IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
IN RE ASBESTOS, SILICA and MASTER CASE NO: SX-22-MC-054
CATALYST DUST CLAIMS V | (Complex Litigation Division)
(Secondary)
(Re: 92 Individual Cases‘)
Cite as: 2025 V! Super 17P (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
' This Opinion addresses 92 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 Ciaims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
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, relatives of 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 IMC negligently exposed their relatives to toxic substances which they
transported home on their clothing. Plaintiffs claim they inhaled the 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.? Plaintiffs respond that any defect in serving process
was harmiess and the Court should grant them an extension to effect proper
service. For the reasons mentioned herein the Court grants IMC’s request as
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 V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 3
Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for not effecting proper service and no
justifiable reason exists to grant a discretionary extension
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
12 IMC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings clearly seeks dismissal of 172
cases listed on its Exhibits J, K, M.? 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 4 more in Ex. M suffer from the same deficiencies). Some of the cases listed
on the exhibits are grouped under the instant master. Others are grouped under
different master cases (i.e., SX-2022-MC-007 and SX-2022-MC-053). At a
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 IV
Accordingly, this opinion addresses only the ninety-two (92) 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 (grouped under other master cases)
is thus considered stricken
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 IV and 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, at the May 5, 2025 hearing, it stated 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 V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 4
q3 Further, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ notices of voluntary dismissal, five cases
grouped under the instant master have been dismissed (i.e., 22-290, 22-511
22-551, 22-553 and 22-555). Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1; Exs. J, K; See SX-2022-CV-290
03/05/25, CMS # 10; SX-2022-CV-511, 04/30/25, CMS # 10; SX-2022-CV-551
04/3025, CMS # 10; SX-2022-CV-553, 04/30/25, CMS # 10; SX-2022-CV-555
04/30/25, CMS #10. The Court will thus deny IMC’s motion relative to those
cases as moot. 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
andM. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at2-4
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4 Between May and August 2022, Plaintiffs filed sixty-eight (68) individual
complaints against IMC. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1 - 3; IMC’s Ex. J. The court clerk
signed, sealed, and issued summons, on or before August 17, 2022, for all of
the complaints. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at2-3. On September 29, 2022, Plaintiffs
counsel served copies of the sixty-eight (68) complaints (via thumb drive) on
Todd Newman, Esquire, of the Dudley Newman and Fuerzeig law firm in St
Croix, Virgin Islands.* Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 18; Ex. J. IMC’s official
* Counsel actually served ninety-seven complaints on Attorney Newman. Twenty-Eight of
them are grouped under master case SX-2022-MC-053 and are addressed in a separate
opinion. One (22-396) is grouped under master case SX-2022-007
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 5
agent for service-of-process is George H. Logan, Esq. of the same law firm.® 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
SUMMONS
iN ‘THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CRIOX
3 Civil No. SX~-2022-CV-S ia, 154, 182, 182
CHtinton A. Henry (and 96 others, See Exhibit A) > 283-286, 289-294, 296-298, 302-303, 305-354.
} 354-357, 359, 364-365, 367-374, 373-376, SBE
Plaintiffs, 3} 383-396
- Compiex Litigation Division
Virgin Islands Industriat Maintenance Corp., }
>? Action for Damages
————)_ JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Defendant, }
To Tedd H. Newman, Esq., agent for Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corp
Address: Dudiey, Newman & Feuerzeig, LLP
1131 King Street Christiansted, V.1. 00820
AMithin the time limited by Law you (see mote 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, 4 judgment by default will be taken against you as demanded in the complaint
Fhis 28th day of September 2022. Yamara Charities
Clerk of the Court
23f Morey A, Metsu, Esq.
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
4. Richard ‘Yelton, Esq
Pues Sa enee ae “78 AT Russell 2, Pate, Est.
New Osleans, LA 70130 J. Russert B. PATE, Bsa.
