IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
IN RE ASBESTOS, SILICA and MASTER CASE NO: SX-22-MC-053
CATALYST DUST CLAIMS IV (Complex Litigation Division)
| (Re: 91 Individual Cases’)
Cite as: 2025 VI Super 16P. (Published)
Appearances
J. Russell Pate, Esq
The Pate Law Firm
PO Box 890
St. Thomas, VI 00804
For Plaintiffs
Warren T. Burns, Esq., Korey A. Nelson, Esq., Daniel H. Charest, Esq., Rick
Yelton, Esq., and Chase Charbonnet, Esq
Burns Charest, LLP
900 Jackson Street, Ste. 500
Dallas, TX 75202
For Plaintiffs
Arthur Murray, Esq., Stephen Murray, Esq
The Murray Law Firm
Hancock Whitney Center
701 Poydras Street, Ste. 4250
New Orleans, LA 70139
For Plaintiffs
Ryan Stutzman, Esq
CSA Associates, P.C
1138 King Street, Ste. 100
Christiansted, VI 00820
1 This Opinion addresses the 91 individual cases, grouped under the above-captioned master
case, for which Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corporation seeks dismissal in its Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings. The cases are reflected in Court Exhibit 1, attached to this
opinion
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 2
For Defendant Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corporation
Matthew R. Thibodeau, Esq
800 Londsdale Building
302 West Superior St
Duluth, MN 55802
For Defendant Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corporation
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Filed June 11, 2025)
Andrews, Jr., Judge
INTRODUCTION
{1 ~—~Plaintiffs, former workers at Hess Oil Virgin islands Corporation Refinery
(“Refinery”) in St. Croix, bring this action for damages against Virgin Islands
Industrial Management Corporation (IMC), a refinery contractor. They allege
during their employment, IMC negligently exposed them to toxic substances
which caused them to suffer from pneumoconiosis, a lung disease. IMC seeks
dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that they failed to properly effect
service of process upon it.2 Plaintiffs respond that any defect in serving process
was harmless and the Court should grant them an extension to effect proper
service. For the reasons mentioned herein the Court grants IMC’s request as
Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for not effecting proper service and no
justifiable reason exists to grant a discretionary extension
2 IMC also seeks dismissal based on the statute of limitations. The Court does not address that
issue in this opinion since it concludes dismissal for lack of proper service is warranted
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 Vi Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 3
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
2 IMC’s motion (and supplemental motion) for judgment on the pleadings
clearly seek dismissal of over 200 cases listed on its Exhibits J, K, M, N, O and
P.* Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 18 — 19 (contending, that 97 cases in Ex. J and
71 cases in Ex. K, should be dismissed and that 4 more in Ex. M suffer from the
same deficiencies); Supp. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 5 — 6 (contending, after
referencing 71 cases in Exs. N, O and P, that the process, service, and jurisdiction
components of its motion apply to every ASC IV case without exception”). Some
of the cases listed on the exhibits are grouped under the instant master. Others
are grouped under different master cases (i.e., SX-2021-MC-056, SX-2021-MC
057, SX-2021-MC-058, SX-2022-MC-007 and SX-2022-MC-054) and some are
ungrouped. Ata hearing held on May 5, 2025, counsel for IMC clarified that it is
not seeking to dismiss cases other than those under the instant master and ASC
V. Accordingly, this opinion addresses only the ninety-one (91) cases on IMC’s
exhibits grouped under the instant master case. See Ct.’s Ex. 1. IMC’s motion
to the extent that it challenges other cases (ungrouped or grouped under other
3 The Court notes that IMC stated in its initial Motion that “the instant brief concerns only those
cases that the Court assigned to ASC IVand V as of December 6, 2024. If new cases are
assigned and the facts and arguments fit, VIIMC will supplement the motion to dismiss
Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 1 atn 1. However, IMC subsequently filed a supplemental
motion referencing cases added to the instant master in January 2025. It also stated, at the
May 5, 2025 hearing, that its motion applied to all cases under the ASC IV and V master
cases. The Court thus construes IMC’s motion as challenging all cases referenced in its
exhibits grouped under SX-053 (ASC IV) or SX-054 (ASC V) as of the date of the hearing
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 4
master cases), is thus considered stricken
q3 Further, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ notices of voluntary dismissal, five cases
grouped under the instant master have been dismissed (i.e., 20-589, 22-092, 22
523, 22-531 and 22-537). Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1; Exs. O, N; See SX-2020-CV-589
05/08/25, CMS # 16; SX-2022-CV-092, 05/08/25, CMS # 15; SX-2020-CV-523
10/04/24, CMS # 9; SX-2022-CV-531, 10/04/24, CMS # 9; SX-2022-CV-537
10/04/24, CMS # 9. The Court will thus deny IMC’s motion relative to those
cases as moot. Lastly, eleven (11) cases grouped under the instant master are
the subject of an automatic stay imposed since May 2022 due to a bankruptcy
petition filed by defendant HONX, Inc. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. N; SX-2022-CV.
