DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.  
 
) 
DAVID NISSMAN, Individually,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
) 
Civil Action No. 2011-0010 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  
 
 
SOUTHLAND GAMING OF THE VIRGIN 
 
) 
ISLANDS, INC., SOUTHLAND AMUSEMENT   
) 
AND VENDING, INC., ROBERT HUCKABEE,  
) 
III, AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-10,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Defendants.  
 
 
) 
_______________________________________________ ) 
 
Attorneys: 
David M. Nissman, Esq.,  
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Plaintiff 
 
Bennett Chan, Esq., 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
Jason C. Hicks, Esq., 
Mark N. Poovey, Esq., 
Washington, D.C. 
 
For Defendants 
 
ORDER 
 
UPON CONSIDERATION of Defendant Southland Gaming of the Virgin Islands, Inc.’s 
“Motion to Dismiss and Strike” (Dkt. No. 28); Defendants Southland Amusement and Vending, 
Inc. and Robert Huckabee, III’s “Motion to Dismiss and Strike” (Dkt. No. 30); Defendants’ 
“Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Declaration” (Dkt. No. 40); Defendants’ “Joint Motion for Hearing” 
(Dkt. No. 43); the parties’ respective Oppositions and Replies (Dkt. Nos. 37, 42, 44, 45), and for 
the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, filed contemporaneously herewith, 
it is hereby 
Case: 1:11-cv-00010-WAL-GWC   Document #: 47   Filed: 03/31/16   Page 1 of 2
2 
 
 
ORDERED that Defendant Southland Gaming of the Virgin Islands, Inc.’s “Motion to 
Dismiss and Strike” (Dkt. No. 28) is GRANTED as it relates to subject matter jurisdiction (Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)) and DENIED as it relates to striking the Complaint (Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)); and it is further  
 
ORDERED that Defendants Southland Amusement and Vending, Inc. and Robert 
Huckabee, III’s “Motion to Dismiss and Strike” (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED as it relates to subject 
matter jurisdiction (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)) and DENIED as it relates to striking 
the Complaint (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)); and it is further  
 
ORDERED that Defendants’ “Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Declaration” (Dkt. No. 40) is 
DENIED, including for MOOTNESS; and it is further 
 
ORDERED that Defendants’ “Joint Motion for Hearing” (Dkt. No. 43) is DENIED; and 
it is further  
ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED; and it is further  
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. 
 
SO ORDERED. 
Date: March 31, 2016  
           
 
_______/s/_________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WILMA A. LEWIS 
Chief Judge 
 
Case: 1:11-cv-00010-WAL-GWC   Document #: 47   Filed: 03/31/16   Page 2 of 2