DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
CORDEN WILLIAMS,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2006-CV-0127
v.
5
5
VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE
5
CORPORATION (VITELCO) and
5
INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION
5
CORPORATION,
5
5
Defendants. 5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Kevin A. Rames, Esq.
ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Court for consideration upon Plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike Motion to Amend Answer and the Amended Answer (Docket No. 30) and Motion
to Reconsider Order Allowing Amendment and to Strike Motion to Amend Answer and
the Amended Answer (Docket No. 31).  The time for filing a response has expired.
A review of the record reflects that by text-entry only Order (Docket No. 22), the
Court granted Defendant Innovative Communication Corporation’s Motion For
Commencement of Action Under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code;
Automatic Stay (Docket No. 13) and Plaintiff’s motions to sever Defendant Innovative
Case: 1:06-cv-00127-JEJ   Document #: 37   Filed: 03/19/08   Page 1 of 3
Williams v. VITELCO
2006-CV-0127
Order
Page 2
1.  The motion and proposed amended answer also purport to be filed on behalf of Defendant David Sharp.
The Court is unaware of any such defendant in this matter.
Communication Corporation (Docket No. 18).  Thereafter, Defendants filed a Motion to
Amend Answer (Docket No. 26) and an Amended Answer (Docket No. 27).  Despite the
title of Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Docket No. 31), the record is void of any order
allowing amendment.  Consequently, the Court will deny said motion as moot.  However,
because the Motion to Amend Answer and Amended Answer were filed on behalf of both
Defendants , the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to strike the motion and amended
1
answer.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Motion to Amend Answer and the Amended
Answer (Docket No. 30) is GRANTED.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Allowing Amendment and to Strike
Motion to Amend Answer and the Amended Answer (Docket No. 31) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
3.
Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer (Docket No. 26) and Amended
Answer (Docket No. 27) are STRICKEN.
Case: 1:06-cv-00127-JEJ   Document #: 37   Filed: 03/19/08   Page 2 of 3
Williams v. VITELCO
2006-CV-0127
Order
Page 3
ENTER:
Dated: March 19, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:06-cv-00127-JEJ   Document #: 37   Filed: 03/19/08   Page 3 of 3