IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS



_ DIVISION OF ST. CROIX AT CHRISTIANSTED



-EPHRAIM.JACOBS:



as

- wilsdies afb aceh oi oielacee axl Oak det Ba a ia

P — CERT TS a PLAINTIFF )

. wo : re a) CIVIL NO. 893/82

vs. )

a) ACTION FOR DAMAGES _

HECTOR DIAZ and ‘REED, WIBLE ) :

‘and BROWN . : i)

wd oy

DEFENDANT )

- res ee

_)



- MEMORANDUM ORDER ©

This matter came before the Court on Defendant, Reed, Wible



and Brown & Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon ©



Motion for leave of Court to Amend the Complaint pursuant to



Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff in his Opposition to the



Motion to Dismiss and proposed Amended Complaint, makes conclusory.

allegations that defendant committed the tortious act while within

the scope of employment. Based on this assertion, it, therefore, |

appears that a granting of a Motion to Dismiss would not be proper



at this juncture. The Court having read and considered the moving



papers of both parties and the opposition thereto, and being



, otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby



ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant, Reed, Wible



and Brown's Motion to Dismiss will be DENIED; and it is further



a

JACOBS v. DIAZ, et. al.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

PAGE 2



ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that because Plaintiff's



AM nded. fomplainty. particularly. din.



‘critical area ‘Of ‘the ‘scope. ‘of os peor couched in

language as opposed to being "a short plain statement of the

claim" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. B(a); 5 VIC App. 7 Rule 8 (a),

the Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the Complaint will be |

DENIED without prejudice to it being renewed. Counsel is directed



to the Supreme Court's oft- ~quoted decision in Conley Vv. Gibson,



325 U. S. 41 (1957), where the court stated that the Federal Rules | j



| require the complaint to give defendant fair notice of what the



plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it stands.



"Implicit in this passage is. the notion that the: ‘ules contemplate



rains eoarametcanierpepste niin IR, aheake + We WDM wt IRSA

4



of the claim being presented". WRIGHT & ‘MILLER, Federal Practice



and Procedure: Civil §1215(1969). In this regard, a statement of i"

facts rather than legal conclusions ¢ seems to be generally accepted,

although the latter may be acceptable if such meets the test of

fair notice. Id at g1216. The Court holds that the conclusory

pleadings fail to give Defendant Reed, Wible and Brown the type.



| of fair notice envisioned by the rules and therein lies the basis

| €or the Court's denial of the Motion for leave to Amend the |

‘Complaint without prejudice to resubmission. |



Dated: Januaryd¢, 1983