008; SX-2022-CV-032; SX-2022-CV-043; SX-2022-CV-061; SX-2022-CV-062
SX-2022-CV-063; SX-2022-CV-068; SX-2022-CV-071; SX-2022-CV-074; SX
2022-CV-075; SX-2022-CV-076. The Court will thus deny IMC’s motion without
prejudice, as to those matters, in light of the stay. Based on these preliminary
rulings, the remaining portion of this opinion addresses seventy-six (76) of the
cases listed on IMC’s Exs. J, K and P. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 2-4
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
q4 Between March and August 2022, Plaintiffs filed twenty-eight (28) individual
complaints against IMC. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 2; IMC’s Ex. J. The court clerk signed
sealed, and issued summons, on or before August 17, 2022, for all but one
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 5
complaint.4 See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 2. On September 29, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel
served copies of the twenty-eight (28) complaints (via thumb drive) on Todd
Newman, Esquire, of the Dudley Newman and Fuerzeig law firm in St. Croix
Virgin Islands.5 Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 18 Ex. J. IMC’s official agent for
service-of-process is George H. Logan, Esq. of the same law firm 8 id.; Ex. L
Along with the complaints, Plaintiffs’ counsel served a single summons captioned
[Clinton A. Henry (and 96 others, See Ex. A) vs. Virgin Island Industrial
Maintenance Corp] containing counsel's electronic signature under the name of
the court _— clerk as reflected below Id | Ex J
4 No summons was issued by the Court in case No. 22-114; however, the plaintiff did submit a
summons for court signature along with his complaint. SX-2022-CV-114, 03/04/22 to
05/13/22
5 Counsel actually served ninety-seven complaints on Attorney Newman. Sixty-Eight of
them are grouped under master case SX-2022-MC-054 and are addressed in a separate
opinion. One (22-396) is grouped under master case SX-2022-007
5 At the May 5, 2025 hearing, counsel for Plaintiffs stated he did not doubt that George Hunter
Logan is the resident agent for IMC as reflected in IMC’s Ex, L
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 6
SUMMONS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST, CRIOX
> Civil No. SX-2022-CV-114, 161, 181, 182
Clinton A. Henry (and 96 others. See ExtibitA} ) 283-286, 289.294, 296-298, 302-303, 308-351
) 354-357, 359, 361-365, 367-371, 373-376, 381
Plaintiffs, ) 383-396
ve ; Complex Litigation Division
Virgin islands Industriat Maintenance Carp. x
> Action for Damages
Defendant, }
eee. | JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Ta ‘Yodd H. Newman, Esq., agen! for Virgin Islands Lidustrial Maintenance Corp
Address: Dudley, Newman & Feuerzeig. LLP
1331 King Street, Christiansted, V.1. C0820
Within the time limited by law you (see note below) you are hereby required to appear before this
Court and answer to a complaint filed against you in this action. In case of your failure to appear
or answer, a judgment by default will be taken against you as demanded in the complaint.
This 29th day of September 2022. Tamara Charles
Glerk
of the Gourt
sf ovrey A. Neisom, Esq,
Karey A. Nelson. Esq
H. Richard Yetton, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
Now Ovleara, LATO 30 “70 J. Rosset B, Parr, Esq.
Telephone: (S04) 799-2845 The Pate Law Firra (V.L. Bar No: £124)
Faasimiie: (504) 884-3765 PLO. Box. 370, Christiansted. USV1 00821
[email protected] Office: (340) 777-PATE (7283)
[email protected] Pax: (888) 889-1132
jsoykagéiburnscharest.com [email protected] | SuntawVi@gmailcom
NOTE: The defendant, if served personality, is required to file his answer or other defense with the Clerk
of thy Court and to serve a copy thereof upon the pigintifls attorney, within twenty-ome (23) days after
servies of this summons. See, VLE BR. Civ. Pro 12(a)(1I(A). The defendsnt, if served by publication or
by personal service outside of the jurisdiction, is required to fite bis answer or other defense with the
CHerk of this Court, and to serve a copy thereof upon the attorney for the plaintiff, within thirty (0) days
afier compfiction of the period of pubjication or personal service outside the jurisdiction.
See, TITLE S VLC. § 112 AND V.I. RB. Civ. PRO 12(A}(1)(B) AND Frvi.e 5 VLC. § 4981
This summons did not bear the Clerk’s signature nor the Court's seal and was not
filed with the Court. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, attached to the summons, consisted of
a list of 97 complaints filed with the Court (twenty-eight of which are grouped
under the instant master case). See Mot. for J. on the Pleadings; Ex. J; Ct.’s Ex
1 at2. No affidavit nor other proof of service was filed with the Court. See CMS
for Cases Listed on Ct.’s Ex. 1. On October 31, 2022, this Court grouped all but
one of the 28 cases under the instant master. Order Opening Master Case,
10/31/22, CMS #1. One, i.e., 2022-114 was added to the master on January 8
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 7
2025. Order Grouping Cases, 01/08/25, CMS# 50
75 Between October and November 2022 Plaintiffs filed forty-five (45)
individual complaints against IMC. See Ct.’s Ex 1 at 3 - 4; IMC’s Ex. K The
court clerk signed, sealed, and issued summons, on or before November 28
2022, for all of the complaints. See Ct.'s Ex. 1 at 3 4. On January 10, 2023
Plaintiffs counsel served copies of the forty five complaints on Attorney Newman
via a thumb drive.’ Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 18; Ex. K Along therewith
counsel served a single summons captioned [Janice George (and 68 others, See
Exhibit A) v. Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Cor, containing counsel's
electronic signature under the name of Court’s Clerk Id.; Ex. K, as shown below
7 Counsel actually served seventy-one (71) complaints on Attorney Newman. Twenty (20) of
them are grouped under master case SX-2022-MC-054 and are addressed in a separate
opinion. Three (3) of them are grouped under master case SX-2022-MC-007. As explained
earlier three (3) of the cases were grouped under the instant master and dismissed
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 8
SUMMONS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION
OF ST, CRIOX
} Civit No. SX-2622-CV-465,
466, 472,
Janice George (and 68 others, See Exhibit 4} } $06-8i4, 547-420, 522-847, 549.567,
} $69-871, 573-578, S77-578
de SZ
Plaintig. }
“ ; Complex Litigntion Division
Virgin Islands Industrial Maintensace Corp. } Adlon Re Benwass
Defendant, }
} JURY TRIAL DEMAND
To: Fodd A. Newman, Esq., agent
for Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Comp.
