IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
HAMM & BARRY
:
CIVIL ACTION
:
v.
:
:
IRA L. FRANK
:
NO.  05-50
MEMORANDUM
Bartle, C.J.
November 12, 2008
The law firm of Hamm & Barry, a Virgin Islands
partnership, has sued defendant Ira L. Frank, a citizen of
Virginia, for tortious interference with a contractual
relationship between Hamm & Barry and the Bluebeard's Castle
Hilltop Villas Condominium Association ("Hilltop Villas"), an
organization of time-share owners in St. Thomas.  Defendant has
now moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  Subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on
1
diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
It is well established that the plaintiff has the
burden of proving personal jurisdiction once defendant challenges
it.  Patterson ex rel. Patterson v. F.B.I., 893 F.2d 595, 604 (3d
Cir. 1990).  The undisputed facts establish that Hamm & Barry was
1.  Defendant's motion also seeks to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Rule 12(b)(3), however, concerns improper venue - a
subject which defendant never mentions in his supporting briefs.
Case: 1:05-cv-00050-TJS   Document #: 76   Filed: 11/13/08   Page 1 of 3
engaged to represent the Hilltop Villas in connection with a
dispute with the resort developer.  Defendant at all times
relevant was the owner of a one week interest in a time-share
unit at the resort in question.  He also served as the President
of the Board of Directors of the Hilltop Villas, an association
consisting nearly exclusively of time-share holders at
Bluebeard's Castle Resort.
Defendant, it is conceded, not only had phone
conversations and e-mail correspondence with Hamm & Barry while
he was in Virginia and Washington, D.C. but also had some in-
person meetings in the Virgin Islands with the plaintiff law firm
concerning the underlying dispute.
The Virgin Islands Long Arm Statute provides that a
court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person:  (1)
transacting any business in this territory; (2) causing tortious
injury by an act or omission in this territory; or (3) having an
interest in, using, or possessing real property in this
territory.  However, any "claim for relief [must] arise... from
acts enumerated above."  5 V.I.C. § 4903(a)(1), (3), and (5).
Here, the claims in the complaint clearly arise from
business defendant transacted in the Virgin Islands, from an
alleged tortious injury caused here, and from an interest
defendant and others had in real estate on St. Thomas.
In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,
320 (1966), the Supreme Court explained that jurisdiction over
the person must comport with "our traditional conception of fair
-2-
Case: 1:05-cv-00050-TJS   Document #: 76   Filed: 11/13/08   Page 2 of 3
play and substantial justice."  See also, Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985).  The contacts of defendant with
the Virgin Islands are more than sufficient to meet these
criteria, and thus we may exercise personal jurisdiction over him
in this action.
Accordingly, the motion of defendant to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction will be denied.
-3-
Case: 1:05-cv-00050-TJS   Document #: 76   Filed: 11/13/08   Page 3 of 3