DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
KEITH NICHOLSEN, 
                                      Plaintiff, 
                                      v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 
SHAMALI DENNERY, 
                                      Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
Case No. 3:20-cv-0023 
) 
 
) 
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES  
)             
)            JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
)             
)             
) 
SHAMALI DENNERY, 
                                      Third Party Plaintiff, 
                                      v. 
BERNARD WESSELHOFT d/b/a Slim Man’s 
Parking Lot, 
                                      Third Party Defendant. 
) 
) 
)             
) 
Case No. 3:20-cv-0023 
) 
 
) 
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 
)             
)            JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
) 
) 
) 
SHAMALI DENNERY, 
                                      Cross Claimant, 
                                      v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
                                      Cross Defendant. 
) 
) 
)            Case No. 3:20-cv-0023 
) 
 
) 
COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION 
) 
  
)            JURY TRIAL DEMANDED        
)             
)             
) 
SHAMALI DENNERY, 
                                      Counter Claimant, 
                                      v. 
KEITH NICHOLSEN, 
                                      Counter Defendant. 
) 
) 
)            Case No. 3:20-cv-0023 
) 
 
)            COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES  
) 
 
) 
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED                  
)             
)                         
) 
 
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-RAM-RM   Document #: 108   Filed: 03/28/22   Page 1 of 3
Nicholsen  v. United States et al. 
Case No. 3:20-cv-0023 
Order 
Page 2 of 3 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Thomas Friedberg 
Law Offices of Friedberg & Bunge 
San Diego, CA  
 
For Plaintiff and Counter Defendant Keith Nicholsen and  
 
Third Party Defendant Bernard Wesselhoft 
 
Kimberly L. Cole 
United States Attorney’s Office 
St. Thomas, VI  
For Defendant and Cross Defendant United States of America 
 
Gaylin Vogel 
Law Office of Kevin F. D’Amour, PC 
St. Thomas, VI 
 
For Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant  
 
Shamali Dennery 
 
ORDER 
BEFORE THE COURT is the motion of the United States of America (the 
“Government”) to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), filed on June 22, 2020. (ECF Nos. 16). For the 
reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion of even date, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Subject 
Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED; it is further 
ORDERED that Plaintiff Nicholsen’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; it 
is further 
ORDERED that Defendant Dennery’s crossclaim is DISMISSED; it is further 
ORDERED that Defendant Dennery’s counterclaim is DISMISSED; it is further 
ORDERED that Defendant Dennery’s third-party complaint is DISMISSED; it is 
further 
 
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-RAM-RM   Document #: 108   Filed: 03/28/22   Page 2 of 3
Nicholsen  v. United States et al. 
Case No. 3:20-cv-0023 
Order 
Page 3 of 3 
 
ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Dennery’s Crossclaim, ECF No. 
40, is MOOT; it is further 
ORDERED that the Government’s motions to stay discovery, ECF Nos. 74 and No. 77, 
are MOOT; it is further 
ORDERED that Nicholsen’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition to 
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 80, is MOOT; it is further 
ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 82, is 
MOOT; it is further 
ORDERED that Dennery’s Motion for Certification that Shamali Dennery was Acting 
within the Scope of his Employment, ECF No. 88, is MOOT; it is further 
ORDERED that Dennery’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or in the 
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 94, is MOOT; it is further 
ORDERED that the Plaintiff SHALL file a motion to amend the complaint, asserting a 
plausible claim under the FTCA, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry of this 
Order. Defendants SHALL file a response no later than fourteen (14) days after filing and 
service of the motion. Plaintiff SHALL have ten (10) days after filing and service of 
Defendants’ response to file a reply. There shall be no further briefing without leave of the 
Court. 
 
DATED: March 28, 2022 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Robert A. Molloy  
_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Judge 
 
Case: 3:20-cv-00023-RAM-RM   Document #: 108   Filed: 03/28/22   Page 3 of 3