Telephone: ($64) 799-2845 The Pate Law Firm (V.f. Bar No: | $24)
Feaimile: (564) 881-1765 P.O. Box 370, Christiansted. USVI 00821
kneisongé? bumscharesi.com paidiias eee (7283)
Fe See Dire nawen icon Pate@SunLawV1 com | [email protected]
NOTE: The defendant, if served personally, is required to file his answer or other defense with the Clerk
of the Court and to serve e copy thereof upon the plaintiffs attorney, within fwenty-one (22) days aficr
service of this summons. See, Vi. R. Civ. Pro 12(a}(2)(A). ‘The defendant, i? served by publication or
by personal service outside of the jurisdiction, is required to file his answer or other defense with the
(terk of this Court, and 10 serve a copy thereof upon the attorney for the plaintiff, within thirty (30) days
afier completion of the geriod of publication or personal service outside the jurisdiction.
Seo, TITLE S V.LC. § 112 AND V.E. R. Civ. PRO 32(43(2)0) AND TITLE S VLC. § SOEE.
q5 This summons did not bear the Clerk’s signature nor the Court’s seal and
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 V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 6
was not filed with the Court. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, attached to the summons
consisted a list of 97 complaints filed with the Court (sixty-eight 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. 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 of the 68 cases under the instant master. Order Opening Master Case
10/31/22, CMS # 1
96 Between October and November 2022, Plaintiffs filed twenty (20) 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 21, 2022, for each
of the complaints. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 3 - 4. On January 10, 2023, Plaintiffs
counsel] served copies of the twenty 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 Corp.] containing counsel's electronic
signature under the name of Court's Clerk. Id.; Ex. K as shown below
® Counsel actually served seventy-one (71) complaints on Attorney Newman. Forty-Eight (48)
of them are grouped under master case SX-2022-MC-053 and are addressed in a separate
opinion. Three (3) of them are grouped under master case SX-2022-MC-007
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 Vi Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 7
SUMMONS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Janie George (and 68 ots, See Exhibit A) } seca. a. S00,
Prins
Virgin tdands Industrial Maintenance Cozp. }
> Action
for Damages
sina ; JURY TRIAL DEMAND
tee SMe it re
To: TaddH. Newman,
Esq, agent for Ving, islands Industrial Maintenance Corp
‘Within ibe time Hime by tw yn (see note below) yu ive hereby required to appa befie this
‘Court and answer to a complaint filed against you ix this action, In case of your failure to appear
oF answer, a judgment by define wil be taken against you as demanded in the complalut
Te ht enact
Tease Se mous Fon bart: 1129
Fa tactar
Creve Sengammaieoay
ee a
service ofthis summons. See,V.A, R, Cix, Pro E2a}QMA). The defendant
if served by publicationor
Coc te Cor, ctte wv sepy ace open i pay tn i wi ty doe
aftee comptetion of the period of publication or personal sefvicr outside the jurisdiction.
