Halliday v. Great Lakes Insurance SE

Virgin Islands

Halliday v. Great Lakes Insurance SE

DecidedJuly 15, 2019

Docket3:18-cv-00072

StatusUnknown

This text of Halliday v. Great Lakes Insurance SE (Halliday v. Great Lakes Insurance SE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Virgin Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Halliday v. Great Lakes Insurance SE, (vid 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║

BRUCE S. HALLIDAY, ║ ║ 3:18-cv-00072 Plaintiff, ║ ║ v. ║ ║ GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, ET AL., ║ ║ Defendants. ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Neil D. Goldman, Esq. Alex M. Moskowitz, Esq.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Revised Proposed Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter, “Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”), which the Court construes to be 1 “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File SecOonRdD AERmEeDnd ed Complaint” [ECF No. 41]. WHEREFORE, it is now hereby that the parties shall file supplemental briefs reg arding the followinBge nisjsaumeisn: v. Thomas Howell Grp. 1) What effect does aff’d sub nom., B,e Cnijva.m Nion. v9. 6G-ecnv.- A00cc0i7d1en, 2t 0In0s2. CWo.L 31573004 (D.V.I. Apr. 22, 2002), 1 The operative docket entry upon which Plaintiff seeks relief is stylized as “Notice of Filing Revised Proposed Second Amended Complaint by Bruce S. Halliday re [ECF] 40 Order on Motion to Amend Complaint.” Although there is no accompanying motion, Plaintiff—in his Reply Brief—supplied the Court with proposed orders regarding both the Motion to Dismiss and what he refers to as a “Motion for Leave to Amend” [ECF Nos. 46-1, 46-2]. On page one of Plaintiff’s SAC, he references the fact that this filing is in response to Judge Miller’s denial without prejudice of his Motion to Amend Complaint. Further, in a footnote in his Reply Brief, Plaintiff wrote “To the extent necessary, by this Reply, [Plaintiff] renews his Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint by the Revised Proposed Second Amended Complaint.” [ECF No. 46 at 4 n.2]. Though the Court would prefer that future filings be properly stylized so that all parties—and the Court—can operate on common terms, the of Puerto Rico , 90 Fed. Appx. 434 (3d Cir. 2004) have on the outcome of Plaintiff’s negligence and third-party beneficiary claims against Wager? 2) Under Virgin Islands law, are ordinary negligence and gross negligence separate

causes of action? If so, could a claimant state a claim for gross negligence without doing so for ordinary negligence, based on the same set of facts? The parties’ obnri eofrs breegfoarrdei Jnugl yth 2e4se, 2is0s1u9es shall be no longer than 10 pages each and must be submitted .

ENTER:

Dated: July 15, 2019 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║

BRUCE S. HALLIDAY, ║ ║ 3:18-cv-00072 Plaintiff, ║ ║ v. ║ ║ GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, ET AL., ║ ║ Defendants. ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Neil D. Goldman, Esq. Alex M. Moskowitz, Esq.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Revised Proposed Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter, “Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”), which the Court construes to be 1 “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File SecOonRdD AERmEeDnd ed Complaint” [ECF No. 41]. WHEREFORE, it is now hereby that the parties shall file supplemental briefs reg arding the followinBge nisjsaumeisn: v. Thomas Howell Grp. 1) What effect does aff’d sub nom., B,e Cnijva.m Nion. v9. 6G-ecnv.- A00cc0i7d1en, 2t 0In0s2. CWo.L 31573004 (D.V.I. Apr. 22, 2002), 1 The operative docket entry upon which Plaintiff seeks relief is stylized as “Notice of Filing Revised Proposed Second Amended Complaint by Bruce S. Halliday re [ECF] 40 Order on Motion to Amend Complaint.” Although there is no accompanying motion, Plaintiff—in his Reply Brief—supplied the Court with proposed orders regarding both the Motion to Dismiss and what he refers to as a “Motion for Leave to Amend” [ECF Nos. 46-1, 46-2]. On page one of Plaintiff’s SAC, he references the fact that this filing is in response to Judge Miller’s denial without prejudice of his Motion to Amend Complaint. Further, in a footnote in his Reply Brief, Plaintiff wrote “To the extent necessary, by this Reply, [Plaintiff] renews his Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint by the Revised Proposed Second Amended Complaint.” [ECF No. 46 at 4 n.2]. Though the Court would prefer that future filings be properly stylized so that all parties—and the Court—can operate on common terms, the of Puerto Rico , 90 Fed. Appx. 434 (3d Cir. 2004) have on the outcome of Plaintiff’s negligence and third-party beneficiary claims against Wager? 2) Under Virgin Islands law, are ordinary negligence and gross negligence separate

causes of action? If so, could a claimant state a claim for gross negligence without doing so for ordinary negligence, based on the same set of facts? The parties’ obnri eofrs breegfoarrdei Jnugl yth 2e4se, 2is0s1u9es shall be no longer than 10 pages each and must be submitted .

ENTER:

Dated: July 15, 2019 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Halliday v. Great Lakes Insurance SE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halliday-v-great-lakes-insurance-se-vid-2019.