IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS



DIVISION OF ST. CROIX:



KINGSHILL



COMMUNITY REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC.



d/b/a LORRAINE VILLAGE,



Plaintiff,



CIVIL NO.



5379/1984



Vv.



ACTION FOR DAMAGES



AND EVICTION



PATRICIA BLACKMAN,



Defendant.



KENNETH R.



LINDQUIST, ESQ.



59 King Street



Christiansted, St. Croix



U. S. Virgin Islands 00820



Counsel for Plaintiff



PATRICIA BLACKMAN, Pro Se



Building 5, Apartment G



Lorraine Village Apartments



Frederiksted, St. Croix



U. S. Virgin Islands 00840



SILVERLIGHT, J.



MEMORANDUM OPINION



(October ll,



1984)



Plaintiff,



Community Realty Management,



Inc.



moves this



Court for entry of Summary Judgment on the basis of defendant



Patricia Blackman's failure to answer plaintiff's Request for



Admissions.



For the reasons



set forth below,



plaintiff's



motion is denied.



FACTS



On August 7, 1984, plaintiff served defendant, by mail,



with its



first Request For Admissions.



As of this date,

Community Realty Management, Inc.



d/b/a Lorraine Village v. Patricia Blackman



CIVIL NO. 579/1984



Page 2



defendant has failed to respond to plaintiff's request.

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that

defendant's failure to respond within the period prescribed by

Rule 36 F.R.C.P. rendered those facts admitted. As a

consequence, there remain no issues of material facts thereby



warranting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.



DISCUSSION



Plaintiff is correct in its assertion that generally,

under Rule 36, F.R.C.P. matters are deemed admitted if there

is no response to a request for admissions. However, Rule 36

provides further that “the matter is admitted unless within

thirty (30) days after service of the request, or within such

shorter or longer time as the court may allow ..." Id. Hence,

the Court has power to allow additional time for a response to

a request for admissions even after the time for response

fixed by the rule has expired. Anderson v. Myers, 16

V.I. 520 (Terr. Ct. 1979). Thus, the Court has discretion to

permit an otherwise untimely answer. Id. at 522.



In cases involving pro se litigants, the Court must take

special care to construe the pleadings so as to do



"substantial justice." Williams v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 17

Community Realty Management, Inc.



d/b/a Lorraine Village v. Patricia Blackman



CIVIL NO. 579/1984



Page 3



V.I. 546, 547 (D.C.V.I. 1980). F.R.C.P. 8(£). Moreover, an

admission that otherwise would result from a failure to make a

timely answer should be avoided when to do so would aid in the

presentation of the merits of the action and would not

prejudice the party who made the request. 8 WRIGHT, MILLER &

KANE, Federal Practice & Procedure §2257 at 720 (Civil 1970).

In this instance, defendant has proceeded pro se since the

inception of this cause of action. While she has failed to

respond to plaintiff's request for admissions, she has filed

an answer to plaintiff's complaint. Furthermore, there is no

evidence before the Court that plaintiff would be prejudiced

if defendant is allowed additional time within which to

respond to plaintiff's request.



Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion as

provided under the rules and will order defendant to respond

to plaintiff's request within the time set forth in the order

accompanying this memorandum. Should defendant fail to comply

with said order, the Court will deem the facts stated in the

request admitted and will proceed accordingly.



For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's Motion for Summary

Judgment is DENIED.



ENTER:



=>

ers eet X VV foo

IRWIN) J. “CG



DATED: October 11, 1984