DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
WINGROVE RICHARDS, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA; STRYKER 
DUENSING, CASNER & DOLLISON; and 
the LAWYER’S TITLE INSURANCE 
CORPORATION, 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Civil No. 2009-154 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Wingrove Richards, 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
Pro Se Plaintiff. 
 
Carol Ann Rich, Esq. 
Dudley Rich Davis, LLP  
St. Thomas, VI 
For the Bank of Nova Scotia. 
 
James Bernier, Jr., Esq.  
Stryker, Duensing, Casner & Dollison 
St. Thomas, VI 
For Stryker, Duensing, Casner & Dollison.  
 
Warren B. Cole, Esq. 
Hunter, Cole & Bennett 
St. Croix, VI 
 
For the Lawyer's Title Insurance Corporation. 
 
ORDER 
 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by 
pro se plaintiff Wingrove Richards. 
Case: 3:09-cv-00154-CVG-RM   Document #: 40   Filed: 08/16/16   Page 1 of 7
Richards v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. 
Civil No. 2009-154 
Order 
Page 2 
 
 
At all relevant times, Wingrove Richards (“Richards”) was 
the titleholder of property described as Parcel No. 1B1-B 
Remainder Estate Wintberg (the “Wintberg property”), located in 
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. On October 27, 1999, Richards 
borrowed $30,000 from the Bank of Nova Scotia (the “Bank”). To 
evidence the debt, Richards executed a Mortgage Note (“Note”) in 
which he promised to repay $30,000 to the Bank. The Note was 
secured by a mortgage on the Wintberg property in favor of the 
Bank.  
 
Sometime thereafter, Richards defaulted under the terms of 
the Note and the mortgage. As such, the Bank filed an action 
against Richards for debt and foreclosure in the Superior Court 
of the Virgin Islands (the “Superior Court action”). During the 
pendency of the Superior Court action, Richards filed for 
bankruptcy. The Superior Court action was stayed.  
 
On or about December 24, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court 
discharged Richards’s unsecured debts. The Bank then sought and 
was granted relief from the stay of the Superior Court action. 
On March 15, 2007, the Superior Court entered a judgment and 
order of foreclosure against Richards. The Superior Court 
ordered that the Wintberg property be sold by the Superior Court 
Marshal.  Prior to the sale, Richards filed a motion to set 
aside the judgment. That motion was denied. The Wintberg 
Case: 3:09-cv-00154-CVG-RM   Document #: 40   Filed: 08/16/16   Page 2 of 7
Richards v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. 
Civil No. 2009-154 
Order 
Page 3 
 
property was sold and Richards was ordered to pay the Bank’s 
attorneys’ fees and costs.  
 
Thereafter, on October 30, 2009, Richards filed the instant 
action. Richards sought to have this Court vacate various 
Bankruptcy Court and Superior Court orders and judgments, 
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3),(4),and (5) of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. Richards named as defendants the Bank, the law 
firm of Stryker, Duensing, Casner & Dollison (“Stryker”), and 
the Lawyers Title Insurance Company (“LTIC”). In his complaint, 
Richards claimed that this Court had subject matter jurisdiction 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3),(4),and 
(5), and 28 U.S.C. § 1655.   
 
Stryker and the Bank filed motions to dismiss for lack of 
subject matter jurisdiction, insufficient process, insufficient 
service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted. Richards filed a motion for summary 
judgment. 
 
On September 28, 2010, the Court held a hearing on the 
pending motions. During the hearing, the Court determined that 
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action. On the 
following day, the Court entered an order memorializing its oral 
decision. The Court dismissed this action and ordered that the 
Clerk of the Court close this case. 
Case: 3:09-cv-00154-CVG-RM   Document #: 40   Filed: 08/16/16   Page 3 of 7
Richards v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. 
Civil No. 2009-154 
Order 
Page 4 
 
 
On February 13, 2013, more than two years after the case 
had been closed, Richards filed two additional motions. The 
first motion was styled as a 25-count complaint against Wilmoth 
Brooks, the Bank, Stryker, and LTIC. That motion essentially 
asserted that the defendants were liable for conversion and 
fraudulent conveyance arising from the sale of the Wintberg 
property. The second motion appeared to reassert the claims 
previously asserted by Richards in his October 30, 2009, 
complaint.  
 
