SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
LC DANIEL ENTERPRISES, INC. D/8/A
GLOBAL TOURS TRAVEL AGENCY, Civil No. SX-15-CV-237
PLAINTIFF, | ACTION FOR BREACH OF
y CONRACT, DEBT, AND
° RESTITUTION

KEITH JAMES D/s/a KEITH’S TRAVEL,

| CITE AS: 2022 VISUPER
DEFENDANT, |

J

Mark L. Milligan, Esq.
Christiansted, U.S. Virgin Islands
For Plaintiff

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WILLOCKS, Presiding Judge

©1 THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff LC Daniel Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a
Global Tours Travel Agency's (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) motion for sanctions, filed on October l,
2021.

BACKGROUND
$2 On June 23, 20215, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Keith James d/b/a Keith's
Travel (hereinafter “Defendant”). The complaint did not set forth any counts designating specific
causes of action but the caption indicated it was an action for breach of contract, debt, and
restitution,
93 = On July 27, 2015, Anthony R. Kiture. Esq. filed a notice of appearance for Defendant and
on that same date. Defendant filed an answer in response to Plaintiff's complaint.
$4 On October 16, 2015, Defendant and Anthony R. Kiture, Esq.. filed a stipulation for

Defendant to proceed pro se, which was subsequently granted by the Court.
LC Daniel Enterprises, Inc. v. Keith James

$X-15-CV-237
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VISUPER \
Page 2 of 15

{5 On May 25, 2016, a scheduling order was entered in this matter.

@6 On November 30, 2016, this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing.
According to the record of proceeding for the November 30, 2016 hearing, Mark Milligan—Esq.
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant failed to appear. On the same date, the Court entered
an order whereby the Court ordered, inter alia, that the parties adhere to the following schedule:
(i) “The deadline to propound discovery has expired”; (ii) “Mediation shall be completed by no
later than Friday, December 23, 2016”; (iii) “A telephonic pre-trial conference shall be held on
Wednesday, January 18, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.”; (iv) “Any and all potentially dispositive motion
shall be filed no later than Friday, January 27, 2017” and that “failure to comply with the deadlines
stated above may lead to sanctions.” (Nov. 30, 2016 Order.)

{7 On February 9, 2017, a mediation report was filed whereby it advised the Court that a
mediation conference was held on February 1, 2017, and “[tjJhe parties have reached a total
impasse, all issues required Court action.” (Feb. 9, 2017 Mediation Report.)

"8 On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery.

19 On February 15, 2017, this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing.
According to the record of proceeding for the February 15, 2017 hearing, Mark Milligan, Esq.
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant appeared pro se. On February 16, 2017, the Court
entered an order whereby the Court ordered, inter alia, that: (i) Plaintiff’s February 13, 2017 motion
to compel is granted and that Defendant “shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of this
Order respond to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents”; (ii) “the
deadline to complete discovery depositions shall be April 30, 2017"; (iii) “any and all dispositive

motions shall be filed no later than June 16, 2017”; and (iv) a “pretrial conference shall be held
LC Daniel Enterprises, inc, v. Keith James

SX-15-CV-237
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER
Page 3 of 15

[sic] August 16, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. wherein the parties shal! appear prepared to schedule trial.”
(Feb. 16, 2017 Order.)

{16 On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions.

Gil On August 16, 2017, this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing.
According to the record of proceeding for the August 16, 2017 hearing, Mark Milligan, Esq.
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant appeared pro se, and that Plaintiff advised the Court
that Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff's discovery. On August 17, 2017, the Court entered
an order whereby the Court ordered Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories within ten
days, sanctioned Defendant to pay attorney’s fees and costs for failure to produce discovery, and
Plaintiff to submit affirmation of cost for attorney’s fees.

{112 On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s bill of cost.

{13 On September 13, 2017, the Court entered an order whereby the Court ordered Defendant
to pay Plaintiff the sum of $360.00 within ten days.

114 On November 15, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file Defendant’s first set of
interrogatories and request for production.