Address Dudley, Nowman & Pauerzeig, LLP
1131 King Street, Cheistiansted, V.1, 00820
Within the time Jimited by fsw you (see note below) you are hereby required to appear before this
Court anc answer toa complaint fled ageinst you in this action. in case of your failure to appear
or answer, a judgmentby default will de takes against you as demanded in the complaint.
This 10th day of January
2023. Tatears Chores
dd
Neteonm,
Koren &. Beg.
[email protected] ‘Office: (340) 777-PATE (7283)
rat anlar epi Paraben men com [Senta ViGlamait com
NOTE: The defendant, if seevint persoaally, is requited to file his answer or ther defense with the Clesk
Of tke Court and to serve a copy thereat upon the plaintiff's attorney, within twealy-one {21} days afier
service of this summons. See, V5. R. Cly, Pro #2{a}(iKA}. The defendant, if served by publicationor
by personal sorvice outside of the jurisdiction, fs required t Me his answer or ober defense with tbe
Clerk af this Court, and to serve « copy shercof upon the sttoraey for the plaintiff, within thirty (36) days
efter completion of the period of publication of personal scrvice cutside the jusisdiction.
See. PHPLE 5 VLC. § 112 annVE, R. Cry. Pro 124415)
AND TALE 5 VAC.
§ d9t?
§6 This summons did not bear the Clerk’s signature nor the Court's seal and
was not filed with the Court. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, attached to the summons
consisted of a list of 71 complaints filed with the Court (forty-five of which are
grouped under the instant master case). See Mot. for J. on the Pleadings; Ex. J
Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1, 3-4. No affidavit nor other proof of service was filed with the
Court. See CMS for Cases Listed on Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1,3-4. On October 31, 2022
this Court grouped one of the 45 cases (i.e., 22-471) under the instant master
Order Opening Master Case, 10/31/22, CMS #1. On January 9, 2023, the Court
added 40 of the 45 cases to the instant master. Order Amending Schedule of
Cases, 01/09/23, CMS #9. The remaining 4 cases (i.e., 22-517, 22-520, 22-525
and 22-552 were added on March 5, 2025. Second Order Amending Schedule of
In Re Aabsatos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 9
Cases, 03/05/25, CMS
# 104
6 Between November 10, 2022 and April 11, 2023 the Court stayed
proceedings under the instant master case and extended time for IMC to file its
answers. Order Granting Extension of Time to Answer and Stay of Litig for 90
days, SX-2022-MC-053, 11/10/22, CMS # 6; Order Granting Extension and Stay
for 60 days. SX-2022-MC-068, 02/21/28, CMS # 16
1” On October 30, 2024 Plaintiffs filed two complaints against IMC, i.e., 24
365 and 24-367. See Ct's Ex. 1 at 4. They amended the complaints on
November 4, 2024 and added more defendants. See CMS, 2024-367, 2024-365
11/04/24 CMS #4. No summons was filed and none were issued by the Court
relative to those cases See CMS SX 2024 CV 365 and 367 10/31/24 to
11/30/24 On November 16 2024 Plaintif counsel served copies of me aye
amended complaints on Attorney Newman. Supp Mot for J.on the Pleadings 9;
Ex, P Along therewith counsel served a single summons for each complaint
with captions matching the captions on the complaints and bearing counsel's
electronic signature under the name of court clerk Id Ex P No affidavit nor
other proof of service was filed with the Court relative to these two cases See
CMS, SX-2024-CV-365 and 367. On January 8, 2025 , this Court grouped Case
No. 2024-CV-365 under the current master Order Grouping Cases 01/08/25
CMS # 50. On January 27, 2025, Case No. 2024-CV-367 was added to the
instant _— Order Grouping Cases, 01/27/25, CMS # 61
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 10
98 During 2022, 2023 and 2024, IMC noted its objection to service of process
regarding the complaints in several documents filed with the Court as follows
1) October 27, 2022
In a Stipulation For Extension of Time to Answer and For Stay of
Litigation, IMC noted, “Insofar as this stipulation is construed as an
appearance by Defendant VIIMC, it is a special appearance, with all
rights reserved, including, but not limited to, service and jurisdiction
defenses, if any.” CMS re all cases on Ct.’s Ex. A at 2 (28 Cases)
10/27/22, Stipulation For Ext. 1 at n 1
2) January 12, 2023
in a response to this Court’s January 9, 2023 Order adding forty-three
cases to the instant master case, IMC stated it “reserves all rights
and defenses in all ASC IV [SX-2022-MC-053] cases, including to the
sufficiency of process and proper service of process.” IMC’s Resp. to
Ct.’s January 9, 2023 Order 2 at n 1, 01/12/23, CMS # 11 (SX-2022
MC-053)
3) February 15, 2023
In a Joint Status Report filed by the parties, IMC noted “insofar as
this stipulation is construed as an appearance by Defendant VIIMC
it is a special appearance, with ail rights reserved in each and every
case, including, but not limited to, service and jurisdiction defenses
Joint Status Report 1 at n 1, 02/15/23, CMS # 16 (SX-2022-MC-053)
4) August 21, 2024
In Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, “the Parties agree[d] that IMC
reserves all right and defenses including to the court's jurisdiction in
any constituent case under ASC IV and V, if such a case was not
properly served upon IMC The Parties agree there is no waiver of
any such right or defense by IMC as a result of this joint submission
Joint Proposed Scheduling Order (SX-2022-MC-053), Ex. A, 1 atn 1
08/21/24, CMS # 21, 22 (Omnibus Scheduling Order)
5) September and October 2024
IMC filed its Answers to Plaintiffs’ compiaints during September and
October 2024 Therein it raised the affirmative defense of
insufficient service of process and lack of jurisdiction including the
lack of the clerk’s signature and the court's seal. Answers re all cases
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 11
on Ct.’s Ex. A at 2 - 4, Affirmative Defenses
6) October 11, 2024
In a Stipulated Motion For Extension of Time filed on October 11,
2024, IMC noted it was filing the motion “without waiver of any
defense, including defenses to service or jurisdiction that it may have
in-any individual case.” Stipulated Mot. for Extension of Time 1 at n
1, 10/11/24, CMS # 25 (SX-2022-MC-053)
7) December 23, 2024
In an Unopposed Motion For Leave to File Brief Exceeding Page and
Word Limit, IMC noted “as it has several times in the course of this
litigation, VIIMC continues to reserve its right to all defenses in all
