DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
ANTONIO D. GODINEZ and BONNIE 
R. GODINEZ, 
              PlaintiffS, 
v. 
PETER BAY OWNER’S ASSOCIATION, 
INC.; CAROL T. HENRY, 
individually; JAMES D. HENRY, 
individually; JANE DOE AS THE 
TRUSTEE OF THE CAROL T. & JAMES 
D. HENRY REVOCABLE TRUST; 
MICHAEL D. BURGAMY, 
individually; CHARLENE E. 
SLOAN, individually; MICHAEL D. 
BURGAMY and CHARLENE E. SLOAN 
TRUST as CO-TRUSTEES OF THE 
MICHAEL B. BURGAMY & CHARLENE 
E. SLOAN TRUST; ANDREW 
STILLMAN, individually; and JOY 
H. STILLMAN, 
Defendants.   
      
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Civil No. 2014-114 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Brandon J. Hechtman, Esq. 
Jordan S. Cohen, Esq. 
Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 
Lee J. Rohn, Esq 
St. Croix, VI 
 
For Antonio D. Godinez and Bonnie R. Godinez, 
 
Matthew J. Duensing, Esq. 
Duensing, Casner & Fitzsimmons 
St. Thomas, VI 
For Peter Bay Owner’s Association, Inc.; James D. Henry; 
Carol T. Henry; Jane Dos as Trustee of the Carol T. & James 
D. Henry Revocable Trust; Carol T. & James D. Henry 
Revocable Trust; Michael B. Burgamy, individually and as 
co-trustee of the Michael B. Burgamy & Charlene E. Sloan 
Case: 3:14-cv-00114-CVG-RM   Document #: 253   Filed: 07/23/16   Page 1 of 7
Godinez, et. al. v. Peter Bay Owner’s Association, Inc. et. al. 
Civil No. 2014-114 
Order 
Page 2 
 
Trust; and Charlene E. Sloan, individually and as co-
trustee of the Michael B. Burgamy & Charlene E. Sloan 
Trust,  
 
Douglas L. Capdeville, Esq. 
Law Offices of Douglas L. Capdeville 
St. Thomas, VI 
Michael L. Sheesley, Esq. 
MLSPC 
St. Thomas, VI 
Peter James Lynch, Esq. 
Lynch Law Office 
St. Thomas, VI 
Rafael F. Muilenburg, Esq. 
Morrisette & Muilenburg 
St. John, VI 
 
For Andrew Stillman and Joy. H. Stillman. 
 
ORDER 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court is the complaint filed by Antonio D. 
Godinez and Bonnie R. Godinez in this matter. 
  
Antonio D. Godinez and Bonnie R. Godinez (collectively, the 
“Godinezes”) are citizens of Florida. They own Lot 2A in Peter 
Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. 
 
James D. Henry and Carol T. Henry (collectively, the 
“Henrys”) are citizens of Missouri. They reside for a portion of 
the year in Peter Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. The J. 
Henry Trust owns a one-half (1/2) undivided interest in Lot 2B 
in Peter Bay. Its trustees are citizens of Missouri. The C. 
Henry Trust owns a one-half (1/2) undivided interest in Lot 2B 
in Peter Bay. Its trustees are also citizens of Missouri. 
Case: 3:14-cv-00114-CVG-RM   Document #: 253   Filed: 07/23/16   Page 2 of 7
Godinez, et. al. v. Peter Bay Owner’s Association, Inc. et. al. 
Civil No. 2014-114 
Order 
Page 3 
 
Andrew Stillman and Joy. H. Stillman (collectively, the 
“Stillmans”) are citizens of Connecticut. They reside for a 
portion of the year in Peter Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. 
Joy H. Stillman owns Lot 10 in Peter Bay. 
Michael B. Burgamy (“Burgamy”) and Charlene E. Sloan 
(“Sloan”) are citizens of Colorado. They reside for a portion of 
the year in Peter Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. The 
Michael B. Burgamy & Charlene E. Sloan Trust owns Lot 1 in Peter 
Bay. Its trustees are citizens of Colorado. 
Peter Bay Owner’s Association, Inc. (the “Association”) is 
a homeowner’s association organized under the laws of the U.S. 
Virgin Islands and with its principal place of business in the 
U.S. Virgin Islands.   
The Godinezes moved into their home in Peter Bay in 1991. 
Since then, upland lots in Peter Bay have continued to be 
developed. The Godinezes property is bordered to the north by 
the Henrys’ property. The Godinezes property is bordered to the 
south by Burgamy and Sloan’s property. The Stillmans’ property 
is to the south of Burgamy & Sloan’s property. The Stillmans’ 
property and Burgamy and Sloan’s property is separated by a 
pedestrian pathway.  
On December 17, 2014, the Godinezes filed a complaint 
against the defendants. The Godinezes amended their complaint on 
Case: 3:14-cv-00114-CVG-RM   Document #: 253   Filed: 07/23/16   Page 3 of 7
Godinez, et. al. v. Peter Bay Owner’s Association, Inc. et. al. 
Civil No. 2014-114 
Order 
Page 4 
 
