his role in the operations ofthe business
due to illness giving a power of attorney and delegating his management
responsibilities to one of his sons Waleed Hamed After Mohammad Hamed s
retirement the Yusufand Hamed families continued joint management of the stores
with members of both families co managing each store
In 2003 United and members of the Yusuf and Hamed families were indicted
in the District Court of the Virgin Islands for tax evasion resulting in a plea
agreement entered in 2011 Pursuant to the agreement, United agreed to plead guilty
to tax evasion and the charges against the individual members of both families were
dismissed As a result of the criminal proceeding a federal receiver was appointed to
oversee the profits from the Plaza Extra stores in 2003 holding these funds in
escrow outside of the parties control
Around the time of the plea agreement in 2011 management cooperation
between the two families began to break down The store managers started requiring
that a member of both the Yusuf and Hamed families sign off on any distribution of
funds from Plaza Extra accounts and Fathi Yusuf alleged that a review of financial
records required by the plea agreement revealed that members of the Hamed family
had been stealing money from the stores Yusuf then attempted to evict Plaza East
from United 3 shopping center A few months later Yusuf informed Mohammad
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Horned v Yusufi et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp, et a1 2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS 8X 16 CV 065 /S)( 16 CV 650 / 8X 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 5 of 17
Hamed of his intention to end their business relationship, sending a proposed
Dissolution of Partnership agreement to Hamed on March 12 2012 and initiating
unsuccessful settlement negotiations
Using his power of attorney for Mohammad flamed, Waleed Hamed on
September 17 2012 fil[ed] a complaint against Fathi Yusuf and United Corporation
in the Superior Court The complaint alleged that Fathi Yusuf and Mohammad Hamed
had formed a partnership in 1984 through which they agreed to jointly manage the
stores and equally share the profits and losses
Id at 843 45 (citations omitted) This case Horned v Yusuf case number SX 12 CV 370,2 referred to
as the Main Action or the Main Case by the parties is assigned to judge Brady He issued a
preliminary injunction in January 2013 to maintain the status quo between the families and their
businesses during litigation See Horned v Yusuf, 58 VI 117, 138 (Super Ct 2013) (directing that
operations continue as they have through the years, no funds to be disbursed without the
mutual consent of [Mohammed] and [Fathi] and all checks require two signatures ), revd In
part on othergrounds 59 V I 841 (2013) Fathi appealed that injunction But the Supreme Court of
the Virgin Islands affirmed as to all but the form of security See Yusuf 59 VI at 859 (citing Fed R
Civ P 65(c))
1T5 By 2014 Mohammad 3 children Waleed Hamed ( Waleed ) Waheed Hamed [ Waheed ),
Mufeed Hamed ( Mufeed ’) Hisham, and another Hamed Yusuf family business Plessen
Enterprises Inc had been joined as parties to the Main Action See generally Homed v Yusuf, 62 V l
38 (Super Ct 2014) judge Brady eventually appointed a liquidating partner and adopted a wind
up plan to dissolve the Hamed Yusuf partnership See Yusuf v Horned,
62 VI 565 (2015) (per
cunom) A judicial master was also appointed to assist the court and the parties with winding up
the partnership See Horned v Yusuf,
69 VI 168 171 (Super Ct 2017) ( [T]he Court appointed
Honorable Edgar D Ross to serve as judicial Master in this action, to direct and oversee the winding
up ofthe flamed Yusuf partnership )
1T6 Meanwhile a second case Mohammed Homed et a] v Fat/n Yusufi case number 8X 12 CV
377 was filed on September 19, 2012 [the 377 Action ) two days after the Main Case was filed by
2 Homed v Yusufi et a] case number 8X 12 CV 370 was commenced on September 17 2012 removed to the District
Court on October4 2012 and remanded on November 16 2012 See generally Horned v Yusuf, Civ No 2012 099 2012
US Dist. LEXIS 163857 [DVI Nov 16 2012)
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Horned v Yusuf et al / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp at a]
2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS sx 16 CV 06S [3x 16 CV 650/Sx 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 6 of 17
Mohammed Walled, Waheed, Mufeed and Hisham against Fathi The complaint was later amended,
however to add Fathi 5 sons Yusuf Yusuf ( Yusuf’ ), Maher Yusuf( Maher J and Nejeh Yusuf