constituent cases including, but not limited to service, process, and
jurisdiction defenses.” Unopposed Mot. For Leave to File Br. 1 at.n
1, 12/23/24, CMS # 45 (SX-2022-MC-053)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
19. IMC filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or Altematively
For Summary Judgment on January 8, 2025 On February 7, 2025, IMC filed a
Supplement to its motion. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on February 12, 2025
and IMC replied on February 28, 2025. On March 11, 2025, this Court issued an
order treating IMC’s motion as one for summary judgment. The Court held a
hearing on the motion on May 5, 2025 and took the matter under advisement
APPLICABLE LAW
410 Since this Court converted IMC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
summary judgment jurisprudence applies thereto. Under Virgin Islands law
summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 12
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” V.I.R. Civ. P. 56(a); Machado v. Yacht Haven U.S.V.1., LLC, 61 V.1. 373
380 (V.I. 2014) (stating summary judgment is not to be granted unless “the
pleadings, discovery, and disclosures of materials on file, and any affidavits show
that there is no genuine issue of material fact.). The movant bears the burden of
demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact based upon the
record. Aubain v. Kazi Foods of V.L, LLC, 70 V.I. 943, 948 (V.I. 2019) (quoting
Brodhurst v. Frazier,
57 V.I. 365, 373 - 74 (V.I. 2012)). The moving party may
meet his burden by “pointing out that there is an absence of evidence to support
the nonmoving party’s case.”
Id. If this is done, the burden shifts to the non
moving party to demonstrate with affirmative evidence from which a jury might
reasonably rule in his favor.
Id. Pursuant to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court
affirmative evidence’ means ‘actual evidence’ and ‘not mere allegations’.” Basic
Sves, Inc. v. Govt. of the V.I., 71 V.1. 652, 659 (V.I. 2019). in considering a
summary judgment motion, “this Court must view all evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party.”
Id. Here, Plaintiffs are the non-moving
parties
LEGAL ANALYSIS
411 Defendant IMC seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaints on grounds they
failed to properly effect service of process on it since: a) the summonses served
did not bear the Court’s signature nor seal; b) they were not addressed nor served
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 13
upon the proper agent for IMC®; c) Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for their
failure to properly serve process; and d) a discretionary extension of time to serve
is unwarranted. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 18 — 19; Reply 8. Plaintiffs
contend “they fully complied with V.I.R. Civ. P. 4 when serving these cases
Opp'n 14. They set forth several arguments, addressed below, in support of their
contention. The parties dispute raises the following potential issues
A) Whether service of process was sufficient
B) Whether IMC waived service of process
C) Whether Plaintiffs have shown good cause for their failure to effect
proper service; and
D) Whether the issuance of a discretionary extension of time to effect
service is warranted, if good cause is not shown
The Court addresses each of these issues and, for the reasons mentioned below
concludes dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaints is warranted in all but two cases
1) Plaintiffs’ Service of Process Was Defective
{112 Plaintiffs boldly assert they have fully complied with V.I.R. Civ. P. 4 when
they served the summonses and complaints herein. Opp’n 14. Rule 4, which
governs summons and service of process in the Virgin Islands, provides in
pertinent part
8 The evidence presented, established that the person served, i.e., Todd Newman, is not the
official resident agent for service of process on IMC. Nevertheless, he works in the same
law firm as the resident agent. The Court thus finds this impropriety as minor, attaches little
weight to it as a basis for dismissal and does not address the argument further
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 14
(a) Contents. A summons shali be in the name of the Superior
Court of the Virgin Islands, and it must
(6) be signed by the clerk; and
(7) bear the Court's seal
(b) Issuance. On or after filing the complaint, the plaintiff may
present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal. if the
summons is properly completed, the clerk must sign, seal and issue it
to the plaintiff for service upon the defendant. A separate summons
must be issued for each defendant to be served
(m) Proving Service
(1) Affidavit Required. Unless service is waived, proof of
service must be made to the court
V.LR. Civ. P. 4. The unrebutted evidence on the record clearly establishes that
Plaintiffs woefully failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 4
4113 Although the clerk issued “signed and sealed” summonses for seventy-two
of the seventy-five complaints, Plaintiffs did not serve them. Instead, they served
documents, titled “SUMMONS,” on September 29, 2022 and January 10, 2023
that were unsigned by the clerk and did not bear the court’s seal as required by
Rule 4(a)(6) and (7). Further, the documents served bore captions created by
Plaintiffs’ counsel! that do not exist in the Court's filing system [such as “Henry
(and 96 others, See Ex. A) v. IMC” and “George (and 68 others, See Exhibit A) v
IMC”) as they were never filed with the Court. Accordingly, these signature/seal
deficient purported summons were void ab initio and incompetent to invoke the
In Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 16
Court's personal jurisdiction Similarly Plaintiffs attempted service of such
unauthorized deficient summons bore no legal effect Estate of Skepple Vv Bank
of Novia Scotia 69 V.I 700 f2t (V | 2018) (stating [a]ny attempted service by
a method that has not been previously authorized cannot be regarded as effective
service i.e legal notice and cannot bring the person within the court's power )
The Court notes that Plaintiffs also failed to comply with Rule 4 by not filing any
proof of service as required by V.IL.R. Civ. P 4(m)\(1) How, under these
circumstances Plaintiffs conceive the notion that they fully complied with Rule 4
remains a mystery to the Court.? Rule 4 is plain and unambiguous Plaintiffs
attempted service of process was woefully defective