G15 On December 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for Defendant to show cause and for
additional sanctions. In its motion, Plaintiff advised the Court that: (i) Defendant failed to comply
with the Court’s February 15, 2017 order and August 17, 2017 order, and (ii) Defendant made
certain responses but failed to provide “‘a single substantive response.” (Dec. 5, 2017 Motion.)
{16 On December 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s November 15, 2017
motion.

{17 On February 7, 2019, this matter was reassigned to the undersigned.
LC Daniel Enterprises, inc. v. Keith James

SX-15-CV-237
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VISUPER ___
Page 4 of 15

G18 On June 6, 2019, this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing.
According to the record of proceeding for the June 6, 2019 hearing, Mark Milligan, Esq. appeared
on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant failed to appear.

{!9 On August 29, 2019, this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing.
According to the record of proceeding for the August 29, 2019 hearing, Mark Milligan, Esq.
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant appeared pro se, and the Court ordered the parties
to be prepared to plead their case on December 5, 2019.

{20 On December 3, 2019, the Court entered an order whereby the Court denied Defendant's
November 15, 2017 motion, ordered Defendant to make initial disclosures within fourteen days,
and ordered Defendant to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by
Plaintiff in defending against Defendant's November 15, 2017 motion.

{21 On December 3, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for a continuance of the December 5, 2019
hearing, which was subsequently granted by the Court and the hearing was continued to another
date.

422 On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a bill of cost.

{23 On September 10, 2020, this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing.
According to the record of proceeding for the September 10, 2020 hearing, Mark Milligan, Esq.
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant appeared pro se, Plaintiff advised the Court that
Defendant had not been cooperative with discovery requests, and Defendant advised the Court of
his effort to obtain counsel as this matter becomes more difficult. The Court continued the matter
to allow Defendant to seek counsel.

{24 On October 10, 2020, this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing.

According to the record of proceeding for the October 10, 2020 hearing, Mark Milligan, Esq.
LC Daniel Enterprises, fnc. v. Keith James

SX-§5-CV-237 q
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 1
Page 5 of 15

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant appeared pro se, Defendant advised the Court that

no counsel has been obtained, and the Court ordered the parties to submit an amended scheduling

order within fifteen days.

4125 On February 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order setting an amended scheduling

order. In its motion, Plaintiff advised the Court:
Although the parties did subsequently exchange their proposed scheduling plan, it became
readily apparent the there would be no meeting of the minds as to which should prevail.
Essentially, Plaintiffs’ plan was designed to compel completion of discovery, while
Defendant Keith A. James sought to commence discovery anew, with no mention as-to his
long-standing obligation to comply with the rules of discovery and produce full and
complete responses to Plaintiff's long-standing discovery demands, e.g. namely:
interrogatories demand for production of documents, due since as early as July 30, 2016.
(Feb. 2, 202! Motion.)

126 On February 20, 2021, the Court entered a first amended scheduling order. On February

22, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to submit an amended scheduling order.

{27 On March I1, 2021, this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing.

According to the record of proceeding for the March 11, 2021 hearing, Mark Milligan, Esq.

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant failed to appear, and the Court ordered Defendant

to show cause for failure to appear. The show cause hearing was scheduled for May 27, 2021.

(28 On March 15, 2021, the Court entered an order whereby the Court denied Defendant’s

February 22, 2021 motion.

{29 On May 26, 2021, the Court entered an order whereby the Court ordered Plaintiff to

supplement its February 14, 2020 filing with a motion.

730 On May 27, 2021, the date of the show cause hearing, Defendant filed a motion to continue

the May 27, 2021 hearing, which was subsequently denied as moot. According to the record of
LC Daniel Enterprises, Ine. v. Keith James

