IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
TARIQ DAVIS, a minor, by his parents and next ) CASE NO. ST-2009-CV-00070
friends, DIANNE BYNOE and ROOSEVELT )
DAVIS, and DIANNE BYNOE and ROOSEVELT )
DAVIS on their own behalf, )
)
Plaintiffs ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES
vs )
)
)
AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER }
ORGANIZATION, VIRGIN ISLANDS ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER )
ORGANIZATION, THE UNIVERSITY OF THE )
VIRGIN ISLANDS, and LAVAR BROWNE )
)
Defendants )
)
2024 VI Super 40U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
q! THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants American Youth Soccer Organization
and Virgin Islands American Youth Soccer Organization, (“Defendants”) Motion to Disqualify
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, filed November 18, 2015.! For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion
to disqualify will be denied
' This matter is fully briefed. Plaintiffs Tariq Davis and his parents, Dianne Bynoe and Roosevelt Davis, (“Plaintiffs’’)
filed an opposition on December 2, 2015, and Defendants filed a reply on January 27, 2016. On February 11, 2016
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to respond to Defendants’ reply because attached to Defendants reply is an affidavit
signed by John McDonald on January 11, 2026. which was apparently created to refute some of the arguments in
Plaintiff's Opposition. The motion for leave to respond will be denied under separate order and the January 11. 2026
affidavit will not be considered
Tariq Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-CV-00070 Cite as 2024 VI Super 40U
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attorney-witness)
Page 2 of 13
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
q2 Plaintiffs Tariq Davis and his parents, Dianne Bynoe and Roosevelt Davis, are residents of
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. In 2007, Plaintiff Tariq Davis (““Tariq”), a minor at the time, was
practicing soccer with his teammates at the University of Virgin Islands soccer field. Compl. {| 13
While Tariq was practicing on the field with his teammates, he chased an errant ball out into the
public roadway located next to the field that runs parallel to a public roadway. /d. Plaintiffs allege
that Tariq was hit by a car and thrown into the air. He was knocked unconscious and remained so
for a period of eleven weeks. /d. In addition, the Complaint alleges that Tariq suffered from a
traumatic brain injury, a concussion, and a fractured femur. Compl. 14. Plaintiffs allege that
American Youth Soccer Organization was an organization dedicated to sponsoring youth soccer
teams nationwide and in the Virgin Islands at the time of the incident. Compl. J] 4
43 On February 12, 2009, Plaintiffs, by and through the Law Offices of Desmond Maynard
filed a complaint against Defendants American Youth Soccer Association and Virgin Islands
American Youth Soccer Organization (“Defendants” or “AYSO” “VI AYSO”), jointly and
severally, in an action for premises liability and negligence and Defendants AYSO and VI AYSO
filed a joint Answer and Affirmative Defenses, by and through the Law Office of A. Jeffrey Weiss
44 On February 17, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against
plaintiff Diane Bynoe. The Plaintiffs’ Opposition to that Motion, filed on August 3, 2015, included
the following exhibits, a declaration by Attorney Maynard-Hahnfeld, an affidavit she had drafted
for Mr. John McDonald (‘““McDonald’’)’s signature, and email correspondence between plaintiffs’
Tarig Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-CV-00070 Cite as 2024 VI Super 40U
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attommey-witness)
Page 3 of 13
counsel and McDonald dated July 22, 2015.7 That motion for partial summary judgment was
denied by order and memorandum opinion entered May 18, 2016
q5 However, Defendants subsequently filed this Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel
based upon Plaintiffs’ filing of Attomey Maynard-Hahnfeld’s Declaration and the draft affidavit
for McDonald that were attached to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ motion for partial
summary judgment. Defendants assert that Attorney Desmond Maynard (“Maynard”) and
Attorney Shawn Maynard-Hahnfeld (“Maynard-Hahnfeld”) (or collectively “the Maynards”)
made themselves necessary witnesses in this case in violation of Virgin Island Supreme Court Rule
211.3.7 by filing the Declaration and an unsigned draft affidavit of a witness, McDonald, in support
of their opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In total, Defendants
contend Plaintiffs’ counsel violated ethical rules, specifically Virgin Islands Supreme Court Rules
211.3.7, 211.3.3 and 211.8.4.7
2 According to the filings, Plaintiffs’ counsel met with McDonald on June 8, 2015, and prepared an affidavit for
McDonald's signature. McDonald picked up the draft affidavit on July 22, 2015, and Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed
McDonald to ask him to advise them if there were any necessary corrections to the draft affidavit. On July 31, 2015
counsel for AYSO sent a letter to the Maynards asserting their conduct was unethical. In an apparent response to that
charge of unethical conduct, Maynard-Hahnfeld prepared her Declaration to set the record straight and attached the
Declaration and McDonald's draft affidavit to the Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Defendant’s Motion For Partial
Summary Judgment, which plaintiffs filed on August 3, 2015. The filing of those two documents then opened the
avenue Defendants are pursuing to move for disqualification of plaintiffs’ counsel