2) IMC Did Not Waive Service of Process
14 Even where service of process is defective this Court can acquire
jurisdiction over a defendant if he voluntarily appears. 5 V.I.C. § 115 (providing
[a] voluntary appearance of the defendant shall be equivalent to personal service
of the summons upon him."). Under such circumstances, service of process is
considered waived. A defendant may also waive a personal jurisdiction
challenge where he submits to the Court's jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief
(e.g., by requesting “that the court exercise its power to redress an independent
wrong that is alleged to have been committed by the opposing litigant.”). Pollins
° At the May 5, 2025 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel switched positions and conceded he did not
“technically” comply with the requirements of Rule 4
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 16
v..Feurstein, No. 2020-0099, 2025 V.i. Supreme LEXIS 3, at * 22 (V.I. Jan. 24
2025). Such affirmative relief could take the form of a request to disqualify
counsel, strike inflammatory allegations, or award sanctions presented in the
motion to dismiss or answer. Id. at 23
915 Here, IMC filed several documents prior to filing its answer, as explained
below, wherein they asserted service of process was defective. It subsequently
filed answers and again asserted service of process was defective. Under these
circumstances its answer is not a voluntary appearance equivalent to personal
service of summons or a waiver thereof. See Club Comanche v. Danested
Assocs., Civil No. 933/1995, 1997 V.I. LEXIS 33, at * 6 (Terr. Ct. July 11, 1997)
(concluding the filing of an answer did not constitute a voluntary appearance
under 5 V.I.C. § 115 since the defendant asserted therein that service was
insufficient.). A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right or
privilege. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.,
596 U.S. 411, 417 (2022); Ubiles v. People
of the Virgin Islands,
66 V.I. 572, 586 (V.I. 2017) (citing Johnsonv. Zerbst, 304 U
S. 458, 464 (1938)) (stating “[a] waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment
or abandonment of a known right or privilege.”). The multiple assertions by IMC
prior to filing and in its answer, that service of process was defective clearly
establishes its intention not to waive the right to challenge service of process. See
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Olivier, No. 708329/16,
2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS
3828 at * 17 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. May 22, 2019) (finding no waiver where the
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 17
defendant filed an answer containing the affirmative defense of lack of personal
jurisdiction.). Under Virgin Islands rules, a waiver of such a defense occurs when
the defendant fails to make it by motion or include it in a responsive pleading
V.ILR. Civ. P. 12(h)(1)(B). Here, IMC filed the instant motion challenging service
of process and included such challenge in its answer. They also did not seek
any affirmative relief that may be construed as a submission to this Court's
jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court concludes IMC did not waive its right to
challenge service of process
3) Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Good Cause For Their Failure to Effect
Proper Service of Process
116 Virgin Islands Civil Rule 4(n) governs motions to dismiss for lack of service
in pertinent part it provides
Time Limits for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120
days after the complaint is filed, the court — on motion or on its own
after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice
against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court
must extend the time for service for an appropriate period
V.LR. Civ. P. 4(n). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to effect service of process within
120 days of filing any of the complaints. This is evident as no proper service has
been made to date, and the complaints were filed since 2022 (i.e., over two years
ago). The last complaint (excluding those filed in 2024) was filed November 16
2022. See Ct.’s Ex.1. Evenconsidering the five-month stay (i.e., from November
2022 thru Apr. 2023), the 120-day service deadline expired around August 16
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 Vi Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 18
2023 at the latest. Pursuant to Rule 4, this Court must dismiss Plaintiffs
complaints without prejudice unless: a) good cause is shown for the failure to
timely serve; or b) a discretionary extension to effect service within a specified
time is warranted. Ross v. Hodge, 58 V.I. 292, 310 (V.I. 2013) (stating “absent
proper service, a case must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the
defendant’; and “[e]ven if the court finds that no good cause exists to warrant an
extension, the court must at least consider whether any other factors warrant a
discretionary extension.”)
417 Good cause equates to excusable neglect and requires a demonstration of
good faith on the part of the party seeking an extension of time to serve and some
reasonable basis for noncompliance with the rules. Beachside Assocs., LLC v
Fishman, 53 V.1.700, 713 (V.I. 2010). This Court considers three factors when
determining the existence of good cause: 1) reasonableness of the plaintiffs
efforts to serve; (2) prejudice to the defendant by lack of timely service; and (3)
whether plaintiff moved for an enlargement of time to serve prior to the expiration
of the period prescribed by Rule 4. Ghirawoo v. John-Baptiste,
74 V.I. 185, 190
(Super. Ct. 2021); Seaborne
V.L. Inc. v. Kurg, No. SX-14-CV-312, 2015 V.I. LEXIS
88, at * 2, (Super. Ct. July 22, 2015); Heyliger v. Caribbean Cinemas,
64 V.I. 143
147 (Super. Ct. 2016); See also Beautyman v. Laurent, No. 20-1171, 2020 U.S
App. LEXIS 31210, at **6 - **7 (3d Cir. Oct. 1, 2020) (interpreting almost identical
F.R. Civ. P.4(m)). Plaintiffs’ reason for not serving the defendant “within the 120
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 19
day period is of paramount importance.” Beachside, 53 V.|. at 713; Chiang v
United States SBA, No. 07-2686,
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9668, at * 115 (3d Cir
May 4, 2009) (stating “the ‘primary focus’ in the good cause inquiry is on a
plaintiffs reasons for noncompliance with the time limit in the first place.”)
