SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
ST. CROIX MARKSMANSHIP 
ASSOCIATION, INC., 
PLAINTIFF, 
v. 
WESLEY JAMISON, KAREN QUINN, 
ANDRE MCBEAN, JACK KINCAID, 
ROBERTO BLEWITT, RICHARD 
ROEBUCK, TANIA RUEMMELLE, AND 
CARLOS ALOYO, 
DEFENDANTS. 
Appearances: 
Atiim Dia Abraham, Esq. 
The Law Office of Atiim Dia Abraham, LLC 
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 
For Plaintiff 
Lee J. Rohn, Esq. 
Lee J. Rohn and Associates, LLC 
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 
For Defendants 
Civil No. SX-2021-CV-899 
ACTION FOR BREACH OF 
CONTRACT, BREACH OF 
FIDUCIARY DUTIES, 
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 
ORDER,DECLARATORY 
JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE 
RELIEF 
CITE As: 2023 vIsvFER [M 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
WILLOCKS, Senior Sitting Judge 
,i I 
THIS MATTER is before the Court for review sua sponte. 
BACKGROUND 
,i 2 
On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff St. Croix Marksmanship Association, Inc. (hereinafter 
"Plaintiff') filed a complaint against Defendant Wesley Jamison, Defendant Karen Quinn, 
Defendant Andre McBean, Defendant Jack Kincaid, Defendant Roberto Blewitt, Defendant 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al. 
SX-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 2 of 13 
o vstrek l6 
Richard Roebuck, Defendant Tania Ruemmelle, and Defendant Carlos Aloyo ( collectively, 
hereinafter "Defendants").' 
3 
On February 14, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for referral to mediation. In their motion 
for referral, Defendants argued that "mediation will assist the parties in resolving this dispute 
without the cost, time and expense oflitigation." (Feb. 14, 2022 Motion for Referral.) 
'I[ 4 
On June 1, 2022, the Court entered an order whereby the Court, inter alia, granted 
Defendants' motion for referral to mediation, referred this matter to mediation, ordered that 
"the parties shall comply with the procedures set forth in Rule 90 of the Virgin Islands Rules of 
Civil Procedure (hereinafter 'Rule 90"), provided that, to the extent that Rule 90 contradicts with 
[the June 1 2022] Order [the June 1 2022] Order shall control," and that, "within ten (I 0) days 
from the date of entry of this Order, the parties shall file a stipulated notice to notify the Court of 
the agreed upon mediator and the date and place of the first mediation conference [and that] [i]f 
the parties fail to file the stipulated notice within such ten (10) days, then the Court will appoint 
the mediator." (June 1, 2022 Order.) 
5 
On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem Plaintiffs first requests for admissions as 
established. 
1 The complaint alleged the following causes ofaction: Count I-breach of contract (Defendant Wesley Jamison), Count 
II-breach of fiduciary duties of trust, care, and loyalty (Defendant Wesley Jamison), Count lll- breach of contract 
(Defendant Carlos Aloyo ), Count IV- breach of fiduciary duties of trust, care, and loyalty (Defendant Carlos Aloyo ), 
Count V-breach of contract (Defendant Roberto Blewitt), Count VI-breach of fiduciary duties of trust, care, and loyalty 
(Defendant Roberto Blewitt), Count Vil-breach of contract (Defendant Jack Kincaid), Count Vlll- breach of fiduciary 
duties of trust, care, and loyalty (Defendant Jack Kincaid), and Count IX-breach of contract (Defendant Andre 
McBean, Defendant Karen Quinn, Defendant Tania Ruemmelle, and Defendant Jack Kincaid). Defendant Richard 
Roebuck was not named in any of the causes of action. On the same date, December 30, 2021, Plaintiff also filed a 
motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. In the December 30, 2021 motion, Plaintiff moved 
the Court for a temporary restraining order to enjoying Defendants "from functioning as the executive board of the 
organization until [the Court] schedules a hearing on Plaintiffs application for preliminary injunction." (Dec. 30, 2021 
Motion.) 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al. 
