DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
IDA SMITH, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
ALL PERSONS CLAIMING A PRESENT OR 
FUTURE INTEREST IN ESTATE 13, 
FRIIS, LINDA V. SMITH-FRANCIS, 
WILLIAM E. SMITH, ELOISE V. SMITH-
HENDRICKS, BAB FRIIS NO. 1, PAUL 
HOFFMAN, JANE HOFFMAN-WALKER, 
ELEANOR ADAMS HOFFMAN, MAXWELL 
ADAMS HOFFMAN, GLORIA FRANCOIS 
MCGOWAN, DAVID A. BORNN AS TRUSTEE 
TO THE GAF TRUST ESTATE 14 JOHN’S 
FOLLY EXCLUDING ALL HEIRS AT LAW, 
ESTATE 15 CONCORDIA A, CORAL BAY 
QUARTER, ST JOHN UNITED STATES 
VIRGIN ISLANDS, NATIONAL PARK 
SERVICE, LAND RESOURCES DIVISION, 
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA, STANLEY 
SELENGUT, WILLIAM B. POPPELTON, 
LORRAINE A. POPPELTON, KEVIN M. 
WALSH, MARIA K. STURATIS, SCOTT E. 
WILMOSKI, CHARLES M. PERDUE, 
MONICA PERDUE, JOZSEF NEMETH, 
NANCY NEMETH, FRED S. PATTERSON, 
MARGARET D. PATTERSON, JOHN R. 
PERGOLIZZI, TREASURE VIEW LLC, 
GEORGE PILLORGE, DEBORAH PILLORGE, 
SCOTT L. HARTSHORN, CLAUDETTE C. 
HARTSHORN, HEINZ G. FISHER, LINDA 
G. BURDET TRUSTEES OF THE HEINZ G. 
FISHER TRUST, DONALD DURANTE, 
SAFIA B. DURANTE, CRAIG E. 
MITCHELL, ALAN MARTIN KAUFMAN, 
RACHELLE KAUFMAN, JEFFREY J. 
McCRAVE, ANN McCRAVE, DOROTHY K. 
JANOSKO, WILLIAM R. KINCER, SUSAN 
B. KINCER, SUSAN GREER 
LITTLEFIELD, WAYNE CHESTERFIELD, 
MONIQUE FRANCOIS, PEDRITO 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)    
) 
)        Civil No. 2011-41 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT     Document #: 553     Filed: 11/15/16     Page 1 of 7
Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. 
Civil No. 2011-41 
Order 
Page 2 
 
FRANCOIS, SALT POND VISTA LLC, 
V.I. JOSEPH PALMINTERI, CARRIE 
GLENN, MARC KAVE, EMILY J. 
BRATTON, RICK HATHAWAY, RENE A. 
SERVANT aka RENE H. SERVANT, MARIE 
THERESE L. SERVANT, LORI JANE 
SNACK, BRIAN K. WALDEN, 
MINISTER ISHMAEL R. MUHAMMED, 
MICHAEL CARPER, REUBEN WHEATLEY, 
et al., 
Defendants. 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
APPEARANCES: 
 
Ida Smith 
New York, NY 
 
Pro se plaintiff, 
 
Ronald W. Sharpe, USA 
Jason Cohen, AUSA 
St. Thomas, VI 
 
For the United States National Park Service, 
 
Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq. 
Hodge & Francois  
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
For Paul Hoffman; Jane Hoffman Walker; and David A. Bornn, 
Trustee of the GAF Trust, 
 
Rafael F. Muilenburg, Esq. 
Morrisette & Muilenburg 
St. John, U.S.V.I. 
For William E. Smith; Eloise V. Smith; Deborah Pillorge; 
Claudette C. Hartshorn; Scott L. Hartshorn; Linda V. Smith-
Francis; and George Pillorge, 
 
Gloria McGowan 
 
Pro se, 
 
Wayne Chesterfield 
 
Pro se, 
 
 
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT     Document #: 553     Filed: 11/15/16     Page 2 of 7
Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. 
Civil No. 2011-41 
Order 
Page 3 
 
Monique Francois 
 
Pro se, 
 
Pedrito Francois 
 
Pro se, 
 
Joseph Palminteri 
 
Pro se, 
 
W. Mark Hillsman, Esq. 
Law Offices of Norman P. Jones, P.C.  
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
For Carrie Glenn; Lori Jane Snack; William B. Poppelton; 
Lorraine A. Poppelton; Maria K. Sturaitis; Charles M. 
Purdue; Monica Purdue; Salt Pond Vista, LLC; Heinz G. 
Fisher; Linda G. Burdet, Trustee of the Heinz G. Fisher; 
Safia B. Durante; Donald Durante, 
 
