o 
o 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
ESTATE OF JOSEPH HENRY by LUCY 
) CIVIL NO. 609/2004 
MICHEAU as EXECUTRIX; and MARTIN 
) 
EMMANUEL, 
) ACTION FOR DAMAGES 
) 
Plaintiffs, 
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
) 
v. 
) 
) 
HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CORP. 
) 
(HOVIq; HOVENSA L.L.C.; AMERADA 
) 
HESS CORPORATION; LITWIN PAN-
) 
AMERICAN CORP.; 'LITWiN CORP.; 
) 
FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC.; RIGGERS and ) 
ERECTORS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; 
) 
RARITAN SUPPLY CO., Iodlviduaily and as 
) 
successor In interest to Bridge Supply Co.; 
» 
VIRGIN IS~S 
INDUCSTIRAL 
) 
MAINTENTANCE CORP.; 3M a/kIaJ 
) 
MINNESOTA MINING & 
) 
MANUFACTURING CO.; A.W. 
) 
CHESTERTON CO.; CERTAINTEED 
) 
PRODUCTS CORP.; CRANE CO.; DURABLA) 
MANUFACTURING CO.; FOSTER 
) 
WHEELER CORP.; GARLOCK SEALING 
) 
TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., fIkIa GARLOCK, ) 
INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP.; 
) 
INGERSOLL-RAND CO.; JOHN CRANE 
) 
CO.; UNION CARBIDE CORP.; UNION 
) 
PUMP CO.; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC 
) 
CORP.; YARWAY CORP.; and JOHN DOE, ) 
) 
Defendants. 
) 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Motion to Reconsider by Defendant Riggers and Erectors 
International, Inc. ("Riggers & Erectors"), whereby Riggers & Erectors moves the Court to reconsider its 
Order of January 24, 2005 denying the Motion to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims. 
A motion to reconsider shall be based on the following circumstances: (I) an intervening change 
in controlling law, (2) availability of new evidence or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent 
manifest injustice. See LRCi 7.4. In support of its Motion to Reconsider, Riggers & Erectors advises the 
Court of "additional information," namely, that Plaintiffs have filed four (4) asbestos cases and three (3) 
silica cases involving a total of 19 Defendants, excluding spouses. See Motion to Reconsider at p. 2. 
Estate ofJoseph HeD 
aI. v. HOVlC, et aI. 
Civil No. 609/2004 
Memorandum Opinion 
'Page 2 of2 
o 
Foremost, Riggers & Erectors fails to offer any evidence corroborating its allegation that 
Plaintiffs have filed numerous other related cases. Nonetheless, even taking such proffered information 
as true, the Court hardly fiods that the aforementioned "additional infonnation" constitutes new evidence 
evincing Plaintiffs' failure to meet the standard for joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. htdeed, the Court 
will uphold its consolidation of this matter as captioned above on the grounds that Plaintiffs are 
represented by the same counsel in this asbestos litigation, and at all times relevant herein Plaintiffs 
shared a common worksite, similar time of exposure, and as a result of asbestos exposure at Hess Oil 
Refioery Plaintiffs suffered from related diseases. Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider by Ri!lge.J~ Bl~d ..JfrC1CtOl1; 
til 
DatC1d: March ~ 
2005 
ATI'EST: