IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                  DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

                                                              )
LIMA ENTERPRISES INC                                          )
                                                              )   Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
                       Plaintiff                              )
       v                                                      )       TRESPASS
                                                              )       NEGLIGENCE
OLIVER EXTERMINATING OF                                       )       GROSS NEGLIGENCE
ST THOMAS INC and IRAD RUAN                                   )       DECLARATORY
                                                              )       RELIEF
                       Defendants                             )       PRESCRIPTIVE
                                                              )       BASEMENT


                                       

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

111    THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs Complaint, Motion for More Definitive Statement (“motion to dismiss”),1

and Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing 2 The Court will grant, in part, and deny, in part,

Oliver Exterminating s motion to dismiss Moreover, the Court will deny Lima

Enterprises’ motion for hearing as moot




I FACTS

112    On August 24, 2017, Plaintiff Lima Enterprises Inc (“Lima Enterprises”) filed

a complaint against Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc and Irad Ruan (jointly



1 The motion to dismiss was filed November 7, 2018 and is fully briefed
2 The motion for hearmg was filed February 18, 2020
Lima Enters , Inc v Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opimon                                          

Page 2 0f 15




“Oliver Exterminating”) Lima Enterprises alleges claims for trespass, negligence,

gross negligence, declaratory rehef and prescriptive easement 3

113    Lima Enterprises alleges the following On February 1, 1982, title to Parcel

Nos   30A and 30B Estate Taarnebjerg, St Thomas, VI was conveyed to Lima

Enterprises In September 2010, Oliver Exterminating purchased Parcel No                            30

Remainder and Remainder Parcel I, Tract II Estate Taarnebjerg, Wthh are adjacent

to the parcels owned by Lima Enterprises When Oliver Exterminating purchased its

parcels, it was and still is burdened by an access easement in favor of Lima

Enterprises’ parcels Additionally, Lima enterprises alleges

       Since at least 1959, Parcel 30 Taarnebjerg has been burdened by the
       Access Easement in favor of Parcel Nos 30A and 30B Estate
       Taarnebjerg        , which Access Easement provides pedestrian and
       vehicular access to [Lima Enterprises’] Properties and travels west
       across Parcel No 30 Remainder and then travels south across the
       western boundaries of Parcel No 80 Remainder,           This Access
       Easement provides the only means of access to [Lima Enterprises’]
       apartment building Wh1ch, since the early 1980’s, has been built and
       expanded across Parcel Nos 30A and 30B Estate Taarnebjerg




3 Lima Enterprises also requested a tempoxary restraining order preliminary and permanent
Injunction enjoining Oliver Exterminating from causing further damage to Lima Enterprises’ Access
Easement and compensatory and punitive damages The Court entered a temporary restraining ordel
on August 25, 2017, and set a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction for September 6, 2017
Hurricane Irma struck St Thomas on Septembe1 6, 2017, and therefore the hearing on preliminary
injunction was cancelled In the meantime, at a status conference on August 31, 2017, (prior to
Hun icane Irma) the pan mes advised the court they thought the matter would be resolved and settled
After the hurrlcane and still no settlement, the hearing on preliminary injunction was rescheduled for
December 5, 2017 But at the Plaintiffs request, it was postponed sme die to allow the partles an
opportunity to finalize settlement documents The Plaintiff has not requested a new date for a hearing
on the preliminary injunction
Lima Enters    Inc V Ohver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                             

Page 3 0f 15




Lima Enterprises alleges that a “1985 survey by C A Hamilton & Associates, Inc ,

bearing map No D9 3208 T85, clearly establishes the Access Easement running

across Parcel No        30 Remainder ” Additionally, Lima Enterprises alleges that,

“[e]xpressly, the 2010 deed to [Oliver Exterminatlng] confirms that [Oliver

Exterminating]’s rights in and to their property at Parcel No 30 Remainder Estate

Taarnebjerg, are subject to and burdened by all easements of record, including the

Access easement ”

1,14   Lima Enterprises alleges that Oliver Exterminating ‘engaged the services of

an excavator and proceeded to mark out and demolish the entire access road1 to

Parcel Nos 30A and 30B Taarnebjerg, leaving [Lima Enterprises] and its tenants

completely without vehicular access to the property, and limited food traffic across a

narrow     dangerous      strip    of   land ”    Lima     Enterprises      alleges    that       Oliver

Exterminating’s excavation work has left a “deep open pit ” ‘which                                [Lima

