In Re Asbestos, Silica & Catalyst Dust Claims IV

2025 VI Super 16P

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX

IN RE ASBESTOS, SILICA and MASTER CASE NO: SX-22-MC-053 CATALYST DUST CLAIMS IV (Complex Litigation Division)

| (Re: 91 Individual Cases’)

Cite as: 2025 VI Super 16P. (Published)

Appearances J. Russell Pate, Esq The Pate Law Firm PO Box 890 St. Thomas, VI 00804 For Plaintiffs Warren T. Burns, Esq., Korey A. Nelson, Esq., Daniel H. Charest, Esq., Rick Yelton, Esq., and Chase Charbonnet, Esq Burns Charest, LLP 900 Jackson Street, Ste. 500 Dallas, TX 75202 For Plaintiffs

Arthur Murray, Esq., Stephen Murray, Esq The Murray Law Firm Hancock Whitney Center 701 Poydras Street, Ste. 4250 New Orleans, LA 70139 For Plaintiffs

Ryan Stutzman, Esq CSA Associates, P.C 1138 King Street, Ste. 100 Christiansted, VI 00820

1 This Opinion addresses the 91 individual cases, grouped under the above-captioned master case, for which Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corporation seeks dismissal in its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The cases are reflected in Court Exhibit 1, attached to this opinion in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 2

For Defendant Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corporation Matthew R. Thibodeau, Esq 800 Londsdale Building 302 West Superior St Duluth, MN 55802 For Defendant Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corporation

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Filed June 11, 2025)

Andrews, Jr., Judge INTRODUCTION

{1 ~—~Plaintiffs, former workers at Hess Oil Virgin islands Corporation Refinery (“Refinery”) in St. Croix, bring this action for damages against Virgin Islands Industrial Management Corporation (IMC), a refinery contractor. They allege during their employment, IMC negligently exposed them to toxic substances which caused them to suffer from pneumoconiosis, a lung disease. IMC seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that they failed to properly effect service of process upon it.2 Plaintiffs respond that any defect in serving process was harmless and the Court should grant them an extension to effect proper service. For the reasons mentioned herein the Court grants IMC’s request as Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for not effecting proper service and no justifiable reason exists to grant a discretionary extension

2 IMC also seeks dismissal based on the statute of limitations. The Court does not address that issue in this opinion since it concludes dismissal for lack of proper service is warranted

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 Vi Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 3

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

2 IMC’s motion (and supplemental motion) for judgment on the pleadings clearly seek dismissal of over 200 cases listed on its Exhibits J, K, M, N, O and P.* Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 18 — 19 (contending, that 97 cases in Ex. J and 71 cases in Ex. K, should be dismissed and that 4 more in Ex. M suffer from the same deficiencies); Supp. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 5 — 6 (contending, after referencing 71 cases in Exs. N, O and P, that the process, service, and jurisdiction components of its motion apply to every ASC IV case without exception”). Some of the cases listed on the exhibits are grouped under the instant master. Others are grouped under different master cases (i.e., SX-2021-MC-056, SX-2021-MC 057, SX-2021-MC-058, SX-2022-MC-007 and SX-2022-MC-054) and some are ungrouped. Ata hearing held on May 5, 2025, counsel for IMC clarified that it is not seeking to dismiss cases other than those under the instant master and ASC V. Accordingly, this opinion addresses only the ninety-one (91) cases on IMC’s exhibits grouped under the instant master case. See Ct.’s Ex. 1. IMC’s motion to the extent that it challenges other cases (ungrouped or grouped under other