$X-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 3 of 13 
o» vsurn [M 
'I 6 
On July 7, 2022, the Court entered an order whereby the Court, inter alia, referred this 
matter to Magistrate Judge Yolan C. Brow Ross for civil mediation and denied Plaintiffs July I, 
2022 motion to deem Plaintiffs first requests for admissions as established. In its order, the Court 
explained: 
The ten-day period has passed and as of the date of this order, the parties have not 
filed a stipulated notice to notify the Court of the agreed upon mediator. Thus, per the June 
I, 2022 order, the Court will appoint the mediator. At this juncture, the Court will order 
this matter referred to civil mediation before Magistrate Judge Yolan C. Brow Ross and 
extend the deadlines set forth in the June 1, 2022 order. 
... The June I, 2022 order specifically ordered that the parties should comply with the 
procedures set forth in Rule 90. Under Rule 90, "[discovery may continue throughout 
mediation" and "[s ]uch discovery may be delayed or deferred upon agreement of the parties 
or by order of the court." V.I. R. CIV. P. 90(d)(6). Plaintiff did not indicate in its motion 
whether the parties agreed to continue or defer discovery during mediation. Thus, at this 
juncture, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiffs July I, 2022 motion. 
(July 7, 2022 Order.) 
117 
On August 9, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery responses. 
18 
On August 19, 2022, the Court entered an order whereby the Court denied Defendants' 
August 9, 2022 motion to compel discovery responses and ordered the parties to file, within fifteen 
days, "a stipulated notice advising whether the parties agreed to continue discovery throughout 
mediation or defer discovery until after mediation (and) [i)f the parties cannot agree, or if the 
parties fail to timely file the stipulated notice, then the Court will enter an order deferring discovery 
until after mediation." (Aug. 19, 2022 Order.) In its order, the Court explained: 
In this instance, Defendants similarly failed to indicate in their motion whether the parties 
agreed to continue or defer discovery during mediation. Thus, at this juncture, the Court 
will deny without prejudice Defendants' August 9, 2022 motion to compel discovery 
responses. The Court will order the parties to file a stipulated notice advising whether the 
parties agreed to continue discovery throughout mediation or defer discovery until after 
mediation. See V.I. R. CV. P. 90(d)(6). If the parties cannot agree, or if the parties tail to 
timely file the stipulated notice, then the Court will enter an order deferring discovery until 
after mediation. 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al. 
SX-2021-CV.-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 4 of13 
03 v sure \M 
(Aug. 19, 2022 Order.) 
9 
On September 13, 2022, when the parties failed to file the stipulated notice by the deadline, 
the Court entered an order whereby the Court ordered that discovery is deferred until after 
mediation. 
,i IO 
On November 15, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions for failure to provide 
discovery responses and to mediate. 
1 1 1 
On December 6, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to amend answer. On December I 0, 2022, 
Plaintiff filed an opposition. 
12 
On March 23, 2023, this matter came before the Court for a status conference. At the status 
conference, the parties advised the Court that mediation has not been completed and that there are 
two pending motions. In tum, the Court ordered the parties to move on from mediation and to 
proceed with discovery so the Court can schedule this matter for trial. 