Enterprises’] tenants must walk close to while walking on the Access Easement to

get to their apartments ” Lima Enterprises alleges that Oliver Exterminating s

excavatlon work “cut off access to the tenant parking’ and “all foot traffic across the




4 Oliver Exterminating alleges,
        It is undisputed that from 2010 until the p1 esent, and for many years prim, a right of
       way existed over the Adjacent Propel ty to permit the ingress and egress to and from
       the Propelties It is equally undisputed that in 2017, while perf01ming legal and
       necessary excavation on      Oliver Extel mlnation s propelty Immediately adjacent to
       the right of way, unexpectedly heavy rains caused portions of the easement on the
       Adjacent Property to collapse, temporarily nan owing the right of way and rendering
       the path over the subservient property impassable for vehlcular traffic
Lima Enters , Inc V Ohver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                          2021 VI Supe1 63U
Page 4 of 15




front of the apartment building, and access to the second floor of the apartment

building by way of the southern staircase ” Lima Enterprises also alleges that Oliver

Exterminating’s excavation work “cut off access to the cistern on [Lima Enterprises’]

property,” “the WAPA meters” and “the water supply lines and building sewer line

Which run across Remainder Parcel 1 0f Tract III Estate Taarnebjerg and provide

connection to the potable WAPA water meters and the public sewer for the apartment

building on Parcel Nos 30A and 30B Estate Taarnebjerg(              the ‘Utility Easement’) ”

Addltionally, Lima Enterprises alleges that the excavation work cut off access by

emergency vehicles

${5    On November 7, 2018, Oliver Exterminating filed a motion to dismiss or for a

more definitive statement




II ANALYSIS

       A Motlon to dismiss

               1 Trespass, Negligence, Gross Negllgence, Declaratory Rellef
               and Prescriptive Easement

1E6    Oliver Exterminating argues that Lima Enterprises,

       has failed to provide adequate factual allegations to support [its] claim
       that a 17’ Wide easement existed, by prescription, need, adverse
       possession, or otherwise [Lima Enterprises] gives no legal or physical
       description of the easement, neither its size, length, width, location,
       boundaries, nor other identifying markers No fractional designation,
       metes and bounds, or course and dlstances are given No historical
       statements are provided, giving either [Oliver Exterminating] or this
       Court information about the easement’s original size, expansions if
Lima Enters , Inc V Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                              

Page 5 of 10




        any or how and when they were obtained Indeed, [Lima Enterprises’]
        Complaint is nothing more than naked, wholly unfounded, and rote
        recitals of the elements than [sic] cannot support a claim against [Ohver
        Exterminating]         Consequently, [Oliver Exterminating 5] Motion to
        Dismiss should be granted

Elaborating, Oliver Exterminating argues that Lima Enterprises “Complaint is

nothing more than a rote recitation of the legal elements for neghgence, gross

negligence, declaratory relief, trespass, and prescriptive easement without adequate

supporting allegations or ‘factual enhancement ”’0

$7      Oliver Exterminating argues that, “[f]0r instance                  in [Lima Enterprises’]

negligence claim, [Lima Enterprises] fails to describe [Oliver Exterminating’s]

alleged duty to [Lima Enterprises] or breach of the same, [Lima Enterprises] makes

no properly founded allegations regarding causation ” Oliver Exterminating also

argues that Lima Enterprises’ gross neghgence clalm adds the “detail that [Oliver

Exterminating] excavated ‘after they were expressly warned by [Lima Enterprises], ”

but “fails to allege ‘a wanton and reckless disregard for others’ as required to sustain

such a claim ”6

118    Additionally, Oliver Exterminating argues that Lima Enterprises’ “claim of

prescriptive easement          fails to make any factual allegations ” Oliver Exterminating



3 Ohver Exterminating uses Brady U Cmtron, 

 (VI 2011), overtuled by MLlls Williams v
Mapp, 

 (V I 2017), to support its argument However, this standard was rejected by the
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands when the V I Rules of C1vil Procedure was adopted See Baszc
Servs Inc U Govt of the VI 

 1,1 10 (citing MlllS Williams 

) Salkeld 0
Marriott Ownership Resorts St Thomas 

 1W 4 5
6 The Court finds that the automatic requirement to list elements of a claim in a complaint was 1ejected
w1th BIady See MLlls Williams 

 86' see Salkeld 1H} 4 5
Lima Enters , Inc V Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                             

