DIVISION OF ST CROIX
JOSEPH GERACE AND VICTORIA VOOYS
Civil No SX 2005 CV 00368
D/B/A CANE BAY BEACH BAR
ACTION FOR DAMAGES
PLAINTIFFS,
; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
V
i
WARREN MOSLER CHRIS HANLEY AND
CHRISMOS CANE BAY LLC
3
CITE AS 2022 VI SUPER 45
DEFENDANTS
Appearances
Lee J Rohn, Esq
Lee J Rohn and Associates, LLC
Christiansted, St Croix
For Plamnffiv
Joel Holt, Esq
Law Offices of Joel Holt
Christiansted, St Croix
For Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLOCKS, Presiding Judge
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff Joseph Gerace and Plaintiff Victoria
Vooys d/b’a Cane Bay Beach Bar’s (collectively, hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ ) motion to exceed page
limit and corrected motion to exceed page limit,l filed on April 19, 2022 and April 20, 2022
respectively
On April 20, 2022, Defendant Warren Mosler, Defendant Chris Hanley, and
' 1n the corrected motion, Plaintiffs indicated that they fixed “typographical errors that made it confusing as to the
Defendant Chrismos Cane Bay, LLC (collectively, hereinafter Defendants”) filed a response to
the original motion 2 As of the date of this Order, no reply has been filed in response 3
BACKGROUND
This matter came before the Court for a jury trial and on March 3, 2022, the jury reached
a verdict On March 22, 2022, Defendants filed a motion “for post trial relief pursuant to Rule
50(b) [of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure], seeking to vacate the jury’s entire verdict
[and] [a]lternatively, a new trial is sought pursuant to Rule 59(a)(1)(A)(vi) [of the Virgin Islands
Rules of Civil Procedure] based on the individual and cumulative improper closing arguments of
Plaintiffs’ counsel ” (March 22, 2022 Motion)
On April 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a first motion for a two week extension of time to April
26 2022 to file an opposition to Defendants
March 22
2022 motion On April 12
2022
Defendants filed an opposition thereto The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff‘s April 11, 2022
motion and extended the deadline to April 26, 2022 for Plaintiff to file an opposition to
Defendants March 22 2022 motion
On April 19, 2022 Plaintiffs filed a motion to exceed page limit, and on April 20, 2022,
Plaintiffs filed a corrected motion to exceed page limit
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 6 l of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[u]nless otherwise
ordered by the court, all motions, responses and replies filed with the court shall not exceed the
2 According to the time stamp, Defendants’ opposition was filed before Plaintiffs filed their corrected motion
Nevertheless given Plaintiffs’ representation that the corrected motion only fixed typographical errors and a legal
authority citation, the Court will consider Defendants response when ruling on the corrected motion
3 Rule 6
l of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
[n]othing herein shall prohibit the court from
ruling without a response or reply when deemed appropriate ” VI R CIV
P 6 l(f)(6)
Here the Court finds it
greater of 20 pages or 6,000 words in length unless leave of court has been obtained in advance
foralonger submission” VI R CIV P 6 1(e)(2)
DISCUSSION
In their motion, Plaintiffmoved to exceed the page limit for their opposition to Defendants
March 22, 2022 motion by seventeen additional pages 4 Plaintiffs made the following assertions
in support of their motion
(i) The seventeen additional pages will “assist the Court in resolving
the post trial motions dealing with multiple defendants and multiple claims after a five day jury
trial ” (Motion, p
1); (ii) “There are two plaintiffs and three (3) defendants in this case” and “[t]he
defendants each filed two (2) post trial motions—confusingly consolidated into one motion
raising a host of issues they contend warrant either a new trial or judgment as a matter of law
(Id , at pp
1 2); (iii) “[T]he trial transcript containing the evidence to survive a sufficiency
challenge is just over 1,200 pages ’ and “[t]his includes the official transcript of the jury
instructions which Plaintiffs must cite and rely on in response to a sufficiency challenge under
V I R Civ P 50 ” (Id
at p 2), (iv) “In addition to a sufficiency challenge under Rule 50, the
Defendants’ motion seeks a new trial under VI R Civ P 59
a completely different legal
standard ” (Id ) and (v)
[T]here is more than good cause for this Court to grant the Plaintiffs an
additional seventeen pages considering the extensive evidence received (1200 paged
[sic]
transcript) and the requirement in this jurisdiction that parties adequately brief matters ”5 (Id , at
p 3)
4 Plaintiffs referenced Augustin v Hess 01! V I Corp
67 VI 488 503 (Super Ct Aug 23 2017)( if allowing
additional pages can help the court to resolve a complicated issue or complex questions of law, then leave to exceed
pages should generally be granted ”)
5 Plaintiffs referenced Herbert v National Industrial Services 2022 VI St PER 29