SX-15-CV-237
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER
Page 6 of 15

proceeding for the May 27, 2021 hearing, Mark Milligan, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and
Defendant appeared pro se. -
G31 On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement its February 14, 2020 filing.
{32 On July 2, 2021, the Court entered an order whereby the Court granted Plaintiff's June 25,
2021 motion and ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff the sum of $390.00 within fifteen days.
G33 On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed this instant motion for sanctions.
"34 On October 7, 2021, this matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing.
According to the record of proceeding for the October 7, 2021 hearing, Mark Milligan, Esq.
appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendant failed to appear.
{35 On October 12, 2021, the Court entered an order whereby the Court ordered Defendant to
file a response to Plaintiff's October 1, 2021 motion, and notified Defendant that once the twenty-
day period has expired, the Court will rule on Plaintiff's October 1, 2021 motion regardiess of
whether Defendant fited a response thereto. Defendant was served with a copy of the October 12,
2021 order on December 17, 2021.
{36 The twenty-day period has since passed and as of the date of this order, Defendant has not
filed a response to Plaintiff's October !, 2021 motion. Furthermore, as of the date of this order, no
counsel has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Defendant.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
37 Rule 37 of the Virgin Isiands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘Rule 37”) governs
discovery violations and allows the Court to use various types of sanctions to enforce the integrity
of the discovery process. More specifically, Rule 37(b) governs failure to comply with a court

order and provides in relevant part:

(b) Failure to Comply with a Court Order.
LC Daniel Enterprises, Inc. v. Keith dames

SX-15-CV-237
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER l
Page 7 of 15

(1) Sanctions Sought Where the Deposition Is Taken. If the court where the
discovery is taken orders a deponent to be sworn or to answer a question and the
deponent fails to obey, the failure may be treated as contempt of court.

(2) Sanctions Sought Where the Action Is Pending.

(A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party's officer, director,
or managing agent -- or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4) -
- fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under
Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further
just orders. They may include the following:

{i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts
be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party
claims;

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in
evidence;

(ili) striking pleadings in whole or in part;

(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;

(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;

(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or

(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an
order to submit to a physical or mental examination.

V.I_R. Civ, P. 37(b).
DISCUSSION
{38 In its motion, Plaintiff requested the Court to “impose appropriate sanction against
Defendant James due to his failure to obey multiple discovery orders entered February 15, 2017,
February 25, 2021, and July 2, 2021.” (Motion, p. !.) More specifically, Plaintiff requested the
Court to enter orders: (i) “prohibiting Defendant James, the disobedient party, from supporting or
opposing Plaintiff's claims, as alleged in the complaint,” (ii) “striking Defendant James’ answer
and affirmative defenses, (iii) rendering a default judgment against Defendant James, the
disobedient party,” and (iv) “award cost in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant James.” (Id.)
In support of its request, Plaintiff included a copy of Plaintiff's counsel’s Rule 37(a)(1)

certification and directed the Court to review the record of proceeding. A copy of the February 15,
LC Daniel Enterprises, inc. v. Keith James

SX-15-CV-237
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER
Page 8 of 15

2017 order,' February 25, 2021 order,” and July 2, 2021 order were attached to the motion as
Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, respectively.

139 The Court notes at the outset that Defendant had ample opportunity to be heard prior to the
imposition the sanctions outlined below—to wit, Plaintiff filed and served its motion for sanctions
on October 1, 2021, and the Court also subsequently entered an order whereby the Court ordered
Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff's October !, 2021 motion and notified Defendant that once
the twenty-day period has expired, the Court will rule on Plaintiff's October 1, 2021 motion
regardless of whether Defendant filed a response thereto. Nevertheless, Defendant chose not to
file a response to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

A. Plaintiff's Request for Sanctions

140 In its motion, Plaintiff requested for the sanctions of prohibiting Defendant from opposing
Plaintiff's claims, as alleged in the complaint, and striking Defendant's answer and affirmative
defenses. While Plaintiff claimed in its motion that Defendant failed to comply with three
discovery orders, which was not denied by Defendant since he did not file a response thereto, a
review of the record revealed that Defendant persisted in an obdurate and contumacious refusal to
participate in this litigation—to wit, failure to cooperate with discovery, failure to comply with the
Court’s orders, failure to appear for status conference hearings, and failure to obtain counsel
despite advising the Court of his intention to do so since September 2020 and the Court granting

him time to seek counsel. While Defendant, as a pro se litigant, is “entitled to additional leniency,

that leniency is not a license [excusing non-compliance] with relevant rules of procedural and

' The February 15, 2017 order was entered on February 16, 2017, and thus referenced above as the order entered on
February 16, 2017.

