FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
PACIFIC BUSINESS CAPITAL CORP., 
Plaintiff,
v.
LITTLE SWITZERLAND, INC. and, L.S.
WHOLESALE INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
 
)
)
)
Civil No. 2004-159
)
)
)
)
)
)
APPEARANCES:
Marshall A. Bell, Esq.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
Attorney for the plaintiff
Christopher A. Kroblin, Esq.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
Attorney for the defendants.
ORDER
GÓMEZ, C.J.
Before the Court is the motion of Little Switzerland, Inc.
(“Little Switzerland”) and L.S. Wholesale, Inc. (“L.S.”)
(collectively, the “Defendants”) for reconsideration of the
Court’s October 9, 2007, Order denying their motion to dismiss.
Case: 3:04-cv-00159-CVG-GWB   Document #: 48   Filed: 05/12/08   Page 1 of 4
Pacific Business Capital Corp. v. Little Switzerland Inc., et al
Civil No. 2004-159
Order
Page 2
I.  FACTS  
In 1999, the Defendants entered into a series of written
contracts with La Bijoux for the purchase of goods.  On November
15, 2004, Pacific Business Capital Corp. (“PBCC”), assignee of La
Bijoux’s interest in the contracts, commenced this action against
the Defendants for breach of contract.  PBCC alleges that the
Defendants breached the contracts by refusing to pay the balances
due as payment for the goods.  
The Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”),
arguing that PBCC’s complaint is barred by the statute of
limitations.  In response, PBCC submitted a certificate of no
opposition to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.  On October 9,
2007, the Court entered an Order denying the PBCC’s motion to
dismiss.  
Now, PBCC moves for reconsideration of the October 9, 2007,
dismissal Order. 
II.  ANALYSIS
Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.4 (“Local Rule 7.4"),
a party may file a motion for reconsideration “within (10) days
after the entry of the order or decision unless the time is
Case: 3:04-cv-00159-CVG-GWB   Document #: 48   Filed: 05/12/08   Page 2 of 4
Pacific Business Capital, Corp. v. Little Switzerland, Inc., et al.
Civil No. 2004-159
Order
Page 3
1  Since the filing of General Star’s motion for
reconsideration, Local Rule 7.4 has been succeeded by Local Rule
of Civil Procedure 7.3 (“Rule 7.3").  Like its predecessor, Local
Rule 7.3 requires that motions for reconsideration be filed
within ten days after the entry of the order sought to be
reconsidered. See LRCi 7.3 (Jan. 25, 2008).
extended by the Court.” LRCi 7.4 (2000).1  A motion for
reconsideration must be based on: (1) “intervening change in
controlling law;” (2) “availability of new evidence,” or; (3)
“the need to correct clear error or to prevent manifest
injustice.” Id.  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 Virgin Islands, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553
(D.V.I. 2004).
The Defendants argue that, because the motion to dismiss was
unopposed, it was clear error or manifestly unjust for the Court
to deny the motion.  “However, the district court may not grant .
. . a motion to dismiss under [Rule] 12(b)(6) solely because the
motion is unopposed; such motions are subject to review for
Case: 3:04-cv-00159-CVG-GWB   Document #: 48   Filed: 05/12/08   Page 3 of 4
Pacific Business Capital, Corp. v. Little Switzerland, Inc., et al.
Civil No. 2004-159
Order
Page 4
merit.” Michel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 119 F.
Supp. 2d 485, 486 (M.D. Pa. 2000); see also Stackhouse v.
Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that the
trial court could not dismiss a complaint for failure to comply
with a local practice rule requiring a response to motions for
dismissal without examining complaint to determine if it stated
claim upon which relief could be granted).  The Defendants have
failed to demonstrate clear error, manifest injustice, an
intervening change in controlling law, or the availability of new
evidence with respect to the October 9, 2007, Order.  
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
      
S\                         
     Curtis V. Gómez
       Chief Judge
Copies:
Marshall Bell, Esq.
Christopher A. Kroblin, Esq.
Bailey Figler, Esq.
Case: 3:04-cv-00159-CVG-GWB   Document #: 48   Filed: 05/12/08   Page 4 of 4