Marc Kave 
 
Pro se, 
 
Emily J. Bratton 
 
Pro se, 
 
Rick Hathaway 
 
Pro se, 
 
Rene A. Servant 
 
Pro se, 
 
Marie Therese Servant 
 
Pro se, 
 
Brian K. Walden 
 
Pro se, 
 
John H. Benham, III, Esq. 
Watts, Benham & Sprehn, P.C. 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Stanley Selengut, 
 
Mark D. Hodge, Esq. 
Hodge & Francois 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Kevin M. Walsh and Treasure View LLC, 
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT     Document #: 553     Filed: 11/15/16     Page 3 of 7
Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. 
Civil No. 2011-41 
Order 
Page 4 
 
Scott E. Wilmoski 
 
Pro se, 
 
Jozef Nemeth 
 
Pro se, 
 
Nancy Nemeth 
 
Pro se defendant. 
 
Fred S. Patterson 
 
Pro se, 
 
Margaret D. Patterson 
 
Pro se defendant. 
 
John R. Perqulizzi 
 
Pro se, 
 
Terryhill Enterprises, II 
 
Pro se, 
 
Missouri LLC 
 
Pro se, 
 
Craig E. Mitchell 
 
Pro se, 
 
Michael E. Fitzsimmons, Esq. 
Stryker, Duensing, Casner & Dollison  
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Alan Martin Kaufman, 
 
Ann McCrave 
 
Pro se, 
 
Jeffrey J. McCrave 
 
Pro se, 
 
William R. Kincer 
 
Pro se, 
 
Susan B. Kincer 
 
Pro se, 
 
 
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT     Document #: 553     Filed: 11/15/16     Page 4 of 7
Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. 
Civil No. 2011-41 
Order 
Page 5 
 
Susan Greer Littlefield 
 
Pro se, 
 
Kurt Shore 
 
Pro se, 
Suzanne L. Shore 
 
Pro se, 
 
Dorothy Janosko (also known as “Dorothy K. Janoko”) 
 
Pro se. 
 
 
ORDER 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
 
In an August 1, 2016, order, the Court dismissed Ida 
Smith’s (“Smith”) claims against the United States for lack of 
subject matter jurisdiction because (1) she failed to comply 
with the pleading requirements of the Quiet Title Act; and (2) 
she failed to adequately allege she had standing to bring those 
claims. See ECF No. 505.  
 
In its August 1, 2016, order, the Court observed that 
“Smith’s complaint contains no factual allegation showing that 
the United States has injured her. That is, there are no 
allegations showing that the United States had laid claim to any 
real property that she claims.” Id. at 12. Rather, Smith’s 
complaint included only a bare assertion that “[t]here exists a 
dispute or controversy as to the location of the boundary lines” 
between two parcels of property. Id. at 12-13 (quoting ECF No. 
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT     Document #: 553     Filed: 11/15/16     Page 5 of 7
Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. 
Civil No. 2011-41 
Order 
Page 6 
 
268). This “conclusory assertion of a dispute,” the Court 
explained, “is not sufficient to establish standing.” Id. at 13. 
 
Reviewing Smith’s complaint and the record, it appears to 
the Court that each of Smith’s claims against the remaining 
defendants may suffer from the same deficiency. Additionally, 
there is no record evidence that every remaining named defendant 
has been served with process or waived service of process. 
 
Where, as here, a district court raises an issue with a 
complaint’s deficiency, the plaintiff must be given notice and 
an opportunity to respond. See Lassiter v. City of Philadelphia, 
716 F.3d 53, 57 (3d Cir. 2013) (“We have concluded that a 
district court may sua sponte raise the issue of the deficiency 
of a complaint so long as the plaintiff is accorded an 
opportunity to respond.” (alterations and internal quotation 
marks omitted)); Wallace v. Fed. Emp. Of U.S. Dist. Ct., EDPA, 
325 Fed. App’x 96, 101 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) (explaining that a 
district court must provide plaintiffs with “notice and an 
opportunity to respond before sua sponte dismissing their 
claims”). 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby  
 
ORDERED that no later than November 21, 2016, Smith shall 
file a brief that will show cause why this complaint should not 
be dismissed for: 
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT     Document #: 553     Filed: 11/15/16     Page 6 of 7
Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al. 
Civil No. 2011-41 
Order 
Page 7 
 
(1) 
want of subject matter jurisdiction over this matter;  
(2) 
lack of standing by Smith to bring her claims; and 
(3) 
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted; and it is further 
 
ORDERED that the trial in this matter, previously scheduled 
for Monday, November 28, 2016, is RESCHEDULED to commence 
promptly at 9:00 A.M. on Monday, January 23, 2016. 
 
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
CURTIS V. GÓMEZ 
District Judge 
 
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT     Document #: 553     Filed: 11/15/16     Page 7 of 7