{18 Here, Plaintiffs’ efforts to serve process on IMC was far from reasonable
They deliberately executed a_ shorthand maneuver to. circumvent the
unambiguous requirement of Rule 4, by serving a single unauthorized counsel
created summons referencing numerous complaints Such conduct constituted
a flagrant violation of Rule 4 which requires plaintiffs to serve individual
summonses issued by the court for each complaint. Plaintiffs provided no basis
for such conduct in their opposition. However, at the May 5, 2025 hearing (for
the first time), they claim their goal was to not waste the clerk’s time or overburden
the court. This argument is unavailing for two reasons. First, it definitively
establishes that Plaintiffs’ conduct was not the result of accident, mistake, or
negligence. Instead, it stemmed from a deliberate intention to ignore well
established rules of procedure. Second, their efforts spared the court little
burden since the clerk had already prepared and issued valid summons, for 72 of
the 75 cases addressed in this opinion, before Plaintiffs’ attempted service of the
deficient summonses. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at2-4(Set2). Accordingly, the first factor
the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ efforts or reason for not effecting timely service
weighs against a finding of good cause
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 20
419 IMC contends they are prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ defective service since this
case concerns decades old factual allegations, and each passing year
compounds their difficulty in defending the cases. Reply 9. They claim relevant
witnesses pass away and potential third-party defendants may dissolve, go
bankrupt or change ownership as recently occurred with the dissolution of St
Croix Basic Services. ld. The Court recognizes some substance to this argument
as time is always a factor, and a finding of good cause coupled with an extension
to effect proper service will cause more delays. The Court notes however that
IMC received actual notice of Plaintiffs’ complaints years ago when service was
attempted. Accordingly, the Court finds this factor as neutral
q20 The third factor weighs against a finding of good cause. Plaintiffs never
sought an extension of time to effect proper service until February 2025 after IMC
filed their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This was two years and four
months after IMC first alerted them (in a stipulation for extension of time filed
October 27, 2022) that it was raising a service of process defense, and one year
nine months after the 120-day period for service expired in August 2023 for the
last complaint filed (excluding the two filed in November 2024)
721 In sum, none of the factors weigh in favor of finding good cause for an
extension. Even if the prejudice factor was considered to weigh in favor of an
extension, “the absence of prejudice alone can never constitute good cause to
excuse late service.” Beachside, 53 V.1. at 713. The Court's “primary focus is on
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 Vi Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 21
the plaintiffs reasons for not complying with the time limit in the first place.” Id
(citing MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1068 1097 (3d Cir
1995)). Under the circumstances, Plaintiffs have failed:to meet their burden to
show good cause for their failure to properly serve IMC
4) A Discretionary Extension Of Time Is Not Warranted
{22 Plaintiffs contend they are entitled toa discretionary extension of time to
perfect service since any violation is a mere technicality and IMC has not been
prejudiced The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has mandated trial courts, in the
absence of good cause, to consider whether any additional factors warrant an
extension of time to effect proper service Beachside 53 V.I. at 716 - 18 (citing
Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1306 (3d Cir. 1995)). In
deciding whether to grant a discretionary extension this Court considers several
factors as indicated below. Id. at 718 (explaining that in determining the
appropriateness of a discretionary extension, courts should consider: whether the
statute of limitations would bar the refiled action; and whether the defendant
evaded service or concealed a defect in attempted service.)