June 8, 2015. The amended complaint alleges twelve counts. Count 
One alleges a trespass claim against the Henrys; the J. Henry 
Trust; and the C. Henry Trust. Count Two alleges a trespass 
claim against Burgamy; Sloan; and the Michael B. Burgamy & 
Charlene E. Sloan Trust. Count Three alleges a trespass claim 
against the Stillmans. Count Four alleges a trespass claim 
against the Association. Count Five alleges a nuisance claim 
against the Henrys; the J. Henry Trust; and the C. Henry Trust. 
Count Six alleges a nuisance claim against Burgamy; Sloan; and 
the Michael B. Burgamy & Charlene E. Sloan Trust. Count Seven 
alleges a nuisance claim against the Stillmans. Count Eight 
alleges a nuisance claim against the Association. Count Nine 
alleges a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the 
Association. Count Ten alleges a negligence claim against the 
Association. Count Eleven alleges a breach of contract claim 
against the Association. Count Twelve alleges a violation of the 
Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act against the 
Association.1  
The Court is concerned that the complaint does not 
adequately plead subject-matter jurisdiction. The Godinezes 
                                                          
1 The Godinezes and the Stillmans have since stipulated to the dismissal of 
the claims against the Stillmans. See ECF No. 232. 
Case: 3:14-cv-00114-CVG-RM   Document #: 253   Filed: 07/23/16   Page 4 of 7
Godinez, et. al. v. Peter Bay Owner’s Association, Inc. et. al. 
Civil No. 2014-114 
Order 
Page 5 
 
allege that the “Court has jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 
1332 . . . .” ECF No. 61, at ¶ 23. 
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) . . . provides that district 
courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil 
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the 
sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and, 
and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 
Complete diversity requires that, in cases with 
multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants, no 
plaintiff be a citizen of the same state as any 
defendant. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Svcs. 
Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 
502 (2005); Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Insur. Co., 561 
F.3d 144, 148 (3d Cir.2009). The key inquiry in 
establishing diversity is thus the “citizenship” of 
each party to the action. 
 
Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 
2010). 
Therefore, to determine whether the Court may exercise 
jurisdiction over this case, the Court must determine the 
citizenships of the parties. The amended complaint alleges that 
“Peter Bay Owner’s Association, Inc. (“The Association”) is a 
homeowner’s association organized under the laws of the United 
States Virgin Islands with is principal place of business in the 
Virgin Islands.” ECF No. 61, at ¶ 11. That allegation does not 
permit the Court to determine the citizenship of the 
Association.  
Case: 3:14-cv-00114-CVG-RM   Document #: 253   Filed: 07/23/16   Page 5 of 7
Godinez, et. al. v. Peter Bay Owner’s Association, Inc. et. al. 
Civil No. 2014-114 
Order 
Page 6 
 
The United States Supreme Court recently addressed the 
proper method for determining the citizenship of non-living 
entities: 
Exercising its powers under Article III, the First 
Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction over 
controversies between a “citizen” of one State and 
“a citizen of another State.” 1 Stat. 78. For a long 
time, however, Congress failed to explain how to 
determine the citizenship of a nonbreathing entity 
like a business association. In the early 19th 
century, this Court took that silence literally, 
ruling that only a human could be a citizen for 
jurisdictional purposes. Bank of United States v. 
Deveaux, 5 Cranch 61, 86–91, 3 L.Ed. 38 (1809). If 
a “mere legal entity” like a corporation were sued, 
the relevant citizens were its “members,” or the 
“real persons who come into court” in the entity's 
name. Id., at 86, 91. 
 
This Court later carved a limited exception for 
corporations, holding that a corporation itself 
could be considered a citizen of its State of 
incorporation. See Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. 
Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844). 
Congress etched this exception into the U.S. Code, 
adding that a corporation should also be considered 
a citizen of the State where it has its principal 
place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) (1958 ed.). 
But 
Congress 
never 
expanded 
this 
grant 
of 
citizenship to include artificial entities other 
than corporations, such as joint-stock companies or 
limited partnerships. For these unincorporated 
entities, we too have “adhere[d] to our oft-repeated 
rule that diversity jurisdiction in a suit by or 
against the entity depends on the citizenship of 
‘all [its] members.’ ” Carden, 494 U.S., at 195–196, 
110 S.Ct. 1015 (quoting Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 
677, 682, 9 S.Ct. 426, 32 L.Ed. 800 (1889)). 
 
Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 
1015, 194 L. Ed. 2d 71 (2016). 
Case: 3:14-cv-00114-CVG-RM   Document #: 253   Filed: 07/23/16   Page 6 of 7
Godinez, et. al. v. Peter Bay Owner’s Association, Inc. et. al. 
Civil No. 2014-114 
Order 
Page 7 
 
 
Here, there is no allegation that the Association is an 
incorporated entity. Therefore, the Court must consider the 
citizenship of each member of the Association to determine the 
Association’s citizenship for jurisdictional purposes. See id. 
The complaint does not, however, allege the citizenship of the 
Association’s members. Therefore, the Court cannot determine if 
complete diversity exists in this case. 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that by no later than Thursday, July 28, 2016, at 
4:00 P.M. the Godinezes shall show cause why this case should 
not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
 
Case: 3:14-cv-00114-CVG-RM   Document #: 253   Filed: 07/23/16   Page 7 of 7