DISCUSSION 
I. Defendants' November 15, 2022 Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Provide 
Discovery Responses and to Mediate 
'!l 13 
In their motion, Defendants moved for the Court to sanction Plaintiff for "failure to provide 
discovery responses and mediate as ordered." (Motion 1) Defendants made the following 
assertions in support of their motion: (i) Plaintiff cancelled the mediation scheduled for June 28, 
2022 because "[Anita] Roberts-Felix would not attend." (Id.); (ii) The parties "agreed that in order 
to be able to successfully mediate the matter, Plaintiff would need to respond to Defendants' 
written discovery requests." (Id., at 1-2); and (iii) Plaintiff failed to provided dates for the 
outstanding written discovery responses nor to provide dates for mediation." (Id., at 2.) 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al 
SX-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 5 of 13 
14 
Plaintiff did not file an opposition in response.2 
20 vscrER LM 
15 
The Court must note at the outset that Plaintiff failed to even cite the relevant rule upon 
which they relied on for the motion.3 See V.I. R. CV.P. 6-l(a)(2) ("All motion must:... state with 
particularity the grounds for seeking the order, including a concise statement of reasons and 
citation of authorities;..."). Nevertheless, this is not a fatal error to Defendants' motion. Based 
upon the substance of Defendant's motion, the Court will construe it as a motion for sanctions 
pursuant to Rule 37 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rodriguez v. Bureau of 
Corr., 70 V.I. 924, 928 n.l, 2019 VI 10 (V.I. 2019) (citing Joseph v. Bureau of Corrections, 54 
V.I. 644, 648 n.2 (V.I. 2011) ("[T]he substance of a motion, and not its caption, shall determine 
under which rule the motion is construed."). Motions related to discovery pursuant to Rules 26 
through 3 7 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure are governed by Rules 3 7 and 37.1 of 
the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter "Rule 37 and "Rule 37.1," respectively). 
Rule 37 and Rule 37.1 mandates that the moving party submit a certification with its motion 
certifying that both parties engaged in substantive, good faith negotiations before filing a discovery 
motion. V.I. R. CIV. P. 37(a) and 37.1(a). See V.I. R. CIV. P. 37(a) ("On notice to other parties and 
all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion 
must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with 
the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court 
"A] 'motion is not automatically granted simply because it is unopposed.'" Ayala v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2017 
V.l. LEXIS 39, at I 9 (V.I. Super. Ct. Mar. 3, 2017) (quoting In re Alumina Dust Claims, 2017 V.I. LEXIS 2, at *26 
(V.I. 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's discretion." Augustin v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands 
Corp., 67 V.I. 448,501 (V.1. Super. Ct. Aug. 23, 2017). After all, the Court and not the parties has the authority to 
sanction for discovery violations. See V.I. R. CIV. P. 37. As such, the Court will still determine whether to grant 
Defendants' motion despite the fact that Plaintiff did not file an opposition thereto. 
' The parties are reminded to comply with the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure when filing documents with 
the Court. 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al. 
$X-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 6 of 13 
2023 vtscrER [S 
action."); V.I. R. CIV. P. 37. I(a) ("Prior to filing any motion relating to discovery pursuant to Rules 
26 through 37, other than a motion relating to depositions under Rule 30, counsel for the parties 
and any self-represented parties shall confer in a good faith effort to eliminate the necessity for the 
motion -- or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible."). In this instance, Defendants failed 
to include a certification stating their compliance with the procedural and substantive aspects of 
the good faith negotiation requirement of Rule 37 and Rule 37-1. Furthermore, as noted above, as 
the result of the parties' failure to respond to the Court's August 19, 2022 order inquiring whether 
the parties agreed to continue discovery throughout mediation or defer discovery until after 
mediation, the Court entered an order deferring discovery until after mediation. (Sept.I 3, 2022 
Order.) Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants' motion as to sanctions for failure to provide 
discovery responses. Moreover, given the Court's prior order, Defendants should have known to 
not wait for discovery to complete mediation. As such, the Court will also deny Defendants' 
motion as to sanctions for failure to complete mediation. 
2. Defendants' December 6, 2022 Motion to Amend Answer 
16 
In their motion, Defendants moved to amend their answer pursuant to Rule 15 of the Virgin 
Islands Rules of Civil Procedure "to set out the bases of denials more clearly, and to add affirmative 
defenses that were not plead by former counsel" and "to file a Third-Party Complaint against the 
Third-Party Defendants Cuthbert James and Anita Roberts-Felix, who are the holdover President 
and invalidly appointed Treasurer of the St. Croix Marksmanship Association, Inc." (Motion 1-2.) 