Page 6 0f 15




argues that Lima Enterprises “gives no specifics of When or how the easement was

created, its size, shape, dimensions ” Moreover, Oliver Exterminating argues that

“[t]he Complaint is silent regarding whether the alleged easement was obtained with

the subservient property owner’s permission as reflected in [Lima Enterprises] own

exhibits or was truly ‘adverse’ as alleged in the Complaint ” Oliver Exterminating

argues that “the absence of this factual avowal regarding adversity or permissiveness

is fatal to [Lima Enterprises’] cause of action ”7

19     Moreover, Oliver Exterminating argues that Lima Enterprises “count for

declaratory relief includes neither facts nor a prayer for relief; it is simply a single,

unsubstantiated conclusion of law ”

1110   Lima Enterprises argues that Oliver Exterminating’s “arguments go to the

merits of th[e] case ” Moreover, Lima Enterprises argues that Oliver Enterprises has

“not identified what allegation in the Complaint fails the Rule 8(a)(2) pleadings

standard ”

$11    Under Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “[e]very defense to a

claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is

required But a party may assert the following defense[] by motionl]                        failure to

state a Claim upon Which relief can be granted ” According to V I R CIV P 8(a)(2), “a



' Oliver Exterminating argues that this lack of detail is fatal because, “[alccess upon the subserv1ent
property is not sufficiently adverse if it had the burdened property owner 5 permission ” See Hodge v
Bluebealds Castle 06 VI 59, 73 (VI Super Ct 2012) vacated on other grounds by, Hodge v
géuigicgrgds Castle Inc 

 (VI 2015)’ Schmdel v Pelican Beach 

 (VI Super
Lima Enters , Inc V Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                         

Page 7 of 15




pleading that states a claim for relief must contam (2) a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief         because this is a notice

pleading jurisdiction” VI R CIV P 8(a)(2) “The purpose of the notice pleading

standard is to avoid ‘dismissals of cases based on failure to allege specific facts Which,

if established, plausibly entitle the pleader t0 rehef ” Basw Servs Inc v Gov t of the

VI 2019 V121 T; 10 (citing VI R CIV P 8 Reporters Note‘ lels Williams 

) “Even if a complaint is ‘Vague,’ ‘inartfully drafted,’ ‘a bare bones outline,’ or

‘not a model of specificity,’ the complaint may still be adequate so long as it can

reasonably be read as supporting a claim for relief, giving the defendant notice of that

claim Id 11 12 (quotmg Casaday v Allstate Ins Co 

 (Utah Ct

App 2010))

1112   Oliver   Exterminatlng      does   identify   specific   alleged   defects   in   Lima

Enterprises’ complaint However, Lima Enterprises is not required under V I R CIV

P 8(a)(2) to “allege specific facts which, if established, plausibly entitle [it] to relief ”

See Baszc Servs Inc , 1? 10 (citation omitted) (quoting V I R CIV P 8 Reporter’s Note)

Lima Enterprises need only to file a complaint that “can reasonably be read as

supporting a claim for relief, giving the defendant notice of that claim ” See Baszc

Servs Inc , $1 12 (quotlng Casaday, 

) Lima Enterprises argues that

it has met the V I R CIV P 8(a)(2) pleading standard The Court Agrees

1313   Lima Enterprises alleges that Oliver Exterminating’s excavation work

destroyed an access and ut1hty easement through Oliver Exterminatmg’s property to
Lima Enters , Inc V Oliver Extermlnating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                           

Page 8 of 15




Lima Enterprises’ apartments, water and sewer lines Lima Enterprises alleges that

the excavation work left no vehicular access to the apartments or utilities

Additionally, Luna Enterprises alleges that the work left a “deep open pit” and a

narrow, dangerous path that residents of the apartments must travel to reach their

homes The Court finds these facts adequate to reasonably support a claim for relief

for negligence and gross negligence See Basic Servs              Inc, T; 12 (quoting Casaday

)

$14    Lima Enterprises emphasizes that the access easement and utility easement

are the only means of access to the apartment buildings, water supply and sewer

disposal areas and have been in “uninterrupted, exclusive, actual, physmal adverse,

continuous, notorious under claim or color of title” use “for more than 15 years ” Lima

Enterprises alleges that, “[s]1nce at least 1959, Parcel 30 Taarnebjerg has been

burdened by the Access Easement in favor of Parcel Nos 30A and 30B ”8 Additionally,

