DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, LAURIE 
M. CHRISTIAN, ADDISON CHRISTIAN, 
CHRISTOPHER CHRISTIAN, GLENFORD 
ALBERT, 
Defendants.      
   
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Civil No. 2017-30 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Samuel T. Grey 
Nichols Newman Logan D'eramo & Grey  
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Bank of Nova Scotia, 
 
Gretchen Shappert, United States Attorney 
Angela Tyson-Floyd, AUSA 
United States Attorney’s Office 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For the Internal Revenue Service, 
 
Joseph Caines 
Law Offices of Joseph Caines 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Laurie M. Christian, 
 
Kevin A. Rames 
Law Office of Kevin A. Rames, P.C. 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Addison Christian, 
 
Christopher Christian 
New Carrolton, MD 
 
Pro se defendant, 
 
 
Case: 1:17-cv-00030-GWC   Document #: 36   Filed: 03/13/18   Page 1 of 4
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. 
Civil No. 2017-30 
Order 
Page 2 
 
Francis E. Jackson, Jr. 
Law Offices of Francis E. Jackson Jr. 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Glenford Albert, 
 
 
 
ORDER 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court is the motion of Glenford Albert 
(“Albert”) to dismiss the complaint in this action for failure 
to state a claim. 
 
The Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”) alleges that on or about 
March 25, 1992, Allan A. Christian borrowed $215,000 from BNS. 
Allan Christian executed and delivered a promissory note (the 
“Note”) to BNS promising to repay BNS that sum with interest. 
Allan Christian delivered to BNS a real estate mortgage (the 
“Mortgage”) encumbering certain property described as “Plot 172 
(.707 U.S. acre) and Plot No. 173 (0.529 U.S. acre) both of 
Estate Two Brothers and Smithfield, West End Quarter, St. Croix, 
U.S. Virgin Islands as more fully shown on Drawing No. 2089 
dated April 3, 1967” (the “Property”) on St. Croix, United 
States Virgin Islands. See ECF No. 1, Exh. 1 at 15. BNS also 
alleges that (1) Albert holds a judgment lien on the Property; 
and (2) the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) holds a 
tax lien on the Property.  
Case: 1:17-cv-00030-GWC   Document #: 36   Filed: 03/13/18   Page 2 of 4
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. 
Civil No. 2017-30 
Order 
Page 3 
 
 
Allan Christian died while money was still owed on the 
Note. His interest in the Property passed to his heirs: Laurie 
M. Christian, Addison Christian, and Christopher A. Christian 
(collectively, the “Christians”). On or about October 1, 2015, 
the Christians defaulted on the Note and Mortgage.   
 
On March 16, 2017, BNS filed a debt and foreclosure action 
in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. BNS named as 
defendants the Christians, the IRS, and Albert.  
 
On July 7, 2017, Albert filed a motion to dismiss in this 
Court. See ECF No. 7. Albert asserts that on May 21, 2014, he 
filed a Release of Lien with the Office of Recorder of Deeds, 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I., which released the judgment lien on the 
Property. Albert attached a copy of the Release of Lien to his 
motion.  
 
On July 14, 2017, BNS filed a document captioned “Notice of 
No Opposition.” See ECF No. 11. In that document, BNS indicates 
that it had “no opposition to the dismissal of this action as it 
relates to . . . Albert.” Id. 
 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (“Rule 41”) authorizes a 
plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing 
“a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either 
an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 
41(a)(1)(A)(i). Once a Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) notice is filed, it is 
Case: 1:17-cv-00030-GWC   Document #: 36   Filed: 03/13/18   Page 3 of 4
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. 
Civil No. 2017-30 
Order 
Page 4 
 
effective immediately, and the case is dismissed without any 
further order of the court. See, e.g., Hester Indus., Inc., v. 
Tyson Foods, Inc., 160 F.3d 911, 916 (2d Cir. 1998) (explaining 
that "dismissal was effectuated by [Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)] 
stipulation of the parties");  see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank 
AG, 377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004). 
 
Here, BNS has filed a document it describes as a “Notice,” 
indicating that it does not object to the dismissal of Albert 
from this action. Accordingly, the Court will construe BNS’s 
““Notice of No Opposition,” see ECF No. 11, as a notice of 
dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii). 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that BNS’s claims against Glenford Allen are 
DISMISSED; and it is further 
 
ORDERED that Albert’s motions to dismiss docketed at ECF 
Numbers 7 and 24 are MOOT.  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
 
Case: 1:17-cv-00030-GWC   Document #: 36   Filed: 03/13/18   Page 4 of 4