DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
 
 
LIVE OAK BANKING COMPANY, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)     Civil Action No. 2016-0070 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  
 
PRINCESS MILL PROPERTIES, LLC.,  PEYTON 
) 
BOSWELL, and STACIA A. BOSWELL a/k/a   
) 
STACIA A. JUNG,   
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  
 
 
 
 
Defendants.  
 
 
) 
________________________________________________) 
 
Appearances: 
 
Johanna Harrington, Esq., 
Brooksville, FL 
 
For Plaintiff 
 
Pamela L. Colon, Esq., 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
Thomas Donnelly, Esq., 
Doylestown, PA 
 
For Defendant Peyton Boswell  
 
Scot F. McChain, Esq., 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Defendant Stacia A. Jung 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
Lewis, District Judge 
 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the “Motion for Amendment of Court Order 
and for Extension of Time to File Motion to Amend the Complaint” (“Motion for Amendment 
Case: 1:16-cv-00070-WAL-EAH     Document #: 125     Filed: 03/14/22     Page 1 of 6
2 
 
of Court Order” or “Motion”),1 with attached Declaration by Scott Robbins (Dkt. Nos. 78; 78-
1), filed by Plaintiff Live Oak Banking Company (“Plaintiff”). Defendant Peyton Boswell 
(“Defendant Boswell”) filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Dkt. No. 80). 
Also before the Court is Defendant Boswell’s “First Motion for Extension of Time to File [His] 
Reply to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.” (Dkt. No. 123). 
Defendant Boswell requests an extension of time of ten (10) days following the entry of this 
Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment of Court Order within which to file his 
Reply. Id. Defendant Jung has joined in Defendant Boswell’s Motion for Extension of Time. 
(Dkt. No. 124). 
 
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court alter its Order entered on August 
30, 2021, which directed, inter alia, that Plaintiff file a Motion to Join or to Substitute the U.S. 
Small Business Administration (“SBA”) as a party Plaintiff pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 25(c) 
within 60 days. (Dkt. No. 66 at 2). This Order was based on Plaintiff’s representations in its 
“Report to the Court” (Dkt. No. 65) that a Bankruptcy Action involving Defendant Princess 
Mill Properties, LLC had resulted in the sale of that Defendant’s real estate and personal 
property; the Bankruptcy Court had confirmed the sale; Plaintiff had received a distribution 
 
1 Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Amend the Complaint was included 
as part of the Motion for Amendment of Court Order. (Dkt. No. 78). Plaintiff thereafter filed a 
Second Motion to File First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 84), which was granted by the 
Magistrate Judge in an Order entered on December 28, 2021 (Dkt. No. 101), and the First 
Amended Complaint has been filed. (Dkt. No. 102). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an 
extension of time to amend its Complaint is moot.  
 
Case: 1:16-cv-00070-WAL-EAH     Document #: 125     Filed: 03/14/22     Page 2 of 6
3 
 
from the sale from the Bankruptcy Trustee; and a deficiency amount remained pending against 
the guarantors, Defendant Boswell and Defendant Stacia Boswell a/k/a Stacia A. Jung 
(“Defendant Jung”). Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff further represented that “[i]n accordance with subject 
loan documents, [it] has resorted to and collected on its SBA guarantee” and that “[t]he SBA is 
subrogated to the rights of [Plaintiff] against the guarantors.” Id. at 3. The Court relied on 
Plaintiff’s representations in its Report to the Court to determine that the controlling regulation, 
13 C.F.R. § 120.520, had been triggered requiring joinder of the SBA in the case. (Dkt. No. 67 
at 20). 
 
In its Motion for Amendment of Court Order, Plaintiff now represents that it erred in 
requesting the SBA to take over servicing of the loan while litigation was still pending, and that 
SBA erred in approving the request. (Dkt. No. 78-1 at ¶ 6). Plaintiff further represents that “the 
SBA has declined assignment of the Loan Documents from [Plaintiff], has declined to 
undertake loan servicing, and has directed [Plaintiff] to continue prosecution of the instant 
action in its own name and on its own behalf.” (Dkt. No. 78 at 2). Plaintiff therefore requests 
that the Court amend its Order so as to rescind the requirement that the SBA be joined as a 
Plaintiff in this action. Id. at 2-3. The Court notes that the Motion for Amendment of Court 
Order does not include any support for the assertions and decisions by Plaintiff and the SBA. 
Nor is there any legal or other authority provided to support the proposition that the Court’s 
Order requiring the joinder of the SBA in this action is in error. 
 
