IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, ROBERT S.
MATHES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
TRUSTEE FOR NATURAL RESOURCES
OF THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED
STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, 
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTURY ALUMINA COMPANY,
VIRGIN ISLANDS ALUMINA
COMPANY, ST. CROIX ALUMINA,
L.L.C., LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION, ALCOA WORLD
ALUMINA, L.L.C., HOVENSA, L.L.C.,
HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS
CORPORATION, ST. CROIX
RENAISSANCE GROUP, L.L.L.P.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 2005/0062
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.  For the
reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED as to Count V, alleging
trespass, and Count VII, seeking damages under the Territorial Water Pollution Control
Act;
that the Government of the Virgin Islands may substitute for the Commissioner of DPNR
with respect to the territorial claims within twenty days from the date of this Order; and  
that the Motions to Dismiss are DENIED as to all other causes of action. 
Case: 1:05-cv-00062-HB   Document #: 219   Filed: 10/31/08   Page 1 of 4
ENTER:
DATE:
October 31, 2008 
_____________/s/_____________________
HONORABLE RAYMOND L. FINCH
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Case: 1:05-cv-00062-HB   Document #: 219   Filed: 10/31/08   Page 2 of 4
A T T E S T
Wilfredo F. Morales
____________________
Deputy Clerk
cc:
The Honorable George W. Cannon, Jr., U.S. Magistrate Judge
John K. Dema, Esq.
END
For parens patriae suit, the facts must show that the state has an interest independent of
the private interests of its citizens.  The doctrine of parens patriae is generally understood to grant
a state standing to sue but does not, in and of itself, create a cause of action.  Where natural
resources have been injured, states must frequiently use public nuisances as the underlying cause
of action.  In contracts, the public trust doctrine provides its own theory of recovery.  
N3. In the transfer of submerged lands from the United States to the Virgin Islands, the
statute states this land will be “administered in trust for the benefit of the people thereof.”
48 U.S.C. § 1705(a) (Supp.1986). An additional source for this authority is derived from the
power the Virgin Islands Government has as sovereign over these islands. J. Sax, “The
Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention” 68
Mich.L.Rev. 471 (1970). For the early history of this doctrine in America see Shively v.
Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 L.Ed. 331 (1894).
West Indian Co., Ltd. v. Government of Virgin Islands  643 F.Supp. 869, 875 (D.Virgin
Islands,1986)
  . In the transfer of submerged lands from the United States to the Virgin Islands, the statute
states this land will be "administered in trust for the benefit of the people thereof." 48 U.S.C. §
1705(a) (Supp.1986).  West Indian Co., Ltd. v. Government of Virgin Islands  643 F.Supp. 869,
875 (D.Virgin Islands,1986).  A sovereign holds land under tide waters in trust for its people so
“that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty
of fishing therein freed from the obstruction or interference of private parties."  Illinois Central,
supra 146 U.S. at 452, 13 S.Ct. at 118.
 Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998) (finding no abuse of discretion when
3
Case: 1:05-cv-00062-HB   Document #: 219   Filed: 10/31/08   Page 3 of 4
state law claims implicated preemption doctrine);  Sigmon v. Southwest Airlines Co., 110 F.3d
1200, 1203 (5th Cir. 1997);  DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 920 F.2d 457, 468
n.23 (7th Cir. 1990); Washington v. Union Carbide Corp., 870 F.2d 957, 961-62 (4 Cir. 1989); 
th
Bale v. General Telephone Co. of California, 795 F.2d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 1986); North Dakota v.
Merchants Nat. Bank &Trust Co., 634 F.2d 368, 371 (8 Cir. 1980)?; L.A. Draper & Son v.
th
Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., 735 F.2d 414, 428 (11 Cir. 1984)?; Jackson v. Stinchcomb, 635 F.2d
th
462, 473 (5 Cir. 1981)?.  
th
Federal preemption issue as warranting exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.
4
Case: 1:05-cv-00062-HB   Document #: 219   Filed: 10/31/08   Page 4 of 4