L1ma Enterprises specifically alleges that, the “Access Easement provides the only

means of access to [its] apartment building which, since the early 1980’s, has been

built and expanded across Parcel Nos 80A and 30B ”9 The Court finds these facts

adequate to reasonably support a clalm for rehef for prescriptive easement See Basic

Sews Inc       #1 12 (citing Casaday 

)




8 Lima Enterprises also alleges that Ohver Exterminating s 2010 deed expressly confirms that Oliver
Exte1minat1ng 5 property is burdened by “all easements of xecord including the Access Easement
9 Additionally, L1ma Enterprises argues that, ‘it 1s inappropriate at the Motion to Dismiss stage to
test the substantive elements of the claim of a prescriptive easement
Lima Enters , Inc V Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                           

Page 9 of 15




17:15   Lima    Enterprises’    count    for   declaratory      relief   alleges   that   Oliver

Exterminating has “destroyed [Lima Enterprises] Access Easement and impaired its

use by [Lima Enterprises]         and its guests and invitees ” Additlonally, Lima

Enterprises’ declaratory relief count states, “[t]he Court should declare that            Oliver

Exterminator’s [sic] Adjacent Parcels are burdened by the Access Easement for

pedestrian and vehicular traffic in favor of [Lima Enterprises’] Properties ’ The Court

finds this adequate to “reasonably             read as supporting a claim for relief” for

declaratory judgment See Basic Ser US Inc , 1] 12 (citing Casaday, 

)

1116    In sum, the Court finds that the allegations in the complaint are adequate to

reasonably support claims for negligence, gross negligence, prescriptive easement

and declaratory judgment See Basic Servs, Inc , 1] 12 (citing Casaday, 

) Moreover, Oliver Exterminating’s motion to dismiss does not persuade the

Court that Lima Enterprises allegations could not establish a claim for trespass 10

Therefore, the Court will deny Oliver Exterminating’s motion to dismiss these counts

               2 Indlvidual capacity

$17     Oliver Exterminating argues that the complaint fails to establish a cause of

action against Defendant Irad Ruan, individually Oliver Exterminating argues that

Lima Enterprises acknowledges Defendant Oliver Exterminating is the registered

owner of the Adjacent Property and that, by Lima Enterprises’ own admissions, the



10 Lima Enterprlses argues that “[d]iscove1y will flesh out the greater particulals of the gross
negligence the negligence and the trespass clalms ’
Lima Enters , Inc V Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                           

Page 10 of 15




actions of Irad Ruan were limited to his role as president of Oliver Exterminatmg

Therefore, Oliver Exterminating argues Lima Enterprises has failed to establish any

cause of action against Ruan, individually 11 Although Lima Enterprises argues to

the contrary, the Court agrees with Oliver Exterminating

$18     Specifically, Oliver Exterminating is correct that Lima Enterprises’ complaint

alleges only that Ruan acted in his capacity as president of Oliver Exterminating

Lima Enterprises’ complaint states in relevant part “Defendant Irad Ruan                     , on

information and belief, is the president and owner of [Oliver Exterminating]                 and

at all times material herein acted on behalf of [Oliver Exterminating] within the

course and scope of his office as president of [Oliver Exterminating] ” Moreover, the

Court finds nothing in the complaint or attached affidavits allege Ruan acted in his

individual capacity      Therefore, the complaint cannot “reasonably be read as

supporting a claim for relief” against Ruan, individually See Basw Se) vs              Inc T] 12

(quoting Casaday        

)         Accordingly      the Court grants Oliver

Exterminating’s motion to dismiss the complaint against Ruan, individually

        B Motion for more definitive statement

‘J 19   Oliver Exterminating argues that Lima Enterprises’ “Complaint contains none

of the necessary descriptions or verbiage to either support [Lima Enterprises’] claims




11 Additionally, Oliver Exterminating argues that Lima Enterprises “has not asserted anything that
would qualify this Court in piercing the shield of [Ruan s] corporate protections to require his
appearance and defense in the present action ”
Lima Enters , Inc V Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                             

Page 11 of 15




as written or [Lima Enterprises’] informal contention that the right of way was 17’ in

Width and must be returned to the same ”12 Oliver Exterminating argues, “[w]ithout

a description of the size, shape, position, width, length, construction, acquisition, or

history of the right of way, this Court is as powerless to resolve this dispute as [Oliver