* The February 25, 2024 order was the first amended scheduling order the Court entered on February 20, 2021, and
thus referenced above as the order entered on February 20, 2021.
LC Daniel Enterprises, Inc. v. Keith James

SX-15-CV-237 Oo
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VISUPER |
Page 9 of 15

substantive law.” Montgomery v. Virgin Grand Villas St. John Owners’ Association, 71 V.1. 1119,
1127-28 (V.I. 2019) (internal quotation omitted); see also Simpson v. Golden, 56 V.1. 272, 280
(V.I. 2012) (“[S]elf-representation is not a license [excusing compliance] with relevant rules of
procedural and substantive law.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This matter has
been pending since June 2015 and the Court’s patience with Defendant is wearing thin. At this
juncture, the Court finds the sanctions of prohibiting Defendant from opposing Plaintiff’s claims,
as alleged in the complaint, and striking Defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, appropriate
sanctions under Rule 37(b) to impose upon Defendant in this instance and will grant Plaintiff's
request for such sanctions.

141 In its motion, Plaintiff also requested for the sanction of entering a default judgment against
Defendant. In light of the aforementioned sanctions and Defendant’s conduct in this matter, the
Court finds that Defendant failed to “otherwise defend” and thus, the Court will enter a default
against Defendant and determine whether a judgment by default should be entered against
Defendant. See V.1. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

1. Standard of Review for Default Judgment

{42 Rule 55 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “Rule 55”) governs
entry for default and default judgment. An entry of default does not necessitate a default judgment.
See Chaput v. Scafidi, 66 V.L 160, 188 (Super. Ct. June 14, 2017) (“Plaintiffs do not win by default
just because the defendants fail to appear.”). “[WJhen default is entered against a defendant, the
defendant is admitting only to the allegations against him as alleged in the charging document.”
Redeniption Holdings, inc. v. Gov't of the V.1., 

 (V.1. 2016) (citing King v. Appleton

 (V.I. 2014)). In King, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court pointed out that “the

Superior Court must consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of
LC Daniel Enterprises, Inc. v. Keith James

SX-15-CV-237 F
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER ween
Page 10 of 15

action, since a party in default does not admit mere conclusion of flaw’ and that if the Superior
Court determines that the unchallenged facts constitute a fegitimate cause of action, then it is “to
hold a default judgment hearing to establish the amount of damages.” 

 (internal
quotes and citations omitted) (footnote omitted). However, a default judgment can be entered
without a hearing “[wJhen the plaintiff's claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum
which can by computation be made certain.” Appleton v. Harrigan, 

 (V.L. 2014)
(citing Super. Ct. R. 48(a)(1));? see V.E R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) (“If the plaintiffs claim is for a sum
certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation, the court or the clerk -- on the plaintiff's
request, with an affidavit showing the amount due -- must enter judgment for that amount and
costs against a defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor
an incompetent person.”). In Harrigan, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court explained that “(a] claim
is not a sum certain unless there is no doubt as to the amount to which a plaintiff is entitled as a
result of the defendant's default.”’ 61 V.I. at 270. “In all other cases {not involving a claim for a
sum certain], the party must apply to the court for a default... The court may conduct hearings or

make referrals -- preserving any statutory right to a jury trial -- when, to enter or effectuate

3 The Harrigan court noted:

“We again look to federal case law for persuasive authority because, even though Superior Court Rule 48
exclusively governs default judgment in the Superior Court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure $5(b} similarly
provides that default judgment can be entered without a hearing only where the damages sought are a
“sum certain.” SUPER. Cr, R. 48(a)( 1) (“When the plaintiff's claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or
for a sum which can by computation be made certain, ... the clerk upon request of the plaintiff ... shall enter
judgment for the net amount due and costs against the defendant.”); FED. R. Ct. P. 55(b)(1) ("If the plaintiff's
claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation, the clerk ... must enter judgment
for that amount and costs against a defendant.”).")

61 V.I. at 270 n. 9.

Since Harrigan, the Virgin [stands Supreme Court adopted the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, which went
into effect on March 31, 2017. Subsequently, Superior Court Rule 48 was repealed on April 7, 2017 by Supreme Court
Promulgation Order No. 2017-0006. While Superior Court Rule 48 has been repealed and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure does not apply in this matter, the Court nevertheless finds the Harrigan court’s analysis as to sum certain
claims helpful here since Rule 55(b}(1) closely mirrors its federal counterpart and Superior Court Rule 48.