~~ panes me rire 4
7 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 (twenty of which are
grouped under the instant master case). See Mot for J on the Pleadings; Ex. J;
Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1,4. No affidavit nor other proof of service was filed with the Court
See CMS for Cases Listed on Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1,4. On October 31, 2022, this Court
grouped one of the two of the cases (i.e., 22-465 and 22-466) under the instant
master. Order Opening Master Case, 10/31/22, CMS #1. On January 9, 2023
the Court added 17 of the 20 cases to the instant master. Order Amending
Schedule of Cases, 01/09/23, CMS #9. One more case (i.e., 22-564) was added
to the instant master on February 27, 2025. Second Order Amending Schedule of
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 8
Cases, 03/05/25, CMS # 104
98 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, 11/10/22, CMS # 6 SX-2022-MC-054; Order Granting Extension and Stay
for 60 days, 02/21/23, CMS # 17 SX-2022-MC-054
q9 On August 9" and 10", 2022, Plaintiffs filed four (4) individual complaints
against IMC. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 4; IMC’s Ex. M. The court clerk signed, sealed
and issued summons, by August 10, 2022, for all of the complaints. See Ct.’s Ex
1 at 4. On December 30, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel served copies of the four
complaints on Attorney Newman via a thumb drive. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings
19; Ex. M. Along therewith, counsel served a single summons captioned [Joan
Ciarke Jacqueline Romer, Kirt Pascal, and Maria Johnson vs. Virgin Islands
Industrial Maintenance Corp.] containing counsel’s electronic signature under the
name of Court's Clerk. Id.; Ex. M as shown below
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 9
SUMMONS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CRIOX
} . Civil No. SX-2022-CV-352, 353, 358, 372
Joan Clarke, Jacqueline Romer, Kirt Pascal, and —)
Maria Johnson, }
Plaintiffs )
vs )
) Complex Litigation Division
Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corp., }
J Action for Damages
Defendant, )) JURY TRIAL DEMAND
To Todd H. Newman, Esq., agent for Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corp
Address Dudley, Newman & Feuerzeig, LLP
1131 King Street, Christiansted, V.I, 00820
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
complaint
or answer, a judgment by default will be taken against you as demanded in the
This 30th day of December 2024 Tamara Charles
Clerk
of the Court
/s/ Korey A. Nelson, Esq pee SS
Korey A. Nelson, Esq FT lO ETA
H, Richard Yelton, Esq
BURNS CHAREST LLP Ks 1 oer
pectey
RE vie. tea
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 7 RUSSEILB omer;
New Orleans, LA 70130 ri pace kus Given CHL Ber Man 1128
Telephone: (504) 799-2845 je Pate aw Five (V1. Eber USVI
P.O. Box 370, Christiansted,
a?
Nei | 00821
Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
‘[email protected] liane on aa ile (7283)
[email protected] Pe (888)
[email protected] ae@sunLawVi com i SpalawVi@enmll om
NOTE: The defendant, if served personally, is required to file his answer or other defense with the Clerk
of the Court and to serve a copy thereof upon the plaintiff's attorney, within twenty-one (21) days after
service of this summons. See, V.L R. Civ. Pro 12(a}(I)(A) The defendant, if served by publication or
by personal service outside of the jurisdiction, is required to file his answer or other defense with the
Clerk of this Court, and to serve a copy thereof upon the attorney for the plaintiff, within thirty (30) days
after completion of the period of publication or personal service outside the jurisdiction
See, TITLES V 1.C. § 112 AND V.I.R. Civ. PRO 12(AK DGB) AND TITLE SV.E Cc § 4911
{10 This summons did not bear the Clerk’s signature nor the Court's seal and
was not filed with the Court. No affidavit nor other proof of service was filed with
the Court. See CMS for Cases Listed on Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 4. On October 31, 2022
this Court grouped all four cases under the instant master. Order Opening Master
Case, 10/31/22, CMS # 1
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 10
q11 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 - 3 (67 cases)
10/27/22, Stipulation For Ext. of Time 1 at n 1
2) 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 all rights reserved in each and every
case, including, but not limited to, service and jurisdiction defenses if
any.” Joint Status Report 1 at n 1, 02/15/23, CMS # 15 (SX-2022
MC-054)
3) 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
Notice of Filing Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, Ex. A (SX-2022
MC-054), Omnibus Scheduling Order 1 at n 1; 08/21/24, CMS # 20
4) September and October 2024
IMC filed its Answers to Plaintiffs’ complaints 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 on Ct.’s
Ex. A at 2 - 4, Affirmative Defenses
5) 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
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 11
1 10/1 1/24 CMS # 24 (SX-2022-MC-054)