[ Nejeh) as defendants and to add tort claims and allegations of fraud concerning monies
transferred to Sixteen Plus to purchase land See generally Hamed v Yusuf, SX 12 CV 377
2016 WL
11639571 *1 2 [VI Super Ct May 6 2016] The September 2012 Action is currently assigned to
Judge Brady and remains pending
2013 Cases
1J7 Four more cases each a spinoff of the Main Action were filed in 2013 [collectively 2013
cases ] Three were filed in the St Croix District United Corporation v Waleed Horned et a] case
number SX 13 CV 003, filed on January 3 2013 (the 003 Action J assigned to Judge Brady Yusuf
Yusufv Waleed Horned et a] SX 13 CV 120 filed on April 16 2013 (the 120 Action ) assigned to
the Honorable Harold W L Willocks United Corporation v Wadda Charrzez et al case number SX
13 CV 152, filed on May 3 2013 (the 152 Action J initially assigned to the undersigned judicial
officer One case was filed in the St Thomas/St John District case, United Corporation v Waheed
Horned case number ST 13 CV 101 filed on March 5, 2013 [the 101 Action ) and assigned to the
Honorable Michael C Dunston
1J8 Judge Dunston initially granted judgment in part on the pleadings in the 101 Action in favor
of Waheed See generally United Corp v Homed ST 13 CV 101 2013 VI LEXIS 50 (Vi Super Ct
June 24 2013) revd in part 64 Vi 297 (2016) He also granted summary judgment in favor of
Waheed See generally United Corp v Hamed ST 13 CV 101
2014 WL 12906419 [Vi Super Ct
Sept 2, 2014), revd
69 VI 297 (2016) United Corporation had sued Waheed as manager of its
Plaza Extra grocery store on St Thomas [claiming] he used United 3 inventory to secretly operate
a competing business United Corp v Hamed 64V] 297 300 [2016) United alleged that in 1995
Hamed used $70,000 of United 5 funds for an unauthorized purpose through a cashier 5 check
[and] only learned of these acts in October 2011, when federal prosecutors returned financial
records that were seized in 2001 as part of a tax evasion prosecution against both United and
Hamed Id Judge Dunston entered final judgment in favor of Waheed on the statute of limitations
but United appealed and prevailed See generally id ( Because there was a genuine issue of material
fact regarding when the statute of limitations began to run in this case, we reverse and remand the
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a]
2020 VI Super 43
CASE Nos SX 16 CV 06S /SX 16 CV 650 / 3X 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 7 of 17
case for further proceedings ')
119 On remand Fathi now as liquidating partner, moved to consolidate the 101 Action with the
Main Action or to dismiss the 101 Action See generally United Corp v Hamed ST 13 CV 101, 2016
VI LEXIS 176 *7 (VI Super Ct Oct 24 2016) He also moved to consolidate the 003 Action with
the Main Action Judge Brady denied the motion as to the 003 Action and dismissed with prejudice
instead because the same claims were pending in two cases Fathi alerted Judge Dunston to Judge
Brady 5 dismissal and moved to dismiss the 101 Action See id at *7 n 14 Waheed did not object but
asked that dismissal be with prejudice and with an award of costs United Corporation could have
moved to consolidate much sooner which he argued shows that the sole purpose of the current
proceedings in conjunction with the other actions with the same parties has been to intimidate
harass and deplete the resources of the Hamed family Id at *8 Judge Dunston granted the
dismissal to avoid duplicative litigation or inconsistent opinions and in the interests of judicial
economy Id at *12 All parties now agree that [Waheed] is subject to the same claims asserted in
this matter in the [main] case pending before Judge Brady Id at *11 But he declined to dismiss
with prejudice so as not to limit other litigation " Id He also declined to award costs and attorney 5
fees because all parties will continue to incur substantial litigation costs including attorney 5 fees
Id at *12 13 Having dismissed the 101 Action Judge Dunston denied consolidation as moot
1J10 Meanwhile in the 120 Action, Judge Willocks was addressing actions taken by the board of
directors on behalf of Plessen Enterprises a Virgin Islands corporation jointly and equally held
between the Hamed families and the Yusuf family Yusufv Hamed SX 13 CV 120 2016 V l LEXIS
38, *1 [VI Super Ct Apr 19 2016) Yusuf brought the 120 Action as a shareholder derivative
lawsuit on behalf of Plessen Enterprises against Waleed Waheed Mufeed Hisham and their
corporation Five H Holdings Inc claiming conversion and unjust enrichment, and seeking an