’ Although Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify references two other rules, Virgin Islands Supreme Court Rules 211.4.1
and 211.3.4(b), in the fact section and the header of one of its arguments, Defendants do not cite to the rule nor provide
any legal argument in favor of disqualification under V.I S. CT. R.211.4.1 and V.I.S. Cr. R. 211.3.4(b) in the motion
Therefore, the court will not consider the applicability of Rule 211.4.1 and Rule 211.3.4(b). The court notes
Defendants subsequently outline and argue under those two rules in their reply briefing. Because the Defendants
motion in chief did not raise arguments under Rules 211.4.1 and 211.3.4(b), the court will not consider those new
arguments outlined in the reply brief because Plaintiffs’ counse! was not afforded an opportunity to respond. See Perez
v. Ritz-Carlton (Virgin Islands), Inc., 59 V1, 522, 528 (2013) (“[A]n issue raised for the first time in a reply brief
is deemed waived because the opposing party typically does not have the opportunity to respond.”) (alteration in
original), Accordingly, the court considers the arguments under Rules 211.4.1 and 211.3 4(b) waived
Tariq Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-C V-00070 Cite as 2024 VI Super 40U
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attorney-witness)
Page 4 of 13
LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Disqualification of an Attorney
a. Rule 211.3.7 does not disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel
16 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ counsel should be disqualified because both Maynard and
Maynard-Hahnfeld have made themselves necessary witnesses by submitting an unsigned draft
affidavit of John McDonald, a witness in the case, in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to a Partial
Motion for Summary Judgment. In particular, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the
draft affidavit of McDonald to directly contest the sworn affidavit that Defense counsel obtained
from McDonald. For that reason, Defendants asserts that Plaintiffs’ counsel has forced themselves
into the role of a witness and must be disqualified for attempting to dispute McDonald’s sworn
statement
q7 Plaintiffs’ counsel counter that they have not presented themselves as a necessary witness
because they only produced the draft affidavit of McDonald to oppose AYSO’s contention that
Plaintiffs’ counsel had engaged in ex-parte communication with McDonald in violation of V.I. S
CT. R. 211.4.2.4 Moreover, the Maynards argue that the draft affidavit is not dramatically different
from the contents of McDonald’s sworn affidavit that Defense counsel obtained from McDonald
q8 Pursuant to the Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct,° a lawyer shall not act as
advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness. V.I.S. CT. R. 211.3.7(A)
4 Under V.I. S. Cr. R. Rule 211.4.2, when representing « client, “a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of
the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer
has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.” (emphasis added)
5 Virgin Islands Supreme Court Rule 211 established the Virgin Islands Rules of Professional Conduct by court order
dated December 23, 2013, and effective on February 1, 2014. “[T]o the extent applicable, the accompanying or related
ABA Interpretive Guidelines, Comments and Committee Comments . . . govern the conduct of members of the Bar of
Tarig Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-CV-00070 Cite as 2024 VI Super 40U
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attomey-witness)
Page 5 of 13
(emphasis added). However, the rule barring a lawyer as a witness does not apply if: (1) the
testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal
services rendered in the case; or (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship
on the client. /d. In addition, under Rule 211.3.7(B) a lawyer “may act as advocate in a trial in
which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from
doing so by Rule 211.1.7 or Rule 211.1.9
q9 Further, Virgin Islands courts note that a necessary witness is one who has “has been
defined in this jurisdiction as an individual whose possible testimony is found to be ‘relevant,
material, and unobtainable elsewhere.’” Thomas v. Kragel, 2018 V.I. LEXIS 132, *3, *8 (V1
Super. Ct. 2018) (citing People of the V.I. v. Caesar, 2016 V.1. LEXIS 122, at *12 (V.I. Super. Ct
2016) (quoting Daily News Publ. Co. v. 29th Legislature of the Virgin Islands, 59 V.1. 138, 145
(V.I. Super. Ct. 2012))
410 As explained above, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against
Plaintiff Diane Bynoe, and the Plaintiffs responded in opposition. Attached to Plaintiffs’
Opposition and Statement of Undisputed Material Fact were the following exhibits relevant to the
motion to disqualify: Exhibit B — Declaration of Maynard Hahnfeld®, Exhibit B-1 —Maynard’s
email to McDonald and a copy of McDonald’s unsigned draft Affidavit’, Exhibit B-2: Weiss
this Territory.” V.I. S. CT. R. 203(a). Previous decisions interpreting and applying the ABA Model Rules of
Professional Conduct are persuasive. /n the Matter of Suspension of DesmondL. Maynard, Esq., 68 V.1. 632, 649 n.15
Pls ar B attached to Pls.’s Opp’n to the Mot, Summ. J
Pls.°s Ex. B-1 attached to Pls.’s Opp’n to the Mot. Summ, J
Tariq Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-CV-00070 Cite as 2024 VI Super 40U
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attorney-witness)
Page 6 of 13
email to Plaintiffs’ Counsel regarding ex-parte communications with McDonald®, and Exhibit B
3 — McDonald’s sworn affidavit provided by Defense counsel.”