6) 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 # 43 (SX-2022-MC-054)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{112 IMC filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or Alternatively
For Summary Judgment on January 8, 2025. 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
113 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
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.I. 373
380 (V.I. 2014) (stating summary judgment is not to be granted unless “the
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 12
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.1., LLC,
70 V.I. 943, 948 (V.I. 2019) (quoting
Brodhurst v. Frazier, 57 V.1. 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
Svcs, Inc. v. Govt. of the V.L,
71 V.I. 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
414 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 V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 13
upon the proper agent for IMC’ c) in four of the cases attempted service did not
occur within the requisite 120 days; d) Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for
their failure to properly serve process; and e) 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.1.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
1) Plaintiffs’ Service of Process Was Defective
115 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
7 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 V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 14
pertinent part
(a) Contents. A summons shall 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.I.R. Civ. P. 4. The unrebutted evidence on the record clearly establishes that
Plaintiffs woefully failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 4
416 Alithough the clerk issued “signed and sealed” summonses for all eighty
seven complaints, Plaintiffs did not serve them. Instead, they served documents
tiled “SUMMONS,” on September 29, 2022, January 10, 2023, and December
30, 2024, 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. VIIMC,” “George (and 68 others, See Exhibit
A) v. VIIMC”, and John Clarke, Jacqueline Romer, Kirt Pascal, and Maria Johnson
In Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 Vi Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 15
v_VIIMC"] as they were never filed with the Court. Accordingly, these
signature/seal deficient purported summons were void ab initio and incompetent
to invoke the Court's personal jurisdiction Similarly Plaintiffs’ attempted service
of such unauthorized deficient summons bore no legal effect. Estate of Skepple
v. Bank of Novia Scotia, 69 V.I. 700, 727 (V.I 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 fequired by V.LR. Civ. P A(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
917 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
8 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 V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 16
(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
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
418 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
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 Vi Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 17
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
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.LR. 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
419 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.I.R. 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 was filed November 15, 2022. See Ct.’s Ex. 1. Even
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 Vi Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 18
considering the five-month stay (i.e., from November 2022 thru Apr. 2023), the
120-day service deadline expired around August 16, 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.1. 292, 310 (V.1. 2013) (stating “absent proper service, a case must be dismissed
for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant’; and “[ejven 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.”)
420 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 plaintiff's
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.I. Inc. v. Kurg, No. SX-14-CV-312, 2015 V.1. LEXIS
88, at * 2, (Super. Ct. July 22, 2015); Heyliger v. Caribbean Cinemas, 64 V.1. 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
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 19
F.R. Civ. P. 4(m)). Plaintiffs’ reason for not serving the defendant “within the 120
day period is of paramount importance.” Beachside, 53 V.I. 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
plaintiff's reasons for noncompliance with the time limit in the first place.”)
121 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 no burden
since the clerk had already prepared and issued valid summons for all of the
complaints before Plaintiffs’ attempted service of the deficient summonses. See
Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 2 - 4 (Set 2). Accordingly, the first factor, the reasonableness of
Plaintiffs’ efforts or reason for not effecting timely service, weighs against a finding
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 20
of good cause
qJ22 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.