accounting for $460,000 that went missing from Plessen Enterprises corporate accounts Waleed
moved to dismiss for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 1 which Judge
Willocks denied See Yusufv Hamed SX 13 CV 120 2016VI LEXIS 239 *10 (VI Super Ct Aug 15
2016) ( In a scenario where half of the directors of an even numbered board are alleged to be
interested and lack independence the directors who cannot impartially consider the demand
essentially have the power to prevent the corporation from filing suit Given this reality, it would be
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf, et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp 9: a] 2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS 8x 16 CV 065/Sx 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 8 of 17
illogical for the Court to refuse to excuse demand for futility ] The 120 Action remains pending
However, in December 2019 Judge Willocks consolidated it sua sponte with the Main Action
1i 11 The 152 Action is by United Corporation against Wadda Charriez a former Plaza Extra office
manager allegedly for misreporting hours and fraudulently obtaining over $40,000 in
compensation Charriez counterclaimed for witness intimidation under 42 U S C § 1985 intentional
infliction of emotional distress defamation and civil conspiracy alleging pretextual firing in
retaliation for her having testified in favor of Mohammed in the Main Action She also filed a third
party complaint against Fathi for intentional infliction of emotional distress defamation, and filing
a false criminal complaint As with the other 2013 Cases Fathi as liquidating partner to consolidate
the 152 Action with the Main Action Charriez opposed This Court denied Fathi s motion without
prejudice finding the claims somewhat related but still separate and distinct from the Main
Action The 152 Action remains pending but was reassigned to Judge Meade, after the undersigned
judicial officer was assigned to sit in the Complex Litigation Division
2014 Cases
11 12 Two cases were filed in July 2014 both by Mohammed (collectively the 2014 Cases )
Hamed v Yusuf case number SX 14 CV 278 filed July 7 2014 [the 278 Action J and initially
assigned to the undersigned judicial officer and Horned v United Corporation case number SX 14
CV 287 filed on July 14 2014 (the 287 Action ) and assigned randomly to Judge Brady In the 278
Action Mohammad sued Fathi for debt and conversion of funds allegedly from a 1994 sale of land
in Estate Dorothea on St Thomas owned by another Hamed Yusuf corporation Y&S Corporation
Fathi referred to the Main Case and counterclaimed for accounting dissolution and wind up of the
Y&S Corporation, and conversion unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty among other
claims He also asked that a receiver be appointed In the 287 Action Mohammad sued United
Corporation for a judgment declaring that he owns 50% of three plots of land in Estate Enfield Green
on St Croix, land allegedly purchased by United Corporation over Mohammed s objection
Mohammed referred to the Main Case and counterclaimed against United Corporation for slander
oftitle and a declaratoryjudgment Everyone stipulated to consolidate the 278 Action with the Main
Case which Judge Brady approved on April 15 2016 and to consolidate the 287 Action with the
Main Case which the undersigned judicial officer also approved The 2014 Cases remain pending
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf, et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 Vi Super 43
CASE NOS SX 16 CV 065 / SX 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 9 of 17
and consolidated with the Main Action
2015 Cases
1113 Three cases were filed in 2015 two criminal and one civil The criminal cases, filed by the
People of the Virgin Islands charged Waleed in case number 5X 15 CR 352 and Mufeed, in case
number SX 15 CR 353, with embezzlement of the $460,000 funds allegedly missing from Plessen
Enterprises, which is at issue in the April 2013 Action that Judge Willocks recently consolidated
with the Main Action Both criminal cases were randomly assigned to Judge Willocks who granted
a motion the People filed on May 24 2016 to dismiss 3 The civil case Yusuf v Peters Farm
Investment Corporation et a] case number ST 15 CV 344, was filed in the St Thomas/St John
Division on July 27 2015, and assigned to the Honorable Denise M Francois 4 Fathi filed the July
2015 Action against Peter 5 Farm Investment Corporation ( Peter 3 Farm J Sixteen Plus,
Mohammad Waleed Waheed Mufeed and Hisham for an order pursuant to section 193 of title 13