Defendants made the following assertions in support of their motion: (i) This case is in its infancy 
with no scheduling order in place to date." (Id., at 3); and (ii) "There is no prejudice to 
' Defendants referenced: V.l. R. CIV. P. IS (allows a party to amend its pleading and directs the Court to 
grant such leave "when justice so requires"); Bruni v. Alger, 2019 WL 3047276, at 4 (V.I. Super. June 21, 
2019), reconsideration denied, 2019 WL 3822308 (V.1. Super. Aug. 9, 2019) (citing V.I. R. CIV. P. IS(a)(2)) (a court 
should "should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires."); Toussaint v. Stewart, 2017 WL 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al. 
SX-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 7 of 13 
2023» vsvrER [u 
Plaintiff/Third Party Defendants." (d.) A copy of Defendants' proposed amended answer was 
attached to the motion. 
,i 17 
In its opposition, Plaintiff argued that the Court should deny Defendants' motion because 
it is "unduly prejudicial" to Plaintiff. (Opp. I.) Plaintiff made the following assertions in support 
of its argument: (i) "Defendants' request for leave is prejudicial to the Plaintiff in that it contains, 
inter alia, a request to amend the Complaint to include as Third-Party Defendants, Plaintiff['s] 
President Cuthbert James and its Treasurer Anita Roberts individually, for actions taken in their 
capacities as executive officers of [Plaintiff]."6 (Id., at 3); (ii) Defendants' proposed third-party 
complaint against Plaintiffs president and treasurer "contains causes of actions for fraud and 
misappropriation of funds against the President and Treasurer that are futile in light of this 
jurisdiction's position regarding the business judgment rule and is supported by the Plaintiffs 
3769522, at 9 (V.I. Aug. 29, 2017) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962)) (The V.I. Supreme Court 
clarified that, "[i)n keeping with the intent and spirit of the rules []governing pleadings and amendments, decisions on 
the merits are favored, and dismissal of claims on the basis of such mere technicalities are to be avoided."); Heyl & 
Patterson Inter, Inc. v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 663 F.2d 419,426 (3d Cir.1981) ("[R]igid adherence to formalities 
and technicalities must give way before the policies underlying Rule 15.); 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller 
& Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d $ 1488 (1990) (Rule I5 does not establish a time 
restriction for amending an answer, and motions to amend have been allowed at different stages of litigation.); Ali 
Intertek Testing Services Caleb Brett, 332 F.Supp.2d 827, 829 (D.V.I. 2004); Stanley v. St. Croix Basic Sers., Inc, 
2008 WL 5973489, at 2(DV.I Mar. 4, 2008); 
' Defendants referenced: Gourmet Gallery Crown Bay, Inc. v. Crown Bay Marina, L.P., 2017 WL 2210642, at 3 
("[P]rejudice to the nonmoving party is the touchstone for denial of [a motion to amend a pleading]."); Id. (citations 
omitted) ("An amendment to a complaint is considered 'prejudicial' if it places an unfair burden on the opposing 
party."); Cureton, 252 F.3d at 273 (In determining whether an amendment places an unfair burden on the opposing 
party, Courts consider "whether allowing an amendment would result in additional discovery, cost, and preparation to 
defend against new facts or new theories."); Stanley, 2008 WL 5973489, at +3 
• Plaintiff referenced: V.I. R. Civ. P. 15; Basic Services, Inc. , . Gov't of the V.l., 71 V.I. 652, 667 (V.I. 2019) (quoting 
Reynolds v. Rohn, 70 V.I. 887, 899-900 (V.I. 2019) ("Appropriate justifications [for deviating from the norm of freely 
granting leave to amend]include, but are not limited to, 'undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the pan of the 
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing 
party by vinue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment[.]"); Davis v. UHP Projects. Inc., 
2021 VI 5 (V.I. 2021); Gourmet Gallery Crown Bay, Inc. v. Crown Bay Marina, LP., WL 2210642 at 3 ("[Prejudice 
to the nonmoving party is the touchtone for denial (of a motion to amend a pleading]."); Id. ("An amendment to a 
complaint is considered "prejudicial' ifit places an unfair burden on the opposing party."); Stanley, WL 5973489 at 
*3 ("In determining whether allowing an amendment would result in additional discovery, cost, and preparation to 
defend against new facts or new theories.") 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al. 