id. 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
924 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)
q25 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
in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 21
excuse late service.” Beachside, 53 V.I. at 713. The Court's “primary focus is on
the plaintiff's 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
{26 Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to a 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
427 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
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 Vi Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 22
below, a dismissal would end the litigation since the statute of limitations would
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
q28 Plaintiffs filed their last complaint on November 15, 2022. All of them
involve personal injury claims governed by a two-year statute of limitations. 5
V.I.C. § 31(a)(5). Their causes of action wouid 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
429 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 V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
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 five 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
930 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
q31 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
sixty-seven service-challenged cases filed by that date. At that time, the 120-day
period for service of process had not yet expired in sixty-six of them. See Ct.’s Ex
1 at 2-3. For the next two years it noted its objection to service of process on
° 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 28, 2025
after IMC filed the instant motion
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 24
five occasions in the instant master wherein almost all 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
32 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
433 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
934 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 eighty
seven cases. The clerk then signed, sealed, and issued all of them. A month
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 Vi Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 25
or more later, counsel then served the three 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
935 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 of order for which rules are promuigated; and
is blatantly insulting. The Virgin Islands Supreme Court, not lawyers, regulates
the rules of practice for Virgin Islands courts
436 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 Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
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.1. 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)
CONCLUSION
37 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.I. at 731 ; 2) IMC did not
waive this Court’s personal jurisdiction 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
938 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; and 2) deny, as moot, IMC’s motion to the extent it applies to cases already
In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims V, SX-22-MC-054
2025 VI Super 17P
Memorandum Opinion
Page 27
dismissed, i.e., 22-290, 2-511, 22 551 22-553 and 22-555. An order consistent
herewith will be entered contemporaneously
DATE: June 11, 2025 =
ALPHONSO G. ANDREWS, JR
Superior Court Judge
ATTEST:
TAMARA CHARLES
COURT he i
DATE me
IN RE ASCD V CLAIMS (Secondary)
COURT EXHIBIT 1
DOCKET CHART FOR 2022-MC-054 (92 Cases)'
CASE | COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER iIMC’s
NUMBER FILED ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX.NO
SET 1 (5 Cases)
22-290 08/02/22 Dismissed 03/05/25 J
22-511 11/11/22 Dismissed 04/30/25 K
22-551 11/15/22 Dismissed 04/30/25 K
22-553 11/14/22 Dismissed 04/30/25 K
22-555 11/15/22 Dismissed 04/30/25 K
' The dates of filing the complaints, issuance of summons and filing of answers were derived
from the CMS for the individual cases listed that are grouped under Master Case SX-2022
McC-054. The dates of attempted service were derived from IMC’s Exhibits J, K and M
attached to their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
1
SET 2 (87 Cases)
CASE COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER_ IMC’s
NUMBER FILED ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX. NO
22-182 05/26/22 05/27/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-283 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-285 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-286 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-288 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-289 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-291 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-292 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-293 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-294 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-296 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/29/24 J
22-297 08/03/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/29/24 J
22-298 08/03/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-306 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-307 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-308 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-309 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J
22-310 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 01/24/25 J
22-311 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-312 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-315 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-316 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-317 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-318 08/05/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-319 08/05/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-320 08/05/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-322 08/08/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-324 08/06/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-325 08/06/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-326 08/06/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-327 08/06/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-328 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-329 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-330 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
2
CASE. COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER IMC’s
NUMBER FILED _ ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED _EX.NO
22-332 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24. J
22-333 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 40/03/24 J
22-334 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-335 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-336 08/05/22 +: 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-337 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-340 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-341 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-343 08/05/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-344 08/06/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-345 08/06/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-347 08/06/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-349 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-350 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-355 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-357 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-361 08/09/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-363 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-365 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-368 08/10/22 -—-:08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-370 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-371 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-373 —08/11/22.——:08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-374 08/11/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-375 08/11/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-376 08/11/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-381 08/08/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-383 08/08/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-385 08/08/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-391 08/11/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-392 08/11/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-394 08/11/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
22-395 08/11/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/03/24 J
3
CASE COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER _ IMC’s
NUMBER ___FILED ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX.NO
22-465 10/04/22 10/05/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-466 10/04/22 10/05/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-509 11/11/22 §=11/14/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-519 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-528 11/14/22 = 11/15/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-535 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-540 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-543 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-545 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-556 11/14/22 = 11/17/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-559 11/15/22, = 11/17/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-560 11/15/22 11/17/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-564 11/15/22 11/18/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K
22-566 11/15/22 11/18/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-570 11/15/22 = 11/18/22 01/10/23 02/03/23 K
22-574 11/15/22 11/21/22 01/10/23 10/03/24 K
22-352 08/09/22 08/11/22 12/30/24 NONE M
22-353 08/09/22 08/11/22 12/30/24 NONE M
22-358 08/09/22 08/11/22 12/30/24 NONE M
22-372 08/10/22 08/12/22 12/30/24 NONE M
4