IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX



ENTERPRISE ASSETS, LLC, )

) CASE NO. SX-15-CV-060

Plaintiff, )

) ACTION FOR FORECLOSURE AND

v. ) ORDER OF DISSOLUTION AND

) WINDING UP

PINNACLE DEVELOPMENT AND )

INVESTMENTS, LLC, JAMES FRANCIS GEIGER, )

a/k/a JAMES F. GEIGER and JAMES NORRIS, _ )

)

Defendants. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MOLLOY, Judge.



THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion for Entry of Default filed by

Plaintiff, Enterprise Assets, LLC (“Plaintiff”), on January 28, 2016. Plaintiff requests that the

Court enter default against Defendants James Norris (“Norris”) and James Geiger

(“Geiger”). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion as to Norris, but

will deny the motion as to Geiger.



I. BACKGROUND



Plaintiff commenced this action on February 17, 2015, seeking to foreclose on a

Charging Order lien on the Defendants’ distributional interest in Pinnacle Development and

to wind up the business of the company. By Order dated April 8, 2015, the Court granted

Plaintiff leave to serve Norris by publication. Publication was completed on May 6, 2015,

and proof of publication was filed with the Court. To date, Defendant Norris has yet to file



an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.

Enterprise Assets , LLC v. James Geiger, et al.

Civil No. SX-15-CV-060



Memorandum Opinion



Page 2 of 6



Similarly, by Order dated August 6, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to serve

Geiger by publication. Plaintiff filed a Proof of Publication as to Geiger on September 10,

2015. Geiger did not file a response or an answer within 20 days of service by publication.

Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant motion for entry of default on January 28, 2016.

However, in a letter dated February 4, 2016, Defendant Geiger stated:



I just found out today that the [B]ank of St. Croix has filed suit against me and



my company Pinnacle Development & Investments LLC. I have never



received a default notice, or [sic] I was never served.



I spoke to the [sic] Christina Williams the bank president a month ago and



she told me she was working with the board on reorganizing my loan. There



is something going on here that is illegal. I am asking for [a] 45 day extension

to find an attorney to represent me.



See Letter from Geiger filed on February 17, 2016. Although Geiger’s letter states that he

discovered that the Bank of St. Croix filed a lawsuit against him and the Plaintiff in this case

is Enterprise Assets, LLC (and not the Bank of St. Croix), the case number referenced in the

letter refers to case number “SX6015CV60”.

II. DISCUSSION



A request for an entry of default is governed by Superior Court Rule 47, which

states:



When a party against whom affirmative relief is sought has failed to appear,



plead, or otherwise defend as provided by law or these rules, or has failed to

appear at the time fixed for trial, the clerk shall enter his default.



Super. Ct. R. 47. Superior Court Rule 32 provides that a “defendant may appear by entering

his appearance before the clerk or by filing an answer with the clerk within 20 days after

service of the summons and complaint.” Super. Ct. R. 32. A defendant “appears” in an



action by making a written submission in which he submits himself to the jurisdiction of

Enterprise Assets , LLC v. James Geiger, et al.

Civil No. SX-15-CV-060



Memorandum Opinion



Page 3 of 6



the court or expresses an intent to defend against the civil action. See Lettsome v. VI Sea

Trans, 52 V.I. 109, 115 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2009); see also James v. Williams, 26 V.I. 20, 22 (V.I.

Terr. Ct. 1990) (“An appearance is a formal proceeding by which the defendant submits

himself to the jurisdiction of the court.”).



In this matter, Plaintiff served Norris by publication pursuant to 5 V.LC. § 112.

Service by publication was completed on May 6, 2015. As of the date of issuance of this

Memorandum Opinion, Norris has yet to appear or otherwise express an intent to defend in

this action. Thus, the Court will direct that the Court of Clerk enter default against

Defendant Norris.



With regards to Geiger, Plaintiff served him by publication effective September 10,

2015. While Geiger—who does not appear to be an attorney authorized to practice law in

the Virgin Islands—did not file an answer or otherwise appear within 20 days of service by

publication, he did submit a letter dated February 4, 2016 (filed with the Court on or about

February 17, 2016) indicating that he became aware that a lawsuit was filed against him

and his company, Pinnacle Development and Investments, LLC, but that he was never

served. This letter, dated approximately seven days after Plaintiff filed the motion for entry

of default, refers to the plaintiff as the Bank of St. Croix and further states that Geiger found

out about the lawsuit on the same day (February 4, 2016) he wrote the letter. The letter

also states that Geiger was never served or received a default notice. The letter also

references case number “SX6015CV60”, which is almost identical to the case number

assigned to this civil action, to wit: Case No. SX-15-CV-060. It is unclear whether Geiger is



under the mistaken belief that the plaintiff in this case is the Bank of St. Croix or that the

Enterprise Assets , LLC v. James Geiger, et al.