ofthe Virgin Islands Code to compel a meeting ofthe shareholders ofSixteen Plus and Peter 5 Farm
to elect directors to dissolve both companies and to appoint a receiver The defendants answered
moved to sever (because different corporations were at issue] and to transfer venue to St Croix
But on November 28 2016 the parties jointly moved to dismiss without prejudice which was
granted on December 15 2016 All cases filed in 2015 are no longer pending
2016 Cases
1J14 Three cases were filed in 2016 (collectively the 2016 Cases J Sixteen Plus Corporation v
Yousefi case number SX 16 CV 065 filed on February 12 2016 (the 065 Action J initially assigned
at random to the undersigned judicial officer Hamed, et al v Bank ofNova Scotla eta! case number
5X 16 CV 429 filed on August 1 2016 (the 429 Action J randomly assigned to Judge Brady and
Hamed v Yusufi case number SX 16 CV 650 filed on October 31 2016 (the 650 Action J also
initially assigned at random to the undersigned judicial officer Also Waleed filed a petition to in
2016 to probate his father Mohammad s will Mohammad had passed away on June 16 2016 The
3 Mufeed and Waleed later petitioned to expunge the charges but the Superior Court (Mackay J J denied the petition on
procedural grounds finding that they should have been filed separately not jointly Mufeed and Waleed appealed but
the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petitions were dismissed without prejudice To date they
have not re filed separately
4 The Honorable Kathleen Mackay recused because of a prior representation while in private practice
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi at a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a]
2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS 8X 16 CV 065/Sx 16 CV 650/Sx 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 10 of 17
Clerk 8 Office assigned In re Estate ofMohmmad A Hamed case number 8X 16 PB 076 at random
to the Honorable Miguel A Camacho
1115 In the 065 Action Sixteen Plus sued Manal Mohamed Yousef [ Manal ) for a judgment
declaring null, void, and unenforceable a $4 500 000 mortgage that Sixteen Plus had given Manal in
1997 for seventeen properties in the U S Virgin islands Sixteen Plus alleges that Manal was a straw
mortgagee because she signed the mortgage after the properties were purchased and did not
advance any monies Manal appeared denied Sixteen Plus allegations, and counterclaimed for debt
and foreclosure This case was referred to the Court to determine if it should be deemed complex
1116 In the 429 Action Waleed initially sued Bank ofNova Scotia but later amended the complaint
to add KAC357, Inc as a plaintiff and to add Fathi Maher Yusuf and United Corporation as
defendants On his own behalf he claims malicious prosecution and defamation against the Yusufs
and United Corporation because of the 2015 criminal cases while KAC357 asserts trade
disparagement prima facze tort and civil ClCO claims against the Yusufs and United Corporation
Waleed also sued Bank of Nova Scotia for negligence claiming the bank failed to maintain proper
records which contributed to Waleed s arrest and subsequent prosecution
1117 And in the 650 Action Hisham derivatively on behalf of Sixteen Plus sued Fathi lsam
Yousuf and Jamil Yousef for civil CICO, conversion and civil conspiracy claims against all defendants
and against Fathi specifically also as asserted the tort of outrage, breach of fiduciary duties and
usurping corporate opportunities Fathi moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for failure
to join Manal whom he claimed was an indispensable party He also cited the 065 Action and argued
that [i]t makes no sense to try to re litigate those same issues in this convoluted derivative case'
(Def Fathi Yusufs Mot to Dismiss 27 filed Jan 9 2017 Hamedv Yusufi et a] SX 16 CV 650 ) This
is the second case referred to this Court to determine whether it should be deemed complex
1118 Because of a standing recusal 5 the Clerk 5 Office reassigned both the 065 Action and the 650
Action The 065 Action went to Judge Willocks, who presided over the case until September 10
2018, when he granted a motion Sixteen Plus filed to consolidate the 065 Action with another case
filed in 2017, discussed further below For reasons unclear from the record the 065 Action was later
5 For personal reasons the undersigned judicial officer recuses from cases in which Attorney Kye Walker appears as
counsel because Attorney Walker is a close personal friend and lawyer for the undersigned
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf, et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a!