The Court construed the motions as motions for 
reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 
or, in the alternative, as motions for relief from a judgment or 
an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The 
Court denied those motions as untimely. The Court reasoned that: 
(1) the motions were filed more than two years after the Court 
dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and 
(2) Richards had failed to adduce any evidence showing that the 
judgment should be set aside due to fraud upon the Court. 
 
More than two years later, on April 23, 2015, Richards 
filed a new motion seeking injunctive relief. (ECF No. 30.) That 
same day, he filed a document captioned “Evidence of Extreme 
Misconduct.” (ECF No. 31.) Thereafter, on June 10, 2015, 
Richards filed an additional motion seeking injunctive relief. 
Case: 3:09-cv-00154-CVG-RM   Document #: 40   Filed: 08/16/16   Page 4 of 7
Richards v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. 
Civil No. 2009-154 
Order 
Page 5 
 
(ECF No. 33.) Richards also submitted a document captioned 
“Evidence of a Grave Miscarriage of Justice Pursuant to FRCP 
60(d)(3).” (ECF No. 34.) 
 
The Court construed these filings as motions for 
reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, 
or, in the alternative, as motions for relief from a judgment or 
an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. On 
February 1, 2016, the Court denied those motions. The Court 
reasoned that insofar as the filings were construed as motions 
for reconsideration, they were untimely. Moreover, even if the 
filings were construed as motions for relief from judgment due 
to fraud on the Court, Richards was not entitled to the relief 
he sought because the alleged fraud was not material to the 
Court’s judgment. 
 
On February 12, 2016, Richards filed the instant motion for 
reconsideration seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order 
denying his four motions.  
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule of 
Civil Procedure 7.3, which provides: 
A party may file a motion asking the Court to 
reconsider its order or decision. Such motion shall 
be filed within ten (10) days after the entry of the 
order or decision unless the time is extended by the 
Court. Extensions will only be granted for good 
cause shown. A motion to reconsider shall be based 
on: 
 
Case: 3:09-cv-00154-CVG-RM   Document #: 40   Filed: 08/16/16   Page 5 of 7
Richards v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. 
Civil No. 2009-154 
Order 
Page 6 
 
1. intervening change in controlling law; 
 
2. availability of new evidence, or; 
 
3. the need to correct clear error or 
prevent manifest injustice. 
 
LRCi 7.3; see also Max's Seafood Café by Lou–Ann, Inc. v. 
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999) (citing North River 
Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d 
Cir.1995)).  
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration “is to correct 
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered 
evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d 
Cir.1985). Such motions are not substitutes for appeals, and are 
not to be used as “a vehicle for registering disagreement with 
the court's initial decision, for rearguing matters already 
addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have 
been raised before but were not.” Bostic v. AT & T of the V.I., 
312 F.Supp.2d 731, 733 (D.Vi.2004). “Local Rule [7.3] affirms 
the common understanding that reconsideration is an 
‘extraordinary’ remedy not to be sought reflexively or used as a 
substitute for appeal.” Id. 
 
In his motion for reconsideration, Richards again raises 
the claims that he has sought to pursue since filing this 
action. However, with regard to the Court’s February 1, 2016, 
order, he has not identified any intervening change in 
Case: 3:09-cv-00154-CVG-RM   Document #: 40   Filed: 08/16/16   Page 6 of 7
Richards v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. 
Civil No. 2009-154 
Order 
Page 7 
 
controlling law, any new evidence, or any clear error. To the 
extent that Richards argues that there is manifest injustice, 
the injustice he describes is injustice allegedly caused by 
orders issued by other judges. He does not argue that the 
undersigned’s order caused manifest injustice. 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that Richards’s motion for reconsideration is 
DENIED. 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
 District Judge 
Case: 3:09-cv-00154-CVG-RM   Document #: 40   Filed: 08/16/16   Page 7 of 7