Exterminating is] to defend against it ”13 Additionally, Oliver Exterminating argues

that, “[a]ccurate and full legal and physical descriptions accompanied by certified

surveys or other competent evidence w111 greatly assist [Oliver Exterminating] and

th[e] Court

1120    Oliver Exterminating argues that, “requiring [it] enter unknowing and

improvident answers to [Lima Enterprises’] tissue thin allegations would require



12 Oliver Exterminating argues that,
         [it] has attempted and continues to attempt to rectify the circumstances created by
         heavy and unanticipated rains which washed away a portion of the easement over the
        Adjacent Properties [Oliver Exterminating] has made the necessary efforts to insert
         footings and constx uct a retaining wall necessary to reconst1 uct and repave the right
         of way but [Lima Entel prises] has requested that [Oliver Exterminating] proceed n0
         furthel pending an agreement or court order [Oliver Exterminating] asse1 ts that the
         original easement was 10 in width, sufficient to accommodate traffic to and from the
         Property [Lima Entel prises] asserts contrastingly, that the original and/or adversely
         possessed easement enjO} ed a width of 17
Additionally, Oliver Exterminating argues that “the parties are unable to come to resolution outside
of court without additional support f01 [Lima Enterprises] position that a 17’ wide easement was
created and obtained thi ough adverse possess10n
Oliver Exterminating a1 gues, “[t]hat a right of way existed over [its] property that was inadvertently
destroyed due to heavy flooding and nearby excavation is largely undisputed’ Howevex, Luna
Enterprises does dispute thlS argument Specifically, Lima Enterprises argues that it takes issue with
[Oliver Exterminating s] categoxization 0f the impassibility of the right of way as ‘temporary, and of
the fact that unexpected heavy lains’ caused a portion of the easement to collapse, or of the notion
that [Lima Ente1 prises] has not provided factual allegations to support a 17’ side easement ”
13 Similarly, Ohver Exterminating argues that, ‘[f]or [it] to assess [Lima Enterprises] claim, [Lima
Enterprises] must endeavor to amend [its] Complaint to give a clear, concise, and comprehensive claim
in support of the extended 17’ easement Regrettably, [Lima Enterprises’] Complaint does nothlng of
the sort ”
Lima Enters   Inc V Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                           

Page 12 of 15




[Oliver Exterminating] to leap head first into a lawsuit that [it] can barely

understand in the hope that future discovery might resolve the factual disputes ”14

1121   UnderVI R CIV P 12(e)

       A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to Which
       a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous
       that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response The motion must
       be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the
       defects complained of and the details desired

VI R CIV P 12(e) In Wintberg Heights Condo Owners Ass n v USVI Solar I LLC

 [hereinafter Wmtberg], the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands

states, “motions for a more definite statement are disfavored and granted only

sparingly     Wmtberg 1] 3 (citing Alleyne v Diageo USVI Inc             

 318 (VI

Super Ct 2018) Woodson v Akal Civil No ST 16 CV 399 2017VI LEXIS 130 at

*2 (VI Super Ct Aug 17 2017) (unpublished) Allstate Indem Co v Dixon 304

FRD        580 582 (W D Mo 2015)) Additionally               Wmtberg states that      [a] more

definite    statement   W111   ordinarily be     required     only   When    the   pleading   is

‘unintelligible’ such that a defendant cannot fairly be expected to frame a response

or denial, at least not w1thout risking prejudice” Id (citing Tharp 0 District of

Columbza 309 F R D 88 90 (D D C 2015))




14 Additionally, Ohver Exterminating a1 gues that Lima Enterprises “Complaint which assumes much
but illuminates little will not assist the parties or this Court in resolving this matter ’
Lima Enters , Inc v Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opmion                                            

Page 13 0f 15




$22    The Court agrees with Lima Enterprises that Oliver Exterminating is

“improperly using Rule 12(e) as a substitute for discovery”10 Motions for a more

defimte statement “are not a substitute for discovery and ordinarily will not be

granted Where the level and nature of detail sought is more properly a role for

discovery ” Wmtberg, T; 3 (citing Allstate Indem Co , 304 F R D at 582; Sanchez U

City of Fresno 

 1121 22 (E D Cal 2012)) Lima Enterprises

complaint does not allege that the easement is seventeen inches Wide However, the

Court finds that Lima Enterprises’ complaint as written provides adequate

information for Oliver Exterminating to “fairly be expected to frame a response ” See