As a result of the conflicting statements made in Plaintiff’s Report to the Court (Dkt. 
No. 65) and its Motion for Amendment of Court Order (Dkt. No. 78), the Court scheduled a 
hearing for March 8, 2022, and directed that the parties “be prepared to address the status of the 
Case: 1:16-cv-00070-WAL-EAH     Document #: 125     Filed: 03/14/22     Page 3 of 6
4 
 
[SBA] as it relates to this action, in light of the conflicting information submitted by Plaintiff.” 
(Dkt. No. 117). However, during the hearing Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to answer basic 
questions that would allow the Court to gain a full understanding of the circumstances 
surrounding, and the factual bases underlying, the alleged mistakes by Plaintiff and the SBA. 
Nor was counsel able to provide any legal authority to support the underlying decisions by 
Plaintiff and the SBA which precipitated the request to rescind the Court’s Order.2 Even more 
importantly, counsel’s oral presentation was devoid of any legal authority undergirding 
Plaintiff’s position that the SBA should not be joined in this action, notwithstanding counsel’s 
acknowledgement that: (1) Plaintiff had in fact received a distribution from the Princess Mills 
Bankruptcy action and had collected on its SBA guarantee; and (2) in the SBA’s absence, 
Defendants may face double exposure—namely, Plaintiff’s current action and a possible action 
by the U.S. Treasury to collect on behalf of the SBA. Beyond labelling the matter as a “case of 
first impression” because the Plaintiff/SBA “mistake” allegedly has never occurred before, 
Plaintiff’s counsel did not offer any factual or legal analysis that would advance Plaintiff’s 
cause or otherwise show that the Court’s Order requiring the joinder of the SBA should be 
rescinded. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment of Court Order will be denied. 
 
UPON CONSIDERATION of the foregoing and the entire record herein, it is hereby 
 
2 Plaintiff’s counsel—who admittedly was not counsel when the Report to the Court and the 
Motion for Amendment of Court Order were filed—had not been made privy to virtually any 
of the communications between SBA and her client, or the underlying bases for her client’s 
actions. Counsel’s basis for her arguments was grounded solely in the barebones statements 
contained in the Motion and attached Declaration. 
 
Case: 1:16-cv-00070-WAL-EAH     Document #: 125     Filed: 03/14/22     Page 4 of 6
5 
 
 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Amendment of Court Order” (Dkt. No. 78) is 
DENIED; and it is further  
 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion . . . for Extension of Time to File Motion to Amend 
the Complaint” (Dkt. No. 78) is DENIED AS MOOT;3 and it is further  
 
ORDERED that Plaintiff and/or the U.S. Small Business Administration shall file a 
Motion For The SBA To Be Substituted As Plaintiff pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 25(c) or Plaintiff 
shall file a Motion To Join The SBA as a party pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 19(1) or (2) within 
15 days of the date of this Order; and it is further 
 
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall promptly SERVE a copy of this Order on its contact 
with the SBA and file a Notice of Compliance of this service requirement; and it is further 
 
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall SERVE a copy of this Order on the United 
States Attorney for the District of the Virgin Islands, who is directed to forward a copy of this 
Order to the SBA; and it is further 
 
ORDERED that, for good cause shown, the First Motion for Extension of Time to File 
Defendant Boswell’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to 
Dismiss (Dkt. No. 123), which is joined by Defendant Jung (Dkt. No. 124), is GRANTED;4 
and it is further 
 
3 See supra, n.1. 
4 The Court notes that Defendant Boswell’s Motion for Extension of Time was made orally at 
the hearing on March 8, 2022, and was granted from the bench. 
 
Case: 1:16-cv-00070-WAL-EAH     Document #: 125     Filed: 03/14/22     Page 5 of 6
6 
 
 
ORDERED that Defendant Boswell and Defendant Jung shall have up to and including 
March 24, 2022 within which to file their Replies to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to 
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  
 
SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
 
Date: March 14, 2022 
 
 
 
 
_______/s/_______ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WILMA A. LEWIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
District Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
Case: 1:16-cv-00070-WAL-EAH     Document #: 125     Filed: 03/14/22     Page 6 of 6