2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS 3x 16 CV 06S / sx 16 CV 650 / 5x 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 11 of 17
reassigned to Judge Meade along with the 650 Action
2017 Cases
1J19 Three cases were filed in 2017 (collectively the 2017 Cases J Waleed Waheed Mufeed, and
Hisham filed Hamed v Yusuf] case number 8X 17 CV 015 ( the 015 Action J for damages from
Maher Yusuf for negligence assault with a deadly weapon and emotional distress and sought an
injunction restraining Maher from stalking, harassing or threatening them The 015 Action was
assigned randomly to Judge Brady However the Hameds voluntarily dismissed their claims
without prejudice on February 23, 2017 before Maher answered or moved for summary judgment
1J20 Fathi and United Corporation filed Yusufv Estate of Hamed et a] case number ST 17 CV
384 in the St Thomas/St John District ( the 384 Action J against Mohammad s estate the
Mohammad A Hamed Living Trust and Waleed as executor and trustee Fathi and United
Corporation want to set aside transfers allegedly done fraudulently to render flamed insolvent to
the extent that his interests in the remaining Partnership assets were insufficient to cover his
portion ofthe Partnership liabilities including rent owned to United (Comp! 1i 28 J The Clerk 5
Office assigned the 384 Action at random to Judge Dunston who later consolidated it sua sponte
with the Main Action and transferred venue to St Croix See generally Yusufv Estate of Hamed ST
17 CV 384 2018 V I LEXIS 41 (VI Super Ct Apr 5 2018) The 384 Action remains pending
assigned to Judge Brady and consolidated with the Main Case
1J21 Manal filed Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corporation case number SX 17 CV 342,[ the 342 Action J,
for debt and foreclosure of the same mortgage at issue in the 065 Action The Clerk 3 Office assigned
the case at random to Judge Meade Sixteen Plus appeared and counterclaimed against Manal and
filed a third party complaint against Fathi for intentional wanton extreme and outrageous conduct
and to estop Fathi and Manal from foreclosing on the mortgage This is third case referred to this
Court to determine if it should be deemed complex
2018 Cases
1J22 Only one case between the Hameds and the Yusufs was filed in 2018 KAC357, Inc v Yusufi
at a] case number SX 18 CV 219 assigned randomly to Judge Meade ( the 219 Action J KAC357,
Inc a corporation formed by the Hameds to manage the supermarket business after the partnership
was dissolved sued Yusuf and the Hamed Yusuf Partnership a/k/a the Plaza Extra Supermarket
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Horned v Yusufi et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a]
2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS 8X 16 CV 065/SX 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 12 of 17
Partnership, for debt and unjust enrichment allegedly for paying partnership debts for tax services
credit card bills, and utilities bills totaling over $100 000 The parties later stipulated and on
August 15 2018 Judge Meade approved a request to consolidate the 219 Action with the Main Case
Assigned 7 Consolidated with
Case Date Filed to Pending Anothei Case?