+ See supra, footnote 3.
LC Daniel Enterprises, Inc. v. Keith James

SX-15-CV-237 q
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VISUPER.
Page C1 of 15

judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages;
(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter.” V.I. R.
Civ, P. 55(b)(2).
2. Analysis for Default Judgment
a. Whether Plaintiff is Entitled to a Judgment by Default

143 As noted above, the complaint did not set forth any counts designating specific causes of
action. Based on Plaintiff's description of the action as an “action for breach of contract, debt, and
restitution” and the allegations contained therein, the Court concludes that Plaintiff brought the
following causes of action against Defendants: breach of contract, debt, and restitution. The Court
will first determine whether the facts, as alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, constitute legitimate
causes of action for breach of contract.

144 = In Phillip v. Marsh-Monsanto, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court conducted a Banks
analysis and determined that to establish a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff “was required to
demonstrate: (1) an agreement; (2) a duty created by that agreement; (3) a breach of that duty; and
(4) damages.” 

 (V.1. 2017) (citing Brouillard v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., 63
V.L. 788, 798 (V.L 2015) {citing Arlington Funding Servs., Inc. v. Geigel, $1 V.L 118, 135.(V.L
2009). “A contract may be ‘express, implied-in-fact, or implied-in-law.’” Turnbull v. Turnbull,
TI V.I. 96, 105 (Super. Ct. July 15, 2019) (citing Peppertree Terrace vy. Williams, 52 V.1. 225, 241
(V.1. 2009) (Swan, concurring)). “An express contract is memorialized ‘in oral or written words,’
and an implied-in-fact contract is ‘inferred wholly or partially by conduct.’” /d. (citing Peppertree
Terrace, 52 V.1. at 241) (Swan, concurring)); see also, Whyte v. Bockino, 69. V1. 749, 764 (VI.
2018) (citing Peppertree Terrace, 52 V.1. at 241) (Swan, concurring)). Plaintiff made the following

allegations in its complaint:
LC Daniel Enterprises, inc. v. Keith James

SX-15-CV-237
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER
Page 12 of 15

7. On or about May 2013, the parties hereto entered into an agreement where Plaintiff
allowed Defendant access to its Saba Network System enabling him to make reservations
for airline tickets, and to apply the full fare for tickets to Plaintiff's AARC account, for a
fix fee of 40% per ticket.

8. Then and there, Defendant agreed to immediately collect the cost thereof from his clients
by (a) charging the corresponding fare to their personal credit or charge cards, or (b)
collecting from them payment in cash.

9.Defendnat further agreed that, if and when cash payment for fares was collected, he
would immediately reimburse Plaintiff in order to off-set the afore-mentioned fare charges
to Plaintiff's AARC account.

10. From as early as June 2013, due to an irregular payment history, the outstanding balance
on Defendant’s cash reimbursement account has been in arrears.

L1, Between February and June 2015, in response to several demands by Plaintiff,
Defendant agreed to bring his cash reimbursement accounts current, but has failed to do
so, and is now ignoring and, otherwise, avoiding Plaintiffs attempt to make contact with
him in person or by phone.

12. As a result of the afore-said breach by non-payment, effective May 31, 2015, Plaintiff
unilaterally suspended and blocked access by Defendant to run and charge airline tickets
on its Saba Network System.

13. As of even date, the outstanding balance owed to Plaintiff by Defendant on the afore-

mentioned cash reimbursement account is TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE

HUNDRED EIGHTEEN DOLLA|[R]S and 02/100 [$26,318.02].

