FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEEMA JUDI NAGLEBERG, as EXECUTRIX
FOR THE ESTATE OF JENS-PETER KEMMLER
a/k/a JENS PETER KEMMLER; and
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 2008-06
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ATTORNEYS:
Raegan M. King, Esq.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the plaintiff,
George M. Miller, Esq.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Seema Judi Nagleberg, as Executrix for the Estate of
Jens-Peter Kemmler a/k/a Jens Peter Kemmler, 
George Hedley Phillips, Esq.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the Government of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal
Revenue.
ORDER
GÓMEZ, C.J.
Before the Court is the motion of FirstBank Puerto Rico 
(“FirstBank”) for reconsideration of this Court’s December 9,
2008, Order denying FirstBank’s motion for summary judgment.
Case: 3:08-cv-00006-CVG-GWB   Document #: 41   Filed: 12/24/08   Page 1 of 5
FirstBank v. Nagleberg, et al.
Civil No. 2008-06
Order
Page 2
On January 14, 2008, FirstBank commenced this debt and
foreclosure action against defendants Seema Judi Nagleberg
(“Nagleberg”), as Executrix for the Estate of Jens-Peter Kemmler
a/k/a Jens Peter Kemmler, and the Government of the Virgin
Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue (the “IRB”).  On November 3,
2008, FirstBank moved for summary judgment against the
defendants.  On November 20, 2008, Nagleberg filed an opposition
to FirstBank’s summary judgment motion.  On December 9, 2008,
this Court entered an Order denying the motion for summary
judgment. 
FirstBank has timely moved for reconsideration of the
December 9, 2008, Order.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3 provides:
A party may file a motion asking the court to
reconsider its order or decision. . . .  A motion to
reconsider shall be based on:
1. Intervening change in controlling law;
2. Availability of new evidence, or;
3. The need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice
LRCi 7.3 (2008).  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
Case: 3:08-cv-00006-CVG-GWB   Document #: 41   Filed: 12/24/08   Page 2 of 5
FirstBank v. Nagleberg, et al.
Civil No. 2008-06
Order
Page 3
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 V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). 
Here, FirstBank does not assert that there has been an
intervening change in controlling law, or that new evidence is
available.  Rather, FirstBank argues that reconsideration is
required in order to correct clear error and prevent manifest
injustice.  Specifically, FirstBank contends that the Court erred
by ruling on the summary judgment motion before the expiration of
the deadline for filing a reply brief.  
Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1(a)(2), any
reply to a response in opposition to a summary judgment motion
“shall be filed within ten (10) days of the filing of the
response.” LRCi 56.1(a)(2).  In calculating the reply period
under Local Rule 56.1(a)(2), weekends and “legal holidays” are
excluded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(2) (stating that weekends and
“legal holidays” are excluded when calculating time periods
shorter than eleven days); see also LRCi 6.1 (defining the term
“legal holiday” to include “any other day appointed as a holiday
Case: 3:08-cv-00006-CVG-GWB   Document #: 41   Filed: 12/24/08   Page 3 of 5
FirstBank v. Nagleberg, et al.
Civil No. 2008-06
Order
Page 4
by the Territory of the Virgin Islands on which the District
Court of the Virgin Islands is closed”).1  
Here, the reply period started to run on November 21, 2008,
the day after Nagleberg filed her opposition to FirstBank’s
summary judgment motion.  Excluding intervening weekends and
“legal holidays,”2 the deadline for filing a reply to Nagleberg’s
opposition to FirstBank’s summary judgment motion expired on
December 5, 2008.  The December 9, 2008, Order was entered
several days after the reply period had expired.3  Thus,
1  Title 1, section 171(a) of the Virgin Islands Code lists
the days recognized as “legal holidays” in the territory.  The
statute further defines the term “legal holiday” to include “such
other days as the President or the Governor may by proclamation
declare to be holidays.” V.I. Code Ann. tit. 1, § 171(a).
2  The only “legal holiday” that occurred during the
relevant time period was Thanksgiving Day, which fell on
Thursday, November 27, 2008.  While the Court was closed on
Friday, November 28, 2008, the Governor did not issue any
proclamation declaring that day to be a “legal holiday,” pursuant
to Section 171(a).  Therefore, Friday, November 28, 2008, is not
excluded under Local Rule 6.1.
3  FirstBank claims that the reply period did not expire
until December 11, 2008, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(d) as authority for that calculation.  Under Rule 6(d), “[w]hen
a party may or must act within a specified time after service and
service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days
are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule
6(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (emphasis added).  Here, any reply to
Nagleberg’s opposition was due within ten days after the filing
of the opposition. See LRCi 56.1(a)(2).  FirstBank was not
permitted or required to act within a specified time after
service.  Under these circumstances, Rule 6(d) is inapplicable.
Case: 3:08-cv-00006-CVG-GWB   Document #: 41   Filed: 12/24/08   Page 4 of 5
FirstBank v. Nagleberg, et al.
Civil No. 2008-06
Order
Page 5
FirstBank has failed to show clear error or manifest injustice
with respect to the December 9, 2008, Order. 
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
  
S\                             
    CURTIS V. GÓMEZ
          Chief Judge
  
Case: 3:08-cv-00006-CVG-GWB   Document #: 41   Filed: 12/24/08   Page 5 of 5