1. Hahnfeld-Maynard is not a necessary witness to this matter
{11 After careful consideration of the record associated with the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, the court concludes that Plaintiffs' counsel is not a necessary witness as defined by V.1
S. CT. R. 211.3.7, and therefore there is no basis for disqualification under this rule. It is clear
Plaintiffs cited to and relied upon McDonald’s swor affidavit to oppose Defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment, which refutes Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs were relying on the
draft version of McDonald’s affidavit to resist the motion for partial summary judgment.'? And
although the Plaintiffs’ exhibits included Maynard-Hahnfeld’s Declaration, McDonald’s unsigned
draft affidavit, and the email communications with McDonald, Plaintiffs’ made no specific
reference to the unsigned affidavit in their argument opposing summary judgment; Plaintiffs only
included a reference to the unsigned affidavit in a blanket assertion that Plaintiffs were relying on
all the exhibits attached to the opposition.'! The court finds Plaintiffs, including their counsel, did
not offer the draft affidavit as evidence to support an argument that McDonald made contradicting
statements. Indeed, the Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion for summary judgment makes no
statement that McDonald had given plaintiffs’ counsel a different set of facts
8 PJs.°s Ex. B-2 attached to Pls.’s Opp’n to the Mot. Summ. J
9 Pls.’s Ex. B-3 attached to Pls.’s Opp'n to the Mot. Summ. J
'0 Pls.’s Opp’n to the Mot. Summ. J. pages 11-19
i! The court found only one citation to the exhibits at issue in this motion; See Pls.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. at
page 2, footnote 2: “Exhibits A through Q, which are referred to herein, are attached to and made part of Plaintiffs
Counterstatement of Undisputed Material Facts, which Plaintiffs have filed simultaneously herewith
Tarig Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-C V-00070 Cite as 2024 V1 Super 40U
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attorney-witness)
Page 7 of !3
q!2 Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs’ counsel had made themselves “necessary
witnesses” in this case, Rule 21 1.3.7(a)(3) provides an exception for disqualification of the lawyer
if disqualification “would work substantial hardship on the client.” V.I. S. CT. R. 211.3 7(a)(3)
Here, the instant litigation has been ongoing for several years, and that was true even at the time
of the filing of the motion for disqualification. The Maynards have served as Plaintiffs’ counsel
since the initiation of this matter and conducted substantial work on the case, which would create
an exception to disqualification due to the hardship the plaintiffs would suffer. But as outlined
above, the court finds that the Maynards did not become necessary witnesses in this matter. The
court reiterates its finding that McDonald is a witness in this litigation, but he is not a represented
party or officer of VI-AYSO or AYSO. In addition, the rules clearly permit both parties to collect
all relevant information from individuals who are not considered clients. V.I.S. CT. R. 211.3.4(f)
413 There exists no basis to find that Maynard or Hanhnfeld-Maynard is a necessary witness
in this matter and there exists no grounds to disqualify them under V.I. S. CT. R. 211.3.7
2. Maynard-Hahnfeld’s Declaration did not challenge the veracity of
McDonald’s signed affidavit
qi4. AYSO’s motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel argues that Maynard-Hahnfeld’s
Declaration contends the draft affidavit “accurately sets forth what [McDonald] told them
notwithstanding refusal to sign that draft because it contained statements he never made
However, Maynard-Hahnfeld’s Declaration states, “Based entirely on the statements made by Mr
McDonald to Attorney Maynard and me, I prepared a draft Affidavit.” Nowhere else in Maynard
Hahnfeld’s Declaration does she address McDonald’s representations to her or otherwise suggest
Tarig Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-C V-00070 Cite as 2024 Vi Super 40°
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attorney-witness)
Page 8 of 13
the veracity of the entire draft affidavit.'” The balance of the Declaration is dedicated to addressing
the series of contacts with McDonald and why none of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct was unethical
415 The court disagrees with AYSO’s characterization and interpretation of Maynard
Hahnfeld’s Declaration. After reviewing Plaintiffs’ opposition, nothing in the argument outlined
in the Opposition can be characterized as an attempt to “discredit McDonald’s sworn statements
by citing to the draft affidavit or declaration by Maynard-Hahnfeld '3 The Plaintiffs’ statement of
undisputed material facts mainly cites to depositions and sworn affidavits, such as McDonald’s
affidavit.'4 Nothing in the record reflects that Plaintiffs’ make use of the unsigned draft affidavit
