IN RE: KELVIN MANBODH ASBESTOS 
LITIGATION SERIES 
) 
ASBESTOS DOCKET 
) 
) 
MASTER DOCKET NO.: 324/1997 
) 
KEL VIN 1''''''''',1 ~"""'-''''''''i A. ET 
vs. 
HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
CIVIL NO. 324/1997 
) 
) 
ACTION FOR DAMAGES 
) 
) 
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
) 
) 
MASTER FILE NO. --"=-~-"-
) 
~----------------------~---------------) 
HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS 
Third 
vs. 
LOCKHEED MAR TIN 
Third 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
) 
DENYING HESS OIL VlRGIN 
) 
ISLANDS CORPORATION'S 
) 
MOTION TO FOR ENLARGEMENT 
) 
OF TIME IN WHICH TO SERVE 
) 
VIACOM INC. AND GRANTiNG 
) 
VIA COM INC. '5 MOTION TO 
) 
DISMISS 
) 
------------------------------------------) 
UTWIN CORPORATION and UTWlN PAN-AMERICAN 
Third 
vs. 
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS 
Third 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
--------------------------------------~--) 
islands 
P.O. Box 4589 
1134 
St. 
Floor 
MARIA 
Senior 
Assumed senior status on 
FRANCIS L. 
EVERT &, WEATHERSBY 
ruu 
.... u ...... ___ ....... _ 30305 
Ii 2006. 
In Fe Kelvtrt Manbodh Asbestos Litigation &ril:s 
Ci\,. No. 324/1997 
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Denying Motion for Enlargement of Time in which to Serve Its Complaint 
Page 2 of8 
is 
en1:ere~a a 
to timely serve a ,","-'J,ul-"~ ..... n ... 
reasons, 
nclt,n.T1n:n IS ut::lrnt:u 
re 
a 
were settled 
to 
to 
its 
successor by 
un ........ • ... HA to 
/" re Kelvin MQ'fIhrxih Asbestos LII/gallon Series 
Civ No, 324/1991 
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Denying Motion fOf Enlargement of Time in which to Serve Its Complaint 
Page 3 of8 
cases, were 
successor 
an enJlarltlernellt 
50 that it 
may serve 
it was 
unaware 
Compilailllt on 
own 
wa5aWnbl~table 
at>s:enc:e of 
to 
an ext:enlUOlrl. 
pre:JucJllce to a defendant alone ~an never suffice for a "h'''Iw:ino 
cause under Rule 
V. 
71 F.3d 
1097 
It may be cOJlsicJlered, 
In 1'(1 Kelvin Mcmbodh Aabestru Litigation SerU!s 
Civ, No, 324/1991 
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Denying Motion for Enlargement of Time in which to Serve Its Complaint 
Page 4 0(8 
on 1i:""Jii"T~~ I occ~aslons. I:)eglmllnlg 
est.aOllsn good cause 
not 
reasons 
states 
same manner as 
a ueceln"c~r 8, 
was not 
to 
to 
is 
of 
l'rc.ce~lure. which f" ...... ~n".."' .. " 
a 
summons 
served on a 
a 
within the court's 
LLP concedes that it received 
and even access to 
but 
that such 
aU(Jw,mCles were attributable to its rer)reJ~entatlon 
;On)OTiUlo'n. not 
In ,.e Kelvin Manbodh Asbestos LitIgation Se,jes 
CrY', No. 32411997 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Denying Motion for Enlargement of Time in whicb to Serve Its Complaint 
Page S ofS 
FED. R. 
it is "''1''\1',,1'1<=.11 to an eXl[enSlO~n 
'lIn ... .....,.'I"\..- to cure 
is 
v. 
v. 
on 
"',,",''''~.'''''''' was not 
even 
lit f'1t Kelvin Manbodh Aabeslru Litigation Seriell 
Ci\', No. 324/1991 
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Denying Motion for Enlargement ofTimc: in which to Serve: lts Complaint 
Page 6 of8 
to serve Viacom ou1:S1dle 
until more than two ,.....".-.. ~ .... 