Civil No. SX-15-CV-060



Memorandum Opinion



Page 4 of 6



February 4, 2016 letter refers to this case. Nonetheless, despite the lack of clarity and the

ambiguous nature of Geiger’s letter, the Court will construe Geiger’s February 4, 2016

letter, apparently written by a pro se litigant, as an appearance made by both Defendant

Geiger and Pinnacle Development and Investments, LLC pursuant to Rule 32. See Dennie v.

Swantson, 51 V.I. 163, 169 (V.I. 2009) (opining that courts are to give greater leeway to pro

se litigants in dealing with matters of procedure and pleading). Because these defendants

voluntarily appeared in this case, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over

Geiger and Pinnacle Development and Investments, LLC. See 5 V.I.C. § 115 (“A voluntary

appearance of a defendant shall be equivalent to personal service of the summons upon

him.”).



Moreover, despite the fact that Defendants Geiger and Pinnacle Development and

Investments, LLC filed an appearance in this case more than 20 days after being placed on

constructive notice of this lawsuit, the Court will deny the motion for entry of default

because it does not appear that Plaintiff will be substantially prejudiced by such a denial

and this Court has a policy of favoring resolving disputes on the merits. See Adams v. The

North West Co., Inc., 2015 V.I. LEXIS 123, *18-19 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2015) (“{I]t is the

preference of this Court, in accordance with precedent from the Supreme Court of the

Virgin Islands, that cases be resolved on their merits”); see also Joseph v. Bureau of

Corrections, 54 V.I. 644, 650 (V.I. 2011) (“Both [the Virgin Islands Supreme Court] and the

United States Supreme Court have recognized that there is a strong preference for trial



courts to decide doubtful cases on their merits rather than dismiss them for failure to

Enterprise Assets , LLC v. James Geiger, et al.

Civil No. SX-15-CV-060



Memorandum Opinion



Page 5 of 6



strictly follow purely procedural rules.”); Marshall v. Sielaff, 492 F.2d 917, 918 (3d Cir.

1974) (“[T]he policy of the law is to favor the hearing of a litigant’s claims on the merits.”).



Geiger’s February 4, 2016 letter also requests a “45 day extension to find an

attorney to represent me.” Since Pinnacle is a corporation, and, with few exceptions not

applicable here,! “corporations who are parties in civil litigation must be represented by

attorneys,” Lettsome v. VI Sea Trans, 52 V.I. 109, 112 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2009), the Court will

grant Defendant Geiger’s request to stay this case in order for him to find an attorney to

represent both himself and the company. The Court strongly cautions Defendant Pinnacle

that if it fails to obtain counsel, the Court may exercise its authority to strike all filings

made by a non-attorney on Pinnacle’s behalf. See, e.g. Donovan v. Road Rangers Country

Junction, Inc. 736 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984) (“The defendant declined to hire counsel

to represent the corporations so the district court properly struck the defenses of the

corporation”); Laborers’ Dist. Council Const. Industry Pension Fund v. Compliance Mgmt.

Group, Inc., 2005 WL 1331059, at *1 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (ordering that any filing made by an

individual on behalf of the defendant corporation be stricken); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Hurricane Logistics Co., 216 F.R.D. 14, 16 (D.D.C. 2003) (ruling that a corporation may not

appear in court pro se, and if a corporation does not retain counsel, the district court may

strike the corporation’s answers and responses).



III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion seeking an entry



of default against Norris, but will deny the motion for an entry of default as to Geiger.



1 Pursuant to 4 V.I.C. § 112(d), a personal representative who is not an attorney may represent a corporation

in an action in the small claims division of the Superior Court.

Enterprise Assets , LLC v. James Geiger, et al.

Civil No. SX-15-CV-060



Memorandum Opinion



Page 6 of 6



Furthermore, the Court will grant Geiger’s request for an extension in order to allow Geiger

and Pinnacle Development and Investments, LLC time to obtain an attorney to represent

them in this matter. An appropriate order follows.



Date: March 29, 2016 a ZA hls

ROBERT A. MOLLOY



Judge of the Superior Court



ATTEST:

ESTRELLA H. GEORGE

Clerk of the Court



By: = ae

Ay Court Clerk Supervisor



Dated: 3 \ Ag