DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
NICHOLAS SAAKVITNE, TRUSTEE, 
INDEPENDENT FIDUCIARY AND PLAN  
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ERG RETIREMENT 
TRUST AND THE ENERGY, RESEARCH AND 
GENERATION PROFIT SHARING PLAN,  
Plaintiff, 
v. 
BAY ESTATES GROUP LIMITED LIABILITY  
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; NORMAN I.  
ADAMS, IV; ACACIA PROPERTIES, L.P.; 
EVELYN C. HERMSMEIER, ERIC B. BENSON,  
and BRADLEY D. BENSON, AS TRUSTEES OF  
THE BENSON VIRGIN ISLANDS FAMILY  
HERITAGE TRUST; TRUST COMPANY OF  
AMERICA; and J.C. LOCKHART,  
 
Defendants. 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Civil No. 2016-cv-59 
) 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
) 
)  
) 
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
J. Daryl Dodson 
Moore, Dodson and Russell 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For the plaintiff. 
 
ORDER 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court is the complaint of Nicholas Saakvitne. 
I. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 
On July 28, 2016, Nicholas Saakvitne (“Saakvitne”) filed a 
debt and foreclosure action in the Superior Court of the Virgin 
Islands against Bay Estates Group Limited Liability Limited 
Case: 1:16-cv-00059-CVG-GWC   Document #: 105   Filed: 03/19/18   Page 1 of 5
Saakvitne v. Bay Estates Group Limited Liability Limited 
Partnership, et. al. 
Civ. No. 16-59 
Order 
Page 2 
 
Partnership; Norman I. Adams, IV; Acacia Properties, L.P.; 
Evelyn C. Hermsmeier, Eric C. Benson, and Bradley D. Benson, as 
trustees of the Benson Virgin Islands Family Heritage Trust; 
Trust Company of America; J.C. Lockhart; ERG Aerospace Corp.; 
VINGN, Inc.; Architectural Mill Work, Inc.; and the United 
States of America. His complaint sought to foreclose on real 
property described as: 
Plot No. 3 
King Cross Street 
Town of Christiansted 
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 
 
and  
 
Remainder Plot No. 254 of Estate Glynn 
Queen Quarter 
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 
(collectively, the “Properties”). 
 
The original complaint alleged that the United States had 
recorded a lis pendens against both of the Properties because a 
pending indictment sought forfeiture of those Properties. See 
ECF No. 1-2, at ¶ 32. On August 25, 2016, the United States 
removed the case to this Court. 
 
Saakvitne filed a motion to amend his complaint on June 12, 
2017.1 In that motion, Saakvitne indicated that the United States 
                                                          
1 Saakvitne had previously amended his complaint on November 15, 2016. 
Case: 1:16-cv-00059-CVG-GWC   Document #: 105   Filed: 03/19/18   Page 2 of 5
Saakvitne v. Bay Estates Group Limited Liability Limited 
Partnership, et. al. 
Civ. No. 16-59 
Order 
Page 3 
 
had released its lis pendens over the Properties. His proposed 
amended complaint removed the United States as a defendant.  
The amended complaint, which excludes the United States as 
a party, is now the operative complaint. 
II. 
ANALYSIS 
It is well established that “[i]f the court determines at 
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court 
must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).  
When the United States removed this action, it asserted 
that this Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1444. 
ECF No. 1, at 1. Title 28, section 1444 provides that “[a]ny 
action brought under section 2410 of this title against the 
United States in any State court may be removed by the United 
States to the district court of the United States for the 
district and division in which the action is pending.” Title 28, 
section 2410 provides, in pertinent part, that “the United 
States may be named a party in any civil action or suit in any 
district court, or in any State court having jurisdiction of the 
subject matter[,] . . . to foreclose a mortgage or other lien 
upon . . . real or personal property on which the United States 
has or claims a mortgage or other lien.” 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a). 
Case: 1:16-cv-00059-CVG-GWC   Document #: 105   Filed: 03/19/18   Page 3 of 5
Saakvitne v. Bay Estates Group Limited Liability Limited 
Partnership, et. al. 
Civ. No. 16-59 
Order 
Page 4 
 
 
Significantly, the United States is no longer a party to 
this action. As such, jurisdiction--to the extent that it is 
founded on the inclusion of the United States as a party--no 
longer exists. Moreover, the debt and foreclosure claims 
asserted by Saakvitne are state law claims, none of which 
present a federal question over which this Court may exercise 
original jurisdiction. 
Because the Court lacks original jurisdiction over any of 
Saakvitne’s claims, it is within the sound discretion of the 
Court to determine whether or not to exercise supplemental 
jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 
1367(c)(3)(“The district courts may decline to exercise 
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the 
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 
original jurisdiction . . . .”); Annulli v. Panikkar, 200 F.3d 
189, 202 (3d Cir.1999) (explaining that the decision to exercise 
supplemental jurisdiction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, 
“focusing on whether the dismissal of the pendent claims best 
serves the principles of judicial economy, convenience, 
fairness, and comity”). Exercising that discretion, the Court 
will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims 
Case: 1:16-cv-00059-CVG-GWC   Document #: 105   Filed: 03/19/18   Page 4 of 5
Saakvitne v. Bay Estates Group Limited Liability Limited 
Partnership, et. al. 
Civ. No. 16-59 
Order 
Page 5 
 
in this case. Thus, there are no claims over which this Court 
has subject matter jurisdiction. 
It is axiomatic that where, as here, a removed case suffers 
for want of subject matter jurisdiction “at any time before 
final judgment . . . , the case shall be remanded.” See 28 
U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, the Court will remand this matter 
to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands. 
The premises considered; it is hereby 
ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court 
of the Virgin Islands for all further proceedings. 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
 
Case: 1:16-cv-00059-CVG-GWC   Document #: 105   Filed: 03/19/18   Page 5 of 5