$X-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 8 of 13 
o» vsurre lu 
good standing with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor." (Id.); (ii) "Plaintiff... categorically 
deny these allegations and further, its March 28, 2022, submission of its Certificate of Good 
Standing with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor causes Defendants' claims to fail on its face." 
(Id., at 4); (iv) "That the allegations are made at this juncture, i.e., through proposed amendments 
to their Answer, provides an immediate opportunity on Opposition for the Court to review the 
evidence before it and issue judgment." (Id.); (v) "The Defendant's lack sufficient evidence to 
survive summary judgment on their causes of action for fraud and misappropriation of funds 
against Plaintiff SCMA's President and Treasurer." (Id.); and (vi) "[T]he Defendants seek to 
prolong this matter by adding an unnecessary party, increasing the costs incurred by Plaintiff... 
[and] [t]heir inclusion unfairly prejudices the Plaintiff." (Id., at 7.) Plaintiff also discussed the 
background and procedure posture of this instant lawsuit. 
18 
The Court must note at the outset that although the parties treated the filing of the third­ 
party complaint as an amendment of Defendants' answer, third-party practices are governed by 
Rule 14 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure7 (hereinafter "Rule 14") while amendment 
of pleadings is governed by Rule 15 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure8 (hereinafter 
"Rule 15"). In fact, the third-party complaint is a pleading in and of itself and must be filed 
separately and served on the third-party defendants. See V.I. R. CV.P. 7(a) ("Only these pleadings 
7 Rule 14 governs third-party practice. A defendant must obtain leave to file a third-party complaint if the third-party 
complaint is filed more than 14 days after serving its original answer. See V.l. R. CIV.P. 14(a)(1) ("A defending party 
may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part 
of the claim against it. But the third-party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court's leave if it files the third-party 
complaint more than 14 days after serving its original answer."). 
' Rule 15 governs the amendment of pleadings. Rule 15(a)(l) provides that "[a] party may amend its pleading once as 
a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is 
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule l 2(b), (e), or 
(f), whichever is earlier." V.I. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1). Rule 15(a)(2) provides that "[i]In all other cases, a party may amend 
its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave" and "[t]he court should freely give 
leave when justice so requires." V.l. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). "(T]he decision to permit an amendment is vested in the 
sound discretion of the Superior Court." Powell v. FAM Protective Sen•s., Inc., 72 V.I. 1029, 1039 (VI 2020) 
(citing Reynolds v. Rohn, 70 V.l. 887,899 (V.l. 2019)). 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al 
SX-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 9 of 13 
202» vsvrER[3 
are allowed: (I) complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) a counterclaim or crossclaim; (4) an 
answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (5) an answer to a crossclaim; (6) a third­ 
party complaint; (7) an answer to a third-party complaint; (8) if the court orders one, a reply to an 
answer; (9) a complaint in intervention; and ( 10) an answer to a complaint in intervention."); see 
also, V.I. R. CIV. P. 4(d) ("Unless the court orders differently, a third-party or fourth-party 
complaint shall be served in the same manner as a complaint."); V.I. R. CIV. P. 5(a)(I )(C). Thus, 
Defendants should not have included their third-party complaint as part of their answer. 