A) Prejudice to the Defendant
{23 As explained above in Section 3, the Court finds the prejudice to IMC
resulting from Plaintiffs’ defective service, to be minimal. However, there is a
separate prejudice that would result from the grant of an extension. As explained
below, a dismissal would end the litigation since the statute of limitations would
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 22
likely bar the refiling of Plaintiffs’ claims. It would in effect be a dismissal with
prejudice. The grant of an extension would deny IMC the benefit of such a
dismissal thus resulting in prejudice to it
B) Expiration of the Statute of Limitations
924 Excluding the two complaints filed in 2024, Plaintiffs filed their last complaint
on November 28, 2022. All of them involve personal injury claims governed by
a two-year statute of limitations. 5 V.ILC. § 31(a)(5). Their causes of action would
thus have arisen no later than the date of filing the complaints, and the statute of
limitations would have expired no later than 2024. It is thus apparent that, if
dismissed, Plaintiffs would be barred from refiling their claims. The Court is
aware of this consequence and, finds nevertheless that it does not justify an
extension of time after consideration of all the factors. See Beachside, 53 V.I. at
716 - 18 (concluding “the trial court may still deny a discretionary extension of time
even if the statute of limitations would bar a plaintiff from refiling its claims.”), citing
Petrucelli, 46 F.3d at 1306
C) Evasion of Service by IMC
925 Plaintiffs concede there is no evidence IMC evaded service. Opp'n 17
Nevertheless, they argue
IMC did wait years after Plaintiffs filed and served these
Complaints, providing ample opportunity for IMC to raise any
alleged service deficiency long before it filed its answers
Instead, IMC remained silent, engaged in scheduling, and
actively participated in this litigation for over two years -- only
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 23
now springing a purely technical objection. Had IMC voiced its
concern in a timely manner; the parties could have resolved it
without burdening the Court
Id. This argument is based on demonstrably false assertions. The record is
clear that IMC in fact raised the service deficiency issue long before it filed its
answers. It first raised the service deficiency issue on October 27, 2022. IMC
again raised the issue six times between January 2023 and December 2024
Under these circumstances, there was no evasion of service or improper silence
on the part of IMC."°
D) Concealing a Defect in Attempted Service
726 Nothing in the record shows that IMC concealed any defect in Plaintiffs
attempted service. To the contrary they revealed the defect many times as
related above
E) Promptness In Requesting An Extension
q27 IMC first put Plaintiffs on notice of a potential service deficiency on October
27, 2022 through a footnote in a Stipulated Motion for Extension of time filed in all
thirty service-challenged cases filed by that date. At that time, the 120-day period
for service of process had not yet expired in twenty-seven of them. See Ct.’s Ex
1 at 2-3. For the next two years it noted its objection to service of process on
10 The Court further notes there has been no extensive litigation in this matter. No dates were
set regarding the litigation until issuance of a case management order on January 27, 2025
after IMC filed the instant motion
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 24
six occasions in the instant master wherein the majority of the cases considered
herein were grouped. Yet, Plaintiffs failed to seek an extension. Their belated
request, after IMC filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings, was not prompt
F) Actual Notice
428 The only factor that arguably mitigates in favor of an extension is that IMC
received actual notice of Plaintiffs’ complaints. The Virgin Islands Supreme
Court, however, has made clear that ‘constructive service without authorization is
not legal notice; instead, attempts at such service are regarded as if no attempt
was made to achieve service.” Skepple, 69 V.I. at 735. Although Plaintiffs
attempted service gave actual notice, it was “not effective to allow a court to
exercise power over a person.” Id
G) Plaintiffs’ Reason For Not Effecting Proper Service
929 This Cout heavily weighs Plaintiffs’ reasons for not timely effecting proper
service. As noted above, Plaintiffs, at the May 5, 2025 hearing, claimed their
reason for not following Rule 4 was to spare the burden on the court clerks. As
commendable as this goal may be, it is seriously undermined when one considers
Plaintiffs’ rationale
q30 To achieve Plaintiffs’ purported intent, one would expect counsel to have
filed the “burden saving” summary summonses with the clerk to be signed and
sealed. Instead, counsel filed the normal single summons in each of the seventy
six cases. The clerk signed, sealed, and issued seventy-three of them. Amonth
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 25
or more later, counsel then served the five unauthorized summary summonses
on IMC and never filed them with the Court. How this procedure could have
saved court time defies logic as the clerk had already prepared the summonses
31 Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that every modern court, at least post
2010, falls on the side that-a signed and sealed summons with a modern
electronic docket is anachronistic and that he complied with the common practice
across the United States " Although he did not comply with Rule 4, he
contended it was just a technical defect In other words counsel unilaterally
chose to ignore Virgin Islands rules, which he deems antiquated, and follow
foreign jurisprudence. This Court will not condone a trend that permits lawyers
to choose to follow foreign (so called “modern’) jurisprudence over clear and
unambiguous Virgin Islands rules when it suits them. Such is a dangerous
practice that abrogates the purpose for which rules are promulgated; and is
blatantly insulting. The Virgin Islands Supreme Court, not lawyers, regulates the
rules of practice for Virgin Islands courts
432 Having considered the above factors, this Court finds no reasonable basis
to grant a discretionary extension of time to effect proper service. The defective
service did not stem from technical error, accident, or negligent conduct
Plaintiffs’ counsel knew or should have known of the potential consequences of
+ Counsel made these statements at the May 5, 2025 hearing
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Ciaims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 26
serving unauthorized summonses and chose to do so anyway. Such conduct
mitigates against awarding them an extension of time to effect proper service
Accordingly, this Court, having considered the totality of circumstances, declines
to issue a discretionary extension of time to effect proper service. See Lawrence
v. Clarke, No. SX-14-CV-314, 2015 V.I. LEXIS 142, at * 7 (Super. Ct. Dec. 15
2015) (dismissing complaint for failure to timely serve where the plaintiff was on
notice of the risk of dismissal and the statute of limitations barred refiling)
5) The Henry and Mcintosh Cases Warrant a Discretionary Extension
q33 The above analysis suggests a different outcome for two of the 75 cases
related to IMC’s motion (i.e., Henry v. V.VIMC, Et. Al, SX-2024-CV-365 and
McIntosh v. V.VIMC, Et. Al, SX-2024-CV-367), even though the summons
served, related to them, did not contain the Court’s signature nor seal. See IMC’s
Ex. P. Several crucial factors considered above mitigate in favor of an extension
such as: a) the Henry and Mcintosh cases were filed on October 30, 2024 and
hence were just over three months old when IMC filed its Supplemental Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings (i.e. on February 7, 2025); b) the prejudice to IMC
caused by extensive delay (e.g., three years in the other cases) in effecting proper
service of process in the other cases is minimal to nonexistent; c) at the time
Plaintiffs sought an extension (i.e., in their February 12, 2025 Opposition to the
instant motion), the 120-day period for service of process had not yet expired; and
d) none of IMC’s numerous service of process notices filed in the instant master
in Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV SX-22-MC-053
2025 VI Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
pags 27
applied to the Henry and Meintosh 2024 cases as they were not yet fled nor were
they grouped under the instant master until January 2025. For these reasons
particularly Plaintiffs timely request for an extension, the Court will deny IMC’s
motion for summary judgment as to the Henty and Mcintosh cases and grant an