The Main Case Se-tember 17 2012
I! The 377 Action Setemher 19 2012 -'l——_
a The 003 Action anua 8 2013 mm
m The 101 Action March 5 2013 "M
a The 120 Action Ari] 16 2013 Willocksfi Yes with Main Case
I! The 152 Action Ma 3 2013 __—I_
The 278 Action ul 7 2014 Yes with Main Case
I! The 287 Action til 14 2014 Yes with Main Case
I] ST 15 CV 344 ul 27 2015 _-im-
sx 15 CR 352 November 20 2015 Willocks “—31;-
sx 15 CR 353 November 20 2015 Wiliocks —-:y_
The 065 Action Februa 16, 2016
The 429 Action Au ust 1 2016 w
No, but motion to
14 The 650 Action October 31, 2016 Meade Yes consolidate With
065 Action endm v
The Hamed August 26 2016 Camacho n/a
Probate
The 015 Action anua 20 2017 mm
The 384 Action Au ust 24 2017 Yes with Main Case
The 342 Action Au, ust 31 2017 Yes With 065Action
The 219 Action June 14 2018 Yes with Main Case
[I DISCUSSION
1i23 In support of designating these cases as complex, Hisham and Sixteen Plus assert that these
cases appear to fit into the definition of being a presumptive matter pursuant to Rule 92(b)(4), as
these cases certainly involve investment losses involving multiple parties (Hisham Sixteen Plus
Corp Br 12 filed Sept 3 2019 (quotingVi R Civ P 92(b)[4)) (hereinafter Hisham Br ))Hisham
and Sixteen Plus explain that Sixteen Plus was formed as a corporation specifically to purchase a
6 For reasons unclear from the record the April 2013 Action remains assigned to Judge Willocks despite his December
2019 Order consolidating it with the Main Action which would have reassigned the case to judge Brady
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp, at a] 2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS SX 16 CV 065 / SX 16 CV 650 / SX 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 13 of 17
300 plus acre parcel of land on the South shore of St Croix often referred to as Diamond Keturah
(Hisham Br 5 ) Fathi 5 family and Mohammed 8 family each owned 50% of Sixteen Plus stock
See 1d Fathi and Mohammed decided to buy the Diamond Keturah property in 1997 But according
to Hisham, Fathi did not want either the Government of the Virgin islands or [the bank] to
know the source of the funds he was using Id
1124 Hisham alleges that Fathi was secretly diverting unreported cash from the Plaza Extra
Supermarket to Sixteen Plus as part of a criminal money laundering effort Id at S 6 Again
according to Hisham
Fathi conspired with lsam his nephew who lived on St Martin, to launder in
excess of $4 000 000 in unreported untaxed partnership funds to St Martin from the
Plaza Extra Supermarket operations so that they could then wire these funds back
to a Sixteen Plus account at [Bank of Nova Scotia or] BN5 in order for Sixteen Plus to
use these laundered funds to purchase the Land To accomplish this task Fathi
Yusuf had large sums of skimmed cash delivered to lsam in St Martin who
thereafter deposited those funds into various accounts in St Martin Fathi and lsam
then transferred the partnership 3 funds by wire to an account in the name of
Sixteen Plus at BNS on St Croix The transfers (which exceeded $4,000 000) to Sixteen
Plus account at BN5 took place between February 13th and September 4th of 1997
To further cover up the partnership source of these funds as well as to try to
shelter lsam from exposure to criminal consequences from the effort to launder
and use the cash from the partnership 8 supermarkets Fathi and lsam agreed
to create a sham note and mortgage for the transaction naming Fathi[ s] niece
who then lived in St Martin Manal as the sham mortgagee She appears to now
live on the West Bank Territory adjacent to Israel
Id at 6 Then in 2003 the Federal Government filed felony money laundering and tax evasion
criminal charges against lsam and Fathi regarding th[e] laundering of funds to St
Martin to buy the Sixteen Plus Land Id at 8 (emphasis omitted) The United States placed a lien on
the Diamond Keturah property that was later removed through a plea deal Hisham claims that Fathi
and lsam subsequently retained counsel on St Martin to send a demand to Sixteen Plus for
payment of the sham note and mortgage Sixteen Plus allegedly owed to Malia] Id at 10 But St
Martin counsel did not disclose to Sixteen Plus or the Hameds that Fathi was the person
personally directing the demand’ Id Fathi had obtained a power of attorney from Manal in 2010
[t]o do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever regarding her interest in seventeen
parcels of land in the U S Virgin Islands Id Ex 2 Thus, Hisham on behalf of Sixteen Plus seeks
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi at a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp er a! 2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS SX 16 CV 065 / 5X 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 14 of 17
compensatory damages ofmultiple losses ofthe sale ofthe {Diamond Keturah] Land at the highest
and best sales value, including treble damages where permitted by law [and] [p]unitive damages
ifwarranted by the facts and applicable law (First Am Compl 23 filed Dec 23, 2016 stham, et a]
v Yusufi et a] SX 16 CV 650)