A. Amendment of Defendants' Answer 
'I[ 19 
In its opposition Plaintiff did not object to Defendants amending their answer "to set out 
the bases of denials more clearly, and to add affirmative defenses that were not plead by former 
counsel." As such, the Court is inclined to grant Defendants' December 6, 2022 motion as to the 
amendment of their answer. See V.I. R. CIV. P. 15(b)(I) (Even as late as trial, "[t]he court should 
freely permit an amendment when doing so will aid in presenting the merits and the objecting party 
fails to satisfy the court that the evidence [relevant to the newly raised issue] would prejudice that 
party's action or defense on the merits."). However, the Court must point out that Defendants' 
motion failed to comply with Rule 15-1 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, which 
requires that "[a] party moving to amend a pleading shall attach a complete -- and properly signed 
-- copy of the proposed amended pleading to the motion papers" and "[e]xcept as otherwise 
ordered by the court, any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course or upon a 
motion to amend, must reproduce the entire pleading as amended specifically delineating the 
changes or additions and may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference." V .I. R. CIV. P. 15- 
1 ( a). In this instance, Defendants only included a copy of the proposed amended pleading with 
their motion but failed to include a copy of the proposed amended pleading specifically delineating 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al. 
SX-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 10 of 13 
o3 vtstrER [M 
the changes or additions. At this juncture, the Court will order Defendants to file separately: (i) a 
clean copy of a new first amended answer without the third-party complaint; (ii) a supplement to 
their motion that includes a redline copy of the new first amended answer (without the third-party 
complaint) reflecting the changes made to the initial answer. Defendants' December 6, 2022 
motion as to the amendment of their answer will be granted upon the timely filing of these 
documents. 
A. Third-Party Complaint 
,i 20 
In its opposition, Plaintiff essentially objected to the filing of a third-party complaint 
against Cuthbert James and Anita Roberts-Felix on the grounds that: (i) it would be futile because 
of the business judgment rule and because the third-party complaint cannot survive summary 
judgment and (ii) unduly prejudicial because "[t]he Defendants seek to prolong this matter by 
adding an unnecessary party, increasing the costs incurred by Plaintiff... [and] [t]heir inclusion 
unfairly prejudices the Plaintiff." The Court disagrees. First, Plaintiff failed to cite to any 
supporting authority that, at this stage of the pleading-the filing of a third-party complaint­ 
requires the third-party plaintiff to provide evidence to support its causes of action against the 
third-party defendant. See V.I. R. Ctv. P. 11(b)(5) ("By presenting to the court a pleading, written 
motion, or other paper -- whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it -- an attorney 
or self-represented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and 
belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:...(5) that the applicable Virgin 
Islands law has been cited, including authority for and against the positions being advocated by 
the party."); see also, In re Catalyst Litig., 67 V.1. 16, n. 12 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) ("The Supreme 
Court of the Virgin Islands has established that in order for a motion to be properly before the 
court, parties must support their arguments by citing the proper legal authority, statute or rule."). 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al. 
SX-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page II ofl3 
on» scree I'M 
Second, Plaintiff's arguments as to the business judgment rule and summary judgment are 
premature at this juncture. If, after the third-party complaint is filed and served, the third-party 
defendants wish to raise these arguments, they may file the appropriate motion in response to the 
third-party complaint. Finally, as to Plaintiff's argument that Defendants are prolonging this 
matter, the Court must remind Plaintiff that Plaintiff admitted at the March 23, 2023 status 
conference that the unavailability of one of its officers repeatedly delayed mediation and 
ultimately, mediation was never completed by the parties. 
21 
In this instance, the Court does not find Defendants' motion to file a third-party complaint 
dilatory-to wit, the parties are still at the initial stage oflitigation awaiting the discovery process 
since discovery was deferred until after mediation. As such, the Court will grant Defendants' 
December 6, 2022 motion as to filing a third-party complaint against Cuthbert James and Anita 
Roberts-Felix. However, the Court will order Defendants to file their third-party complaint in a 
separate filing and that the third-party complaint should set forth counts in separate numbered 
paragraphs with separate designation of the specific names of each count in compliance with Rule 
8 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. The third-party complaint should clarify whether 
the third-party defendants are sued in their official capacity as officers of Plaintiff. 