extension to effect proper service
CONCLUSION
134 Having considered the evidence presented this Court finds that there is no
genuine issue of material fact concerning the issues raised by IMC s motion for
summary judgment For the reasons stated above the Court further concludes
that 1) Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence that service of process was valid and hence have not properly
invoked this Court's jurisdiction over it Skepple 69 V.|. at 731 ; 2) IMC did not
waive this Court's personal jeisdiction over it 3) Plaintiffs have failed to show
good cause to warrant an extension of time to effect proper service and 4) under
the circumstances, a discretionary extension of time to serve is not warranted
35 As explained at the beginning of this opinion, the Court will: 1) strike IMC’s
motion to the extent it challenges cases not grouped under the instant master
case; 2) deny, as moot, IMC’s motion to the extent it applies to cases already
dismissed, i.e., 20-589, 22-092, 22-523, 22-531 and 22-537; and 3) deny without
prejudice IMC’s motion as to the eleven (11) cases grouped under the instant
In Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053
2025 Vi Super 16P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 28
master that are the subject of an automatic stay imposed since May 2022 due to
a bankruptcy petition filed by defendant HONX, Inc. i.e., SX-2022-CV-008; SX
2022-CV-032; SX-2022-CV-043; SX-2022-CV-061; SX-2022-CV-062; SX-2022
CV-063; SX-2022-CV-068; SX-2022-CV-071; SX-2022-CV-074; SX-2022-CV
075; SX-2022-CV-076. An order consistent herewith will be entered
contemporaneously
DATE: June11, 2025 ees ZS __
ALPHONSO G. ANDREWS, JR
Superior Court Judge
ATTEST
Clerk of the Court
COURT GEERK III
os! yt le VA “uf Loe ST
DATE APS
IN RE ASCD IV CLAIMS (PRIMARY)
COURT EXHIBIT 4
DOCKET CHART FOR 2022-MC-053 (91 Cases)'
OFFICIAL
CASE COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER_ IMC’s
NUMBER FILED ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX. NO
SET 1 (16 Cases)
20-589 06/18/20 Dismissed 05/12/25 QO
22-092 02/25/22 Dismissed 05/08/25 N
22-523 11/11/22 Dismissed 04/30/25 K
22-531 11/14/22 Dismissed 04/30/25 K
22-537 11/11/22 _ Dismissed 04/30/25 K
22-008 01/13/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
22-032 02/04/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
22-043 02/11/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
22-061 02/24/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
22-062 02/24/22 03/07/22 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
22-063 02/25/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
22-068 02/24/22 03/07/22 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
22-071 02/24/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
22-074 02/24/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
22-075 02/25/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/30/22 N
22-076 02/24/22 03/02/22 03/10/22 03/29/22 N
' The first five (5) cases listed above have been dismissed. Those in red remain subject to an
automatic bankruptcy stay since May 2022. The dates of filing the complaints, issuance of
summons and filing of answers were derived from the CMS docket for the individual cases listed
that are grouped under Master Case SX-2022-MC-053. The dates of attempted service were
derived from IMC’s Exhibits J, K, N and P, attached to its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
1
OFFICIAL
CASE COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER _ IMC’s
NUMBER FILED _ ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX. NO
SET 2 (75 Cases)
22-114 03/04/22. + +NONE 09/29/22 01/24/25 J
22-151 05/04/22 05/06/22 09/29/22 10/21/24 J
22-181 05/26/22 05/26/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-284 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-302 08/03/22 08/05/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-303 08/05/22 08/05/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-305 08/08/22 08/09/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-313 08/08/22 ~—-:08/08/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-314 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-321 08/08/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-323 08/06/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-331 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 40/01/24 J
22-338 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-339 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-342 08/05/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-346 08/06/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-348 08/06/22. 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-351 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 40/01/24 J
22-354 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-356 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/29/24 J
22-359 08/09/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-362 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-364 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-367 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-369 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/29/24 J
22-384 08/08/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-386 08/11/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-393 08/11/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
2.
OFFICIAL
CASE COMPLAINTSUMMONS —_— SERVICE ANSWER MC's
NUMBER FILED _ ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX. NO
22-471
22-506
10/04/22
14/11/22
10/12/22
11/14/22
01/10/23
01/10/23
09/27/24
09/27/24
KK
22-507 11/14/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 01/13/25. K
22-508 11/14/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 kK
22-510 11/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-512 11/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-513 11/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 10/29/24 K
22-514 © 11/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-517 14/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K
22-518 11/11/22 14/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-520 11/11/22 = 11/15/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K
22-522 14/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 -K
22-524 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 10/29/24 K
22-525 11/11/22 11/18/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K
22-526 © 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-527 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-529 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-530 = 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-532 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-533 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-534 11/11/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-536 = 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-538 = 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-539 © 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-541 = 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-542 = 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-544 = 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-546 11/14/22 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-547 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-549 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-550 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-552 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K
22-554 = 11/14/22 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-557 11/14/22 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-558 11/15/22 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
3
OFFICIAL
CASE COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER _ IMC’s
NUMBER ____FILED ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX. NO
22-561 11/15/22 = 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-562 11/15/22) = 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-563 11/15/22 §=11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-565 11/15/22 = 11/18/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-567 11/15/22 = 11/18/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-569 11/15/22, = 11/18/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-571 11/15/22 = 11/18/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-573 11/15/22 . 11/21/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K
22-575 11/16/22 11/21/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
22-582 11/16/22 11/28/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K
24-365 10/30/24 NONE 11/16/24 01/17/25 P
24-367 10/30/24 NONE 11/16/24 01/17/
25 P
4