1125 Based on these allegations, Hisham contends that these cases involve investment losses But
during oral argument the Court pushed back noting neither the 065 Action the 342 Action nor the
650 Action [collectively the Sixteen Plus Cases ) involve securities claims VI R Civ P 92[b)(4)
[emphasis added) If each case with an investment loss was presumptively complex the Court
explained all mortgage foreclosure cases would have to be transferred to the Complex Litigation
Division for example Instead the rule appears to contemplate shareholder lawsuits or losses from
investments in stocks bonds or other large scale investments 7 But Hisham and Sixteen Plus
countered that that not all investments are publicly funded and that private equity of the type
involved here is increasingly a source of investment funds Accord Alpha Media Resort Inv Cases
252 Cal Rptr 3d 746 750 (Ct App 2019) [ These six actions involve 25 defendants [who]
pursued an international investment scheme through which they fraudulently induced hundreds of
individuals and organizations to invest in two resort properties in the Dominican Republic ); see
also it! at 754 (noting that the prior judge found each case separately qualified as complex [citing
Ca Rules ofCt R 3 400))
W6 Fathi denies Hisham s allegations and opposes designating the Sixteen Plus Cases as
complex Fathi contends that the allegations relate to the formation of the mortgage and assent to
same at best the allegations create factual issues to be determined by a trier of fact as opposed to
a matter before the Complex Litigation Division requiring additional or specialized attention and
care (Def Fathi Yusuf’s Opp n to Transfer to Complex Litig Div 7 filed Sept 4 2019) But Fathi
also argues in the alternative that if the matter is transferred or if Judge Meade requires assistance
a special master could be appointed to address these claims, either in the context of the Complex
Litigation Division or directly from Judge Meade Id Pursuant to V] R Civ P 95 if a matter has
been assigned to the Complex Litigation Division, a master may be appointed and assigned to assist
with the cases, Fathi notes Id
7 Rule 92 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure was patterned in part after California Court Rule 3 400
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf, at a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 V1 Super 43
CASE NOS 5X 16 CV O65 /Sx 16 CV 650 / 8X 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 15 of 17
1i27 Manal, Isam and Jamil also oppose transfer to the Complex Litigation Division But they focus
on the language of the rules They contend that the Sixteen Plus Cases are not presumptively
complex pursuant to Rule 92(b] (Yousef/Yousufs Br re Position on Complex Litig Designation
4 filed Sept 3 2019 ) if a case is not presumptively complex the Court then considers the factors
identified in Rule 92(c) in determining whether the case warrants designation as a complex case
Id But none ofthose factors are present here either they contend
1128 Having considered the arguments of counsel and reviewed the pleadings of the Sixteen Plus
Cases, the Court concludes they should not be designated complex but for reasons different than
those cited by the parties Cases are complex when they require[] exceptional Judicial management
VI R Civ P 92(a) [C]lass actions Vi R Civ P 92[b)(5], securities claims or investment
losses involving multiple parties Vi R Civ P 92(b)[4] and environmental tort claims, mass tort
claims or toxic tort claims commenced by as one action or multiple individual actions V] R
Civ P 92(b)(1) are several types of cases that are presumptively complex The Sixteen Plus Cases
are not presumptively complex They do not involve environmental toxic or mass tort claims
construction or design defect claims or claims arising out ofa natural disaster or other territory or
island wide event See V I R Civ P 92(a](1) (3) They do not involve class allegations, or
contribution indemnification or insurances claims arising out of other presumptively complex
cases The Sixteen Plus Cases do not fit into any of the presumptively complex categories except
perhaps one investment losses Here the Court does find Hisham s arguments persuasive But
even if the type of losses alleged here do fit within the type of case envisioned by the rule these
cases do notinvolve investmentlosses bymultiple parties VI R Civ P 92(b)(4) [emphasis added]
1f29 Other kinds of cases can be complex however Here the Court agrees with Manal, [5am and
Jamil that the Court looks to Rule 92(c] for guidance to determine whether a non presumptively
complex case should be designated as complex A case can be deemed complex if it involves a large
number of parties V] R Civ P 92[c)(1), or when coordinated discovery [across multiple cases]
would be advantageous VI R Civ P 92(c][2) Cases can also be complex if they require
specialized expertise and case processing id or when issues of insurance limits on assets and
potential bankruptcy can be best addressed in coordinated proceedings Id However except for
presumptively complex cases, see VI R Civ P 92(b)(1) [6) or cases that the parties designate as