3. March 23, 2023 Status Conference 
1 22 
As noted above, the Court ordered the parties to proceed with discovery so the Court can 
schedule this matter for trial. Accordingly, the Court will order the parties to jointly complete the 
standard-form scheduling order attached to this Memorandum Opinion and Order as Exhibit A- 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al 
SX-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 12 of 13 
2023 VI SUPER l3iA.. 
titled "[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING PLAN" and jointly file 
the proposed scheduling order. 9 
CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby: 
ORDERED that Defendants' November 15, 2022 motion for sanctions is DENIED in the 
ENTIRETY. It is further: 
ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order, 
Defendants shall file: (i) a clean copy of a new first amended answer without the third-party 
complaint; and (ii) a supplement to their December 6, 2022 motion that includes a redline 
copy of the new first amended answer (without the third-party complaint) reflecting the 
changes made to the initial answer. Defendants' December 6, 2022 motion as to amendment of 
pleading is GRANTED UPON THE TIMELY FILING OF THESE DOCUMENTS. It is 
further: 
ORDERED that Defendants' December 6, 2022 motion is GRANTED as to filing a third­ 
party complaint against Cuthbert James and Anita Roberts-Felix. It is further: 
ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order, 
Defendants shall file Defendants' third-party complaint in a separate filing. The third-party 
complaint SHALL set forth counts in separate numbered paragraphs with separate designation of 
the specific names of each count in compliance with Rule 8 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil 
Procedure. The third-party complaint SHALL clarify whether the third-party defendants are sued 
in their official capacity as officers of Plaintiff. It is further: 
' It has recently come to the Court's attention that the proposed scheduling orders filed before this Court often fails to 
include certain entries and deadlines, whether inadvertently or intentionally. Thus, a standard-form scheduling order 
(see Exhibit A), which is based off Form 16-A of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, is provided here for the 
parties to use. 
St. Croix Marksmanship v. Jamison, et al 
SX-2021-CV-899 
Memorandum Opinion and Order 
Page 13 of 13 
2023 VI SUPER 
ORDERED that Defendants shall COMPLETE service of the third-party complaint and 
summons and FILE PROOF OF SERVICE for the third-party defendants within one-hundred 
and twenty days (120) from the date of filing of the third-party complaint. If a third-party 
defendant is not served within one-hundred and twenty days (120) from the date of filing of 
the third-party complaint, the Court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff -­ 
must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made 
within a specified time; provide that, if Defendants show good cause for the failure, the Court must 
extend the time for service for an appropriate period. And it is further: 
ORDERED that, within fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this Order, the 
parties shall JOINTLY COMPLETE the standard-form scheduling order attached to this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order as Exhibit A titled "[PROPOSED] JOINT DISCOVERY 
AND SCHEDULING PLAN" and JOINTLY FILE the proposed scheduling order. The parties 
shall FILL-IN each blank space with a DEADLINE or indicate that it is not applicable; any 
indication that a deadline is to be determined later is NOT ACCEPT ABLE and a date will be 
entered by the Court. 
DONE and so ORDERED i, _ D a y or 0pal ,2023. 
ATTEST: 
Tamara Charles 
Clerk of the Court 
By: 
Court Clerk Supervisor 
Dated: ------------ 
-%4...el.. 
Senior Sitting Judge of the Superior Court 
Sharisse A. Bascombe
April 5, 2023
EXHIBIT A 
(PROPOSED) JOINT DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING PLAN 
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
Civil No. SX- -CV-_ 
PLAINTIFF(S), 
v. 
DEFENDANT(S). 