08 
an 
cause 
not 
either G1Sml:SS the case or 
cause 
to 
cause removes a trial court's GH;Cr,eu,on to 
instructs that 
an aOIOr()Orlat,e 1J .... .Lt.'v ...... 
cause or 
any 
com[JelUJ1iliZ reason, inter 
statute 
Court will OlsmUiS 
........... ,.A .. ., this matter nnpC'I''2 .... ~1' to 
because 
is 
to name 
In re Kelvin Manbodh Asbestos Lltigalion SentI 
Civ. No. 32411997 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Denying Motion for Enlargement of Tame in which to Serve Its Complaint 
Page 7of8 
All 
name 
are sut)lel:t to 
same 
are 
is not a C!l"\j::l> .... 'Y1t" 
v. VI 
are 
• U'I>_ 'u .... ".... statute 
.. :n ....... ,,lv,U 31 
6 
4 
"Civil actions shaH 
be i;omrnenced within the 
nr.F'~r,·ih~·ri below after a cause of 
action shall have accrued. : 
An action upon a contract or 
express or ""1-'''0;:;14, eJI(Ce'ptIrlg those 
mentioned in 
of this section. 
S VJ.C. § 3 t(S)(A) 
S 
See Maurice T. Brunner, Annotation When Statute 
Contribution or 
Based on Tort, 57 A.L.R.3d 
contribution and 
causes of action accrue from the time of ft!li~lll'nP"t 
because of the 
of murQ-I)a[l~V DIt'3cttce, 
In 
the court 
Islands statute of limitations was borrowed from 
which in turn had its 
in the 
) 5 V.1. at 229 n. !3. Dublin aCI<Jl01NJedac:CI 
followed the 
contribution and indemnification actions as 
contract actions. See e.g., 
v. 
1189-90 
the same 
the Dublin court concluded instead that such actions should be considered as torts, I"Irl!mS1l1l"tl\l 
due to the fact that the Government was a 
defendant and 
indemnitor. The Court relied 
5U~)portlrlg the 
Islands Tort 
found 
section 3409 of title 33 of the 
Is lands 
in limited circumstances. 
In re Kelvin Manbodh Ashestos LiJigmion Series 
Ci\l. No. )24/1997 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Denying Motion for Enlargement of Time in which to Serve Its Complaint 
Page 8 of8 
contract causes 
HI 
to name as 
a ctlsrnll~SaJ 7 
5 
are 
not 
cn()osc~S not to exc::rcl:se 
will not 
a 
serves 
statutes of limitations for contribution and 
now 
without a similar 
the Court finds that the six· 
to these actions. See e,g., 
REV. STAT. § 31.810 
of action' for-eontrib'Uti.ftOW 
umIUanOllS); AMERICAN LAW OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY TREATISE § 52~137 
ed. 
states have 
statutes of limitations for COiltribut:JOI1I). 
Under Rule i 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil t'rC)CetCJUTe, 
IUlu-r'clfIIV Defendant does not relate back to the initial 
of that action in Nnv ... \"I1'\,.... ... 
does not 
of limitations 
FED, R. elV. p~ 
In 
Viacom'5 pre:de<:es!;or, 
was dismissed 
The 
November 2004 Third Amended 
for any of the 
the relation back of amendments. 
the statute 
not 
such causes of action. 
See 5 V.I.C. § 31; 
to add a claim 
eXlstll1lg party to the lawsuit. 
ml!;tu~enlly name II. 
now seek to correct that error. FED. R. cry. P. 1 
within six years of the 
date for the Third Amended 
that any of HOVle's claims accrued 
forced to refile. 
actions would have accrued. 
nU'Tl_I"'S~nv Complairlt. November 3,2004. To the extent 
be 
even if HOVIC was not