1[ II (VI Super Ct March 18,
2022) The thwm Corp v Universal 011 Prods (.0
69 V1 380 387 (VI Super Ct Sept 28 20l8)( [[]t is not the
Court sjob to research and construct legal arguments open to parties In order to develop a legal argument effectively
In their opposition, Defendants indicated that they “have no objection to the Plaintiffs’
response to the post trial motions exceeding the normal page limitations ” (Opp , p
1 )
1
Original Motion
The Court finds that Plaintiffs implicitly withdrew their original motion to exceed page limit, filed on April
19 2022 when they filed the subsequent corrected motion to exceed page limit on April 20, 2022 See e g
Magras v National Industrial Services
et a1 , 2021 V U Super SOU, S 8, see also In re Refinery Dust
Claims 72 V1 256 290 (Super Ct Dec 13 2019) (citing Mztchell v Gen Engg Corp
67 V1 271 278
(Super Ct Feb 23, 2017) (“a motion can also be deemed withdrawn based on certain actions or inactions
ofthe party who filed the motion”) As such, Plaintiffs’ original motion to exceed page limit, filed on April
19, 2022, will be deemed withdrawn
2
Corrected Motion
Virgin Islands courts have the inherent authority to economically manage their dockets to
best promote the fair and efficient resolution ofthe dispute between the parties See e g FzrstBank
P R v Harthman Leasmg III LLLP 2019 V I LEXIS 5 at *14 (V I Super Ct Jan 28 2019)
Davies v Certam Lnderwrzlers at 1.10de 0] London, 2017 VI LEXIS 138, *8 (VI Super Ct
Aug 25 2017)
Prentice v Seaborne szatzon Inc
65 V I 96
113 (V I
Super Ct Sept
1
2016) Der Weer v Hess 011 VI Corp
64 V I 107 126 (V I Super Ct March 15 2016) Thus
the Court finds that, pursuant to such inherent authority the Court can impose page limits on court
papers See V I R CW
P 6 l(e)(2) but see Augustin v Hess 011 VI Corp
67 V I 488 502
(Super Ct Aug
23, 2017) (“[T]he Supreme Court has not had occasion to address Rule 7 1
Specifically, or more generally, what inherent authority courts have to place limits on the number
inadequate
) Josephv Joseph 2015 V1 LEXIS 43 *5(Vl Super Ct Apr 23 2015)( [l]n general the Court will
of pages of motion papers Two Superior Court judges addressed motions for leave to exceed page
limit See Abednego v St Crozx Alumina LLC, 63 V I
153, 184 (Super Ct
2015); Jones v
Jerome, 62 VI
160, 161 n 1 (Super Ct 2015) But in each case, the court granted the motion
without discussion Similarly, the District Court of the Virgin Islands has also addressed motions
to exceed page limits in Chapm v Great Southern Wood Preservmg Inc , Civ No 2012 77, 2016
U S Dist LEXIS 60805 (D V I May 9 20l6) but there only in passing and only in discussing
the procedural history to the case
Thus, no court in the Virgin Islands has addressed why (or
even whether) courts can or should impose pages limits on court papers ”)
In Augustm, the court referenced the discussion of the United States Tax Court in Kernan
v Commisszoner ofInternal Revenue
108 T C M (CCH) 503 (T C 2014) aff'd 670 Fed Appx
944 (9th Cir 2016) addressing the reasoning and concerns of why courts impose page limits on
court papers,6 and concluded that it “agrees with the reasoning and concerns Kernan expressed
and further agrees that parties should limit their arguments and only raise those arguments that
carry the most weight ” Id , 67 V I at 503 Nevertheless, the Augustm court acknowledged that it
is not always possible to do so in twenty pages, and further concluded that
‘ if allowing
additional pages can help the court to resolve a complicated issue or complex questions of law,
6 In Keman, the United States Tax Court explained
Judges impose page limits for a reason They force parties to hone their arguments and to state those
arguments succinctly Page limits cause, or should cause parties to dispense with arguments of little or no
merit in favor of those arguments that have a better chance of carrying the day They encourage parties to
avoid redundancy And repetition Parties often are quite creative in their efforts to circumvent page limits
Among the most blatant methods is to put material into an appendix and to not count that appendix as falling
within the page limits
Another is to incorporate another document by reference Less blatant but still
obvious, are those instances in which parties shrink the margins or the font size so that they can squeeze more
text within the page limits that were imposed
Then there are methods that, while perhaps in technical
conformity with our Rules, diminish the quality of a brief Examples include moving text into footnotes or
using extensive block quotations so that the author can single space more of the text
then leave to exceed page limits should generally be granted [b]ut requesting leave to exceed the
page limits should be the exception, not the norm ” Id Ultimately, the Augustin court granted the
moving party’s motion for leave to exceed the page limit ‘ [b]ecause of the significance of the
issues raised here, and because the appointment of personal representatives was a question of first