(Compl. FJ 7-13.)
145 Based on the unchalienged facts alleged in the complaint, the Court finds that: (i) Plaintiff
and Defendant entered into an agreement on or about May 2013 whereby Plaintiff agreed to allow
Defendant to access Plaintiff’s Saba Network System and charge fares to Plaintiff's AARC
account and Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff a fee in exchange for the access to Plaintiff's Saba
Network System and to immediately reimburse any fares charged to Plaintiff's AARC account,
and (ii) under the agreement, Defendant had a duty to immediately reimburse Plaintiff for any fares
he charged to Plaintiff's AARC account, and Defendant breached his duty when he failed to do
so, and Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of Defendant's breach. Thus, the Court concludes

that the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action for breach of contract under

Virgin Islands law. Given that all of Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, debt, and restitution
LC Daniel Enterprises, Inc. v. Keith James

SX-15-CV-237
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER
Page 13 of 15

are based on the same allegation (i.e. that Plaintiff did not receive reimbursement for the fares
Defendant charged to Plaintiff's AARC account) and Plaintiff did not plead them separately, the
Court finds it unnecessary to analyze Plaintiff’s claims for debt and restitution at this juncture.
b. Damages

{46 The Court must now determine whether a hearing is necessary to establish the amount of
damages. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim for the unreimbursed fares Defendant charged
to Plaintiff's AARC account does not qualify as a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain
by computation. See e.g., Harrigan, 

 (“This claim for unpaid rent in Harrigan's
affidavit did not qualify as asum certain because ‘[tJhe term ‘sum certain’ in this context
contemplates a situation in which, once liability has been established, there can be no dispute as
to the amount due, as in actions on money judgments and negotiable instruments.’”). As such, the
Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing on the amount of damages. See V.I. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).°
The Court will reserve ruling on Plaintiff’s request for the sanction of entering a default judgment

against Defendant.

> Rule 55 provides in relevant part:

(2) All Other Claims. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment. A default
Judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if represented by a general guardian,
conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared, If the party against whom a default judgment is sought
has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served with written
nolice of the apptication at least 7 days before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals
~- preserving any statutory right to a jury trial — when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to:

(A) conduct an accounting:
(B) determine the amount of damages:
(C) establish the tuth of any allegation by evidence; or
(D) investigate any other matter.
VLR. Civ, P, 55(b)(2)
LC Daniel Enterprises, inc. v. Keith James

§X-15-CV-237
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER
Page 14 of 15

B. Plaintiff’s Request for an Award of Costs
{47 In its motion, Plaintiff also requested for an award costs. Rule 54 of the Virgin Islands
Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “Rule $4”) provides that “[w]ithin 30 days after the entry of
a final judgment or a judgment allowing costs, the prevailing party shall serve on the adverse party
and file with the court a bill of costs, together with a notice of motion when application will be
made to the court to tax the same.” V.I. R. Civ. P, 54(d)(1)(A). At this time, this request is
premature because the Court has not entered a judgment against Defendant in favor of Plaintiff,
Additionally, under Rule 54, if Plaintiff wishes to move the Court for costs after a judgment against
Defendant in favor of Plaintiff is entered and, Plaintiff is required to a separate motion, with proper
briefing and supporting documents. As such, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiff's
request for costs.

CONCLUSION
148 Based on the foregoing, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion for
sanctions. Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed on October 1, 2021, is GRANTED
as to Plaintiff's request for the sanctions of prohibiting Defendant from opposing Plaintiffs claims,
as alleged in the complaint, and striking Defendant's answer and affirmative defenses, DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff's request for an award of fees, and the Court will
RESERVE RULING as to Plaintiff's request for the sanction of entering a default judgment
against Defendant. It is further:

ORDERED that Defendant is prohibited from opposing Plaintiff's claims, as alleged in

the complaint. It is further:
LC Daniel Enterprises, Inc. v. Keith James

SX-15-C¥-237 4
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER
Page 15 of 15

ORDERED that Defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, filed on July 27, 2015, shall
be and is hereby STRICKEN. It is further:
ORDERED that default is entered against Defendant. It is further:

ORDERED that an evidentiary hearing on the amount of damages is scheduled for
March \O_, 2022,ar_ }O° @> a.m./p.m. by Zoom. It is further:

ORDERED that Defendant be served with a copy of this Order by email to
kajames197@ yahoo.com.

DONE and so ORDERED this 22 day of January 2022.

Tamara Charles HAROLD W LA WILLOCKS
Clerk of the Court, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court

=

; — a
By: WOAALLAE eee Rcsog nt fae,
t
Court Clerk Supervisor

Dated: we AD Z a Oo?