to draft their facts or as a means to discredit McDonald’s sworn statements. Moreover, on one
hand Defense counsel asserts that the unsigned affidavit and declaration are used to directly
discredit McDonald’s sworn affidavit, yet in their Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Summary
Judgment the only reference to the exhibits now at issue is that they are “included by plaintiffs as
a smoke screen in an attempt to divert the Court’s attention from the lack of any evidence
supporting their contention "15 This supports the court’s finding that Maynard-Hahnfeld did not
challenge the veracity of McDonald’s affidavit
12 Maynard-Hahnfeld also showed proof of her email to McDonald that advised him to let her know if he wished to
make any changes to the draft affidavit. She further avers that McDonald later told Maynard he had signed the affidavit
and would return it to her office, although he never returned it
'3 Defs.’ Mtn. to Disqualify. page 5, 7: “Plaintiffs attempt to discredit Mr. McDonald’s sworn statement, with their
own personal statements which they contend are facts, places them squarely at odds with a witness and into the role
of a witness in this matter, which requires disqualification
\4 See Pls.’s Response to Defs.’s Statement of Disputed Facts; Pls.’s Counterstatement of Undisputed Material Facts
'5 Defs.’s Reply to Pls.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. at page 8-9: “Thus, Plaintiffs submission of their Opposition
Exhibits: A (the Affidavit of Chiraq Sharma). B (the Declaration of Shawn E. Maynard-Hahnfeld), B-1 (the Affidavit
Attorney Maynard-Hahnfeld prepared which Mr. McDonald would not sign as it was inaccurate), B-2 (the July 31,
2015 letter), B-3 (the Affidavit of Mr. McDonald) are not relevant or material to the issues raised in the instant
motion and have been included by plaintiffs as a smoke screen in an attempt to divert the Court’s attention from the
lack of any evidence supporting their contentions.”
Tarig Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-CV-00070 Cite as 2024 VI Super 40U
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re. attomey-witness)
Page 9 of 13
3. The Maynards did not have an improper ex-parte communication with
McDonald
416 Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ counsel, in attempting to secure an affidavit from
McDonald, violated Rule 211.4.2 prohibiting one lawyer from ex-parte communications with
another lawyer’s client.'® V.I. S. CT. R. 211. 4.2 states, “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not
communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be
represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer
or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.””"’
€17 However. the court finds that there is no indication that Weiss was acting as counsel to
McDonald when he met with the Maynards. Defendants have not shown that the Maynards knew
or should have known that McDonald had counsel in this matter. First, McDonald is not named as
a party in this matter. Second, nothing within the discovery or other portions of the record indicates
McDonald was an employee or staff member of either AYSO or VI AYSO. To the contrary, at all
times material hereto, McDonald was a volunteer. Although McDonald volunteered as a coach on
behalf of AYSO and VI-AYSO, the court does not agree with Attorney Weiss’ contention that he
is considered a “represented party” because of his involvement with the organization. The
Maynards had no reason to know McDonald should be treated as a witness protected by V.I. S
CT. R. 211.4.2
16 See Pls.’s Ex. B-2. Letter from Attorney Weiss to Attorneys Maynard and Maynard-Hahnfeld
17 Id.at 4 2: “V.I. Supreme Court Rule 211.4.2 specifically prohibits your communication and your office’s
communications with Mr. McDonald and with other (current and former) officers and directors of the American Youth
Soccer Organization (“AYSO”) and VI AYSO about the subject of this litigation, as you are clearly aware that they
are represented parties
Tarig Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-CV-00070 Cite as 2024 VI Super 40U
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attorney-witness)
Page 10 of 13
ql8 | Evenif McDonald had communicated with Weiss prior to meeting with the Maynards, they
were not prohibited from contacting McDonald solely because opposing counsel had already
communicated with McDonald."
b. Rule 211.3.3 does not disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel
919 -V.I.S. CT.R. Rule 211.3.3 details the requirement of a lawyer’s candor toward the tribunal
Under Rule 211.3.3(a)(1) a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a
tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal
by the lawyer. In addition, a lawyer shall not offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. V.1
S. Cr. R. 211.3.3(A)(3). If a lawyer offers up material evidence that becomes false, then the
“lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the
tribunal.” /d.