Basic Se; vs Inc 11 12 (citing Casaday 

) Wintberg 11 3 (citing Tharp

309 FRD at 90) Therefore, Oliver Exterminating’s motion for a more definite

statement is denied

       C Attorney’s fees

1:23   Lima Enterprises argues that Oliver Exterminatings                  Motion for a More

Definite Statement appears calculated for dilatory purposes and not for the

elucidation of matters pending before this Court [Lima Enterprises] should not be

prejudiced by such actions and should be awarded [its] attorneys fees and costs ”

Lima Enterprises provides no clear authority to support a request for attorney’s fees




1° Addltionally, Lima Enterprises argues that Oliver Exterminating’s motion to dismiss shows Ohver
Exterminatlng’s ‘understandmg of the alarms [Lima Enterprises] has brought against [it], and of the
glounds for those claims ” Lima Enterprises also argues that thele is a voluminous pleading record
[that] support’s [its] Complamt ”
Lima Enters , Inc V Oliver Exterminating Of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                         

Page 14 0f 15



at this point in the case See Bell U Radchffe Case No ST 13 CV 392 2014 VI

LEXIS 119 at *7 8 (V I Super Ct Apr 30 2014) (unpublished) Nor does the Court

find good grounds for an award of attorney’s fees for the filing of Oliver

Exterminating’s motion       Therefore, the Court will deny the portion of Lima

Enterprises’ opposition that seeks an award of fees




       D Motion for Hearing

$524   On February 18, 2020, Lima Enterprises filed a motion for a hearing, or in the

alternative for a ruling, on Oliver Exterminating’s motion to dismlss or for a more

definite statement With the issuance of this memorandum opinion, the motion for a

hearing becomes moot Therefore, the Court Will deny Lima Enterprises’ motion for

hearing as moot

III CONLCUSION

$25    The Court finds that Lima Enterprises claims meet the VI R CIV P 8(a)(2)

standard against Defendant Oliver Exterminating, but not against Defendant Ruan,

Individually Additionally, the Court finds that Oliver Exterminating is not entitled

to a more definite statement Moreover, the Court finds that Lima Enterprises is not

entitled to attorney’s fees and costs Finally, the Court finds that Lima Enterprises’

motion for a hearing is moot
Lima Enters , Inc v Oliver Exterminating of St Thomas, Inc
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Memorandum Opinion                                           

Page 10 0f 15




       An order consistent with this memorandum opinion Will immediately follow



DATED      June     9       2021                   g 2% 27% Z64 gig
                                                       Kathleen ackay
                                                        Judge of the Superior Court
                                                             of the Virgin Islands

ATTEST
TAM RA CHARLES
Clerk  he 00‘ 1:

BY              M       '
       @NNA D        0N0 AN (é
       Court Clerk Supervisor  / I          /§@“
          IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
               DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

                                                 )
LIMA ENTERPRISES INC                             )
                                                 )   Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
                  Plaintiff                      )
      V                                          )      TRESPASS
                                                 )      NEGLIGENCE
OLIVER EXTERMINATING OF                          )      GROSS NEGLIGENCE
ST THOMAS INC and IRAD RUAN                      )      DECLARATORY
                                                 )      RELIEF
                  Defendants                     )      PRESCRIPTIVE
                                                 )      EASEMENT


                                    ORDER

      In Accordance with the Memorandum Opinion entered on this day, it is hereby

      ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, in part,

and DENIED in part

      ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Lima Enterprises

complaint against Ruan, 1ndividually, is GRANTED“

      ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the other claims is DENIED

      ORDERED that Defendants        motion for a more definite statement is

DENIED'

      ORDERED that Lima Enterprises’ request for attorney’s fees and costs is

DENIED' and it is further

      ORDERED that Lima Enterprises’ motion for hearing is DENIED AS

MOOT‘
Lima Enterprises V Oliver Extermmating
Case No ST 2017 CV 00380
Order
Page 2



         ORDERED that Oliver Exterminating shall file an answer to the complaint

Within twenty one 121) days of entry of this Order; and it is further

         ORDERED that copies of the Memorandum Opinion and this Order shall be

directed to Andrew L Capdeville, Esq and Marie E Thomas Griffith, Esq




DATED June           ‘? 2021               i/émfl Zggc/Z/Ua:
                                                   Kathlee Mackay
                                                 Judge of the Superior Court
                                                    of the Virgin Islands

ATTEST
TA    RA CH   LES
Clerk th/ Cou

BY            M“
         D    NNAD D! NO        Ne 37
             art Clerk Supervisor    /   /9®f