impression in the Virgin Islands”, the court also noted that the brief ‘only exceed the limit by four
pages ’
Id
Like the Augustin court
the Court similarly agrees with the reasoning and the
concerns Keman expressed
Furthermore, the Court also agrees with the opinions Augustin
expressed
to wit, that “parties should limit their arguments and only raise those arguments that
carry the most weight” and that “if allowing additional pages can help the court to resolve a
complicated issue or complex questions of law, then leave to exceed page limits should generally
be granted [b]ut requesting leave to exceed the page limits should be the exception, not the norm ”
67 V I at 503 With that in mind, the Court will determine whether to grant Plaintiffs’ motion 7
Here, Plaintiffs never asserted that the issues raised in Defendants’ March 22, 2022 motion
were complex or novel issues of first impression Instead, Plaintiffs motion focused on the fact
that the lawsuit involves multiple parties and multiple claims, and the fact that the length of the
transcript necessary for Plaintiffs to prepare their opposition is approximately 1,200 pages
However, the fact that a lawsuit involves multiple parties and multiple claims, and the fact that the
7 The Court notes at the outset that Defendants did not object to Plaintiffs
motion
However,
a
motion is not
automatically granted simply because it is unopposed ”’ Ayala v Lockheed Martin Corp , 2017 V l LEXIS 39 at *19
(V1 Super Ct Mar 3 2017)(quoting In re Alumna DustClaIms 2017 VI LEXIS 2 at *26 (VI Super Ct Jan
10 2017) “In other words even though a motion is unopposed courts must still determine whether to grant it
especially when the decision is within the court 3 discretion ” Augustin, 67 V l at 50] After all, the Court and not the
parties has the inherent authority to manage the docket and Rule 6
I of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure
requires
leave ofthe Court
and not the agreement of the non moving party See V l R CW P 6 1(e)(2) Plus, it is
not legally and procedurally sound to allow the parties to circumvent the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure by
simply stipulating and doing away with the rules they do not want to follow ( [ Henry v Dennery 2013 V 1 Supreme
LEXIS 4, at ’6 (V l 2013) (the Virgin Islands Supreme Court ‘ has repeatedly instructed that the parties cannot simply
transcript containing the evidence is approximately 1 200 pages do not automatically qualify the
issues involved as complex or novel issues of first impression Thus, based on Plaintiffs’ motion,
the Court finds that seventeen additional pages are not necessary to help the Court because there
are no complicated issue or complex questions of law to resolve Furthermore, while Plaintiffs
implied in their motion that Defendants should not have combined their post trial motions pursuant
to Rule 50(b) and Rule 59(a)(1)(A)(vi) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure into one
motion, Rule 50(b) specifically provides that “the movant may file a renewed motion iorjudgment
as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59
V I R Cw P 59(b) 3 Moreover, the requirement that a party adequately support the positions and
arguments in his/her brief and the concept that the court will not make a movant’s arguments for
him/her when he/she has failed to do so are not unique or new to Plaintiffs or this matter As such,
the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion See Augustm, 67 V I at 503 (“if allowing additional pages
can help the court to resolve a complicated issue or complex questions of law, then leave to exceed
page limits should generally be granted [b]ut requesting leave to exceed the page limits should be
the exception, not the norm ’)
3 Rule 50(b) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides
(b) Renewing the Motion After Tl ial Alternative Motion for a New Trial If the court does not grant a motion
forjudgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action
to thejury subiect to the courts later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion No later than 28 days
after the entry ofjudgment
or if the motion addresses ajury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28
days after the jury was discharged
the movant may file a renewed motion for iudgment as a matter of law
and may include an alternative orjoint request for a new trial under Rule 59 In ruling on the renewed motion
the court may
(I) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict
(2) order a new trial or
(3) direct the entry ofjudgment as a matter of law
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to exceed page limit, filed on April 19, 2022, is
DEEMED WITHDRAWN And it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ corrected motion to exceed page limit, filed on April 20, 2022,
is DENIED
hex
DONE and so ORDERED this 079
day of April 2022
ATTEST
W21%M
Tamara Charles
HAROLD W L WILLOCKS
Clerk of the Court
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
By%W
curt Cle k S
I
Dated
war;fig