{20 Defendants contend that the Maynards violated Rule 211.3.3 because they filed a draft
affidavit before the Court that they knew or should have known contained “inaccurate assertions
not made by Mr. McDonald.” On that basis, Defendants argue the Maynards violated Rule 211.3.3
However, the Maynards argue that Defendants have failed to point out one statement in the draft
affidavit containing false or misleading information. Further, the Maynards contend that the draft
affidavit is similar to the Defendants’ signed affidavit, even though some of the paragraphs of the
draft were not included in McDonald’s signed affidavit
18 VIS. CT. R. 211.3.4(f): “A lawyer shall not: request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving
relevant information to another party unless: (1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and
(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving
such information. (emphasis added)
Tariq Ron Bynoe Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization
Case No. ST-2009-C V-00070 Cite as 2024 Vi Super 40U
Memorandum Opinion (motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attorney-witness)
Page 11 of 13
q21 After reviewing the record, the court disagrees with Defendants’ argument that Maynard
and Maynard-Hahnfeld filed an affidavit containing false or misleading information. First, the
copy of the draft affidavit provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel was never signed or notarized, meaning
Plaintiffs’ counsel is not signaling to the court that the affidavit is a swom legal document
containing truthful information. And to the extent it included information that was inaccurate,
McDonald never so advised the Maynards. Instead, he told them he had signed the affidavit,
although he never delivered it to the Maynards. Second, as detailed above, Plaintiffs’ counsel does
not cite the unsigned draft affidavit in support of an assertion of fact or argument in Plaintiffs
Opposition to the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. This court finds that an unsigned
affidavit is not considered sufficient evidentiary support for a Motion for Summary Judgment. V.1
Civ. P.R. 56(c)(4).!° At no point did Plaintiffs’ counsel convey to the court, in its Opposition, that
the unsigned draft affidavit is accurate and sufficient to meet the summary judgment standard for
supporting a factual assertion, nor to otherwise challenge McDonald’s affidavit
{22 As such, the court is not persuaded by Defendants’ argument that the Maynards submitted
false information to the court merely by attaching a copy of Maynard-Hahnfeld’s Declaration and
an unsigned draft affidavit as exhibits to its Opposition
c. Rule 211.8.4 does not disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel
423 Virgin Islands Supreme Court Rule 211.8.4 defines actions that are deemed lawyer
misconduct. A lawyer engages in professional misconduct when they “violate or attempt to violate
the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through
19 VT. CIV. PRO RULE 56(C)(4) — Affidavits or Declarations: An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a
motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the
affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated
10/15/2024
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
TARIQ DAVIS, a minor, by his parents and next ) CASE NO. ST-2009-CV-00070
friends, DIANNE BYNOE and ROOSEVELT )
DAVIS, and DIANNE BYNOE and ROOSEVELT )
DAVIS on their own behalf, )
)
Plaintiffs ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES
vs )
)
)
AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER )
ORGANIZATION, VIRGIN ISLANDS ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER )
ORGANIZATION, THE UNIVERSITY OF THE _ )
VIRGIN ISLANDS, and LAVAR BROWNE )
)
Defendants )
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants American Youth Soccer Organization
and Virgin Islands American Youth Soccer Organization, (“Defendants”) Motion to Disqualify
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, filed November 18, 2015.'
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion dated this day, cited as 2024 VI
Super 40U, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED; and it is further
1 This order addresses a motion to disqualify filed on November 18, 2015. It is a different opinion to the one
entered on October 4, 2024, that addressed a motion to motion to disqualify filed on January 12, 2017
Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization, et al
Case No. ST-2009-CV-00070
Order denying motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel re: attorney-witness
Page 2
ORDERED that copies of the Memorandum Opinion and this Order shall be directed to
Desmond Maynard, Esq., Shawn Maynard-Hahnfeld, Esq., A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq. and Douglas
Capdeville, Esq
DATED: October _/ S 2024 Le 42 Bu a Ze<
Kathleen Mackay
ATTEST Judge of the Superior Court
TAMARA CHARLES of the Virgin Islands
Clerk of the Court
BY 10/16/2024
LATOYA CAMACHO
Court Clerk Supervisor / /