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 V1 Super 43
CASE NOS sx 16 CV 065 /SX 16 CV 650 / 3x 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 16 of 17
complex cf. Vl R Civ P 10(e] a case will not be deemed complex unless it requires exceptional
judicial management The Court weighs whether management of the case on the Complex
Litigation Division [d]ocket may unreasonably delay the case, increase expense complicate the
action, or unfairly prejudice a party Vl R Civ P 92(c)[2) with whether the cases require
specialized expertise and case processing by the Complex Litigation Division judge and staff
[for] the efficient utilization of judicial resources Id
1f 30 There is no doubt that all the Hamed Yusuf cases are related Different cases can be related
Abraham v St Crozx Renaissance Grp LLLP 70 VI 84 105 [Super Ct 2019) The 219 Action
brought by KAC357 involves debt and unjust enrichment claims for monies advanced to the
Hamed Yusuf partnership that were not reimbursed The 152 Action allegedly arose because
Charriez testified in the Main Case The 2014 Cases involve land owned by the Hamed and Yusuf
families and their corporations and a determination of the value ofthe land In some respects the
2014 Cases are similar to the Sixteen Plus Cases, but cases have been consolidated with the Main
Case in fact only the Sixteen Plus Cases the 377 Action [the second Hamed Yusuf case which also
concerns Sixteen Plus] the 152 Action and the 429 Action (involving KAC357 Bank of Nova Scotia
and the circumstances leading up to the 2015 criminal cases) have not been consolidated with the
Main Action
1T31 Courts try to avoid having different judges preside over related cases because of the
duplication oflabor Abraham, 70 V l at 105 (citation omitted) For this reason, [m]any courts
have promulgated rules that require counsel to identify related cases Id Unfortunately, the Virgin
islands Judiciary has not promulgated a rule mandating that counsel identify related cases at the
trial court level Id While consolidation may not have been the best tool to get the blamed Yusuf
cases before the same judge since the cases do not necessarily involve a common question of law
or fact V I R Civ P 42(a), it was the only tool available And while six cases are no longer pending
the remaining thirteen, including the Sixteen Plus Cases are still very active and will require[]
exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants
and to expedite the case[s], keep costs reasonable and promote effective decision making by the
court the parties, and counsel Vl R Civ P 92[a)
When two strangers go into business you usually have each one requiring formal
contracts formal statements formal deposits, and everything of the kind but usually
Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 VI Super 43
CASE NOS 5X 16 CV 065 /sx 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 17 of 17
when two friends go into business and where it becomes one happy family so many
of these things are omitted and when they do fall out there arises bitterness and
difficulties which make it the most difficult type of case to try
Stonerv Bellows 2 VI 172 174 75 (D V I 1951) Such difficulties are compounded when the friends
become family and the business becomes a family business The break up of the Hamed Yusuf
friendship and the dissolution of their partnership has already required exceptional judicial
management, warranting the appointing of a liquidating partner and a judicial master Even though
the cases do not fit within a presumptively complex category, they clearly could qualify as complex
1132 It might be just efficient and cost effective to reassign all the cases to the same judge But
only the Sixteen Plus Cases were referred to this Court to determine whether they are complex And
for that reason, the Court concludes that transferring fewer than all the cases to the Complex
Litigation Division would not be the most just efficient and cost effective for the Court counsel
and the parties Edwards v Hess 011 VI Corp 66 V l 218 232 (Super Ct 2017) accord V] R Civ
P 1 ( These rules should be construed, administered and employed by the court and the parties to
secure the just speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding ] judge
Brady is currently presiding over the 377 Action and the Main Case and the five cases consolidated
under it judge Meade is presiding over the 152 Action and the Sixteen Plus Cases All the cases might
impact the probate Magistrate judge Camacho is presiding over if claims must be filed against
Mohammed s estate To single out three ofthese cases and designate them as complex will only lead
to unreasonably delay increase expense [and] complicate the action[s] V l R Civ P 92(c)(2]
III CONCLUSION
‘“33 For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the Sixteen Plus Cases should not be
designated as complex and returns them to the Clerk 5 Office Appropriate orders folio
Date March 16 2020 K7 ”' ’
ROBERT A OLL
ATTEST judge of the uperior Court
TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk of the Court
By w
Court Cler
Dated w