(PROPOSED) JOINT DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING PLAN 
THE PARTIES to the above-captioned civil action, in accordance with Virgin Islands 
Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26, agree and stipulate to the following discovery and scheduling 
plan: 
I. All initial disclosures pursuant to V.I. R. CIV. P. 26(a) shall be served on all parties not later 
than ---------------- 
2. All written interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions 
shall be propounded not later than, and all responses thereto, including objections, shall be 
served not later than ---------------- 
3. No party shall propound more than 25 interrogatories, 25 requests for production of documents, 
and 25 requests for admissions, including all discrete subparts thereof, unless otherwise 
stipulated by the parties or ordered by the court. 
4. All motions to amend the pleadings to add claims, defenses, and/or parties shall be filed and 
served not later than 
. All fact witness depositions, 
including depositions of non-parties, taken for purposes of discovery and/or to preserve 
testimony for trial, shall be completed by 
_ 
5. No party shall take more ten ( I 0) fact and expert witness depositions, no single deposition shall 
exceed more than seven (7) hours in durations, and any single deposition shall be completed on 
the same day on which it is commenced, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties or ordered 
by the court. 
6. All motions to compel, for discovery, sanctions, or for protective orders with respect to all initial 
disclosures and fact discovery, shall be filed and served not later than WITHIN 90 DAYS 
FROM THE DATE THE DISCOVERY WAS PROPOUNDED. 
7. The parties' first mediation session shall be commenced and completed not later than 
________________ . Rule 90 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil 
Procedure shall govern all mediation sessions conducted in this civil action. 
___________ ,·. ----------- 
SX- 
-CV­ 
(Proposed) Joint Discovery Scheduling Plan 
Page 2 of3 
8. All Plaintiffs shall serve notices identifying all of their expert witnesses, and said expert 
witnesses' 
curriculum 
vitae 
and 
written 
reports, 
not 
later 
than 
9. All Defendants, Third Party Plaintiffs, and Intervenors shall serve notices identifying all of their 
expert witnesses, and said expert witnesses' curriculum vitae and written reports, not later than 
I 0. 
All Third Party Defendants shall serve notices identifying all of their expert witnesses, and 
said 
expert 
witnesses' 
curriculum 
vitae, 
not 
later 
than 
1 1 . 
All expert witness depositions, for purposes of discovery and to preserve testimony for 
trial, shall be completed not later than ----------------- 
12. 
All motions to compel, for sanctions, or for protective orders with respect to expert 
discovery, shall be filed and served not later than WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE DA TE 
THE DISCOVERY WAS PROPOUNDED. 
13. 
All dispositive motions, except for motions challenging subject matter jurisdiction which 
may be filed at any time, and Daubert/Kuhmo motions shall be filed and served not later than 
14. 
All motions in limine and V.I. Rule of Evidence 104 motions shall be filed and served not 
later than WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE JURY SELECTION/TRIAL IS 
SCHEDULED TO COMMENCE. 
I 5. 
A status conference is scheduled for 
[PLEASE LEAVE BLANK. COURT USE ONLY.] 
16. 
This Joint Discovery and Scheduling Plan may not be amended, except as ordered by the 
court for good cause shown. 
DATED: ,20 
Respectfully submitted, 
Attorney Name: 
_ 
Attorney fol 
Office Name: 
Finn Address: 
Telephone No.: 
_ 
E-mail address: ------------ 
V. I. Bar No.: 
Attorney Name: 
_ 
Attorney.for 
_ 
Office Name: 
Finn Address: 
Telephone No.: 
_ 
E-mail address: ------------ 
V. I. Bar No.: 
__________ \', ---------- 
[Proposed] Joint Discovery Scheduling Plan 
Page 3 of 3 
SX- 
-CV­ 
The foregoing Proposed Joint Discovery and Scheduling Plan is APPROVED. 
DONE and so ORDERED this 
day of April, 2023. 
ATTEST: 
Tamara Charles 
Clerk of the Court 
HAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS 
Senior Sitting Judge of the Superior Court 
By: 
Court Clerk Supervisor 
Lated'