3 The Court notes that IMC stated in its initial Motion that “the instant brief concerns only those cases that the Court assigned to ASC IVand V as of December 6, 2024. If new cases are assigned and the facts and arguments fit, VIIMC will supplement the motion to dismiss Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 1 atn 1. However, IMC subsequently filed a supplemental motion referencing cases added to the instant master in January 2025. It also stated, at the May 5, 2025 hearing, that its motion applied to all cases under the ASC IV and V master cases. The Court thus construes IMC’s motion as challenging all cases referenced in its exhibits grouped under SX-053 (ASC IV) or SX-054 (ASC V) as of the date of the hearing in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 4

master cases), is thus considered stricken q3 Further, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ notices of voluntary dismissal, five cases grouped under the instant master have been dismissed (i.e., 20-589, 22-092, 22 523, 22-531 and 22-537). Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1; Exs. O, N; See SX-2020-CV-589 05/08/25, CMS # 16; SX-2022-CV-092, 05/08/25, CMS # 15; SX-2020-CV-523 10/04/24, CMS # 9; SX-2022-CV-531, 10/04/24, CMS # 9; SX-2022-CV-537 10/04/24, CMS # 9. The Court will thus deny IMC’s motion relative to those cases as moot. Lastly, eleven (11) cases grouped under the instant master are the subject of an automatic stay imposed since May 2022 due to a bankruptcy petition filed by defendant HONX, Inc. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. N; SX-2022-CV. 008; SX-2022-CV-032; SX-2022-CV-043; SX-2022-CV-061; SX-2022-CV-062 SX-2022-CV-063; SX-2022-CV-068; SX-2022-CV-071; SX-2022-CV-074; SX 2022-CV-075; SX-2022-CV-076. The Court will thus deny IMC’s motion without prejudice, as to those matters, in light of the stay. Based on these preliminary rulings, the remaining portion of this opinion addresses seventy-six (76) of the cases listed on IMC’s Exs. J, K and P. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 2-4

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

q4 Between March and August 2022, Plaintiffs filed twenty-eight (28) individual complaints against IMC. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 2; IMC’s Ex. J. The court clerk signed sealed, and issued summons, on or before August 17, 2022, for all but one in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 5

complaint.4 See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 2. On September 29, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel served copies of the twenty-eight (28) complaints (via thumb drive) on Todd Newman, Esquire, of the Dudley Newman and Fuerzeig law firm in St. Croix Virgin Islands.5 Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 18 Ex. J. IMC’s official agent for service-of-process is George H. Logan, Esq. of the same law firm 8 id.; Ex. L Along with the complaints, Plaintiffs’ counsel served a single summons captioned [Clinton A. Henry (and 96 others, See Ex. A) vs. Virgin Island Industrial Maintenance Corp] containing counsel's electronic signature under the name of the court _— clerk as reflected below Id | Ex J

4 No summons was issued by the Court in case No. 22-114; however, the plaintiff did submit a summons for court signature along with his complaint. SX-2022-CV-114, 03/04/22 to 05/13/22

5 Counsel actually served ninety-seven complaints on Attorney Newman. Sixty-Eight of them are grouped under master case SX-2022-MC-054 and are addressed in a separate opinion. One (22-396) is grouped under master case SX-2022-007

5 At the May 5, 2025 hearing, counsel for Plaintiffs stated he did not doubt that George Hunter Logan is the resident agent for IMC as reflected in IMC’s Ex, L

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 6

SUMMONS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST, CRIOX

> Civil No. SX-2022-CV-114, 161, 181, 182 Clinton A. Henry (and 96 others. See ExtibitA} ) 283-286, 289.294, 296-298, 302-303, 308-351 ) 354-357, 359, 361-365, 367-371, 373-376, 381 Plaintiffs, ) 383-396 ve ; Complex Litigation Division Virgin islands Industriat Maintenance Carp. x > Action for Damages Defendant, }

eee. | JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Ta ‘Yodd H. Newman, Esq., agen! for Virgin Islands Lidustrial Maintenance Corp Address: Dudley, Newman & Feuerzeig. LLP 1331 King Street, Christiansted, V.1. C0820 Within the time limited by law you (see note below) you are hereby required to appear before this Court and answer to a complaint filed against you in this action. In case of your failure to appear or answer, a judgment by default will be taken against you as demanded in the complaint.

This 29th day of September 2022. Tamara Charles Glerk

of the Gourt

sf ovrey A. Neisom, Esq, Karey A. Nelson. Esq H. Richard Yetton, Esq.

BURNS CHAREST LLP

Now Ovleara, LATO 30 “70 J. Rosset B, Parr, Esq.

Telephone: (S04) 799-2845 The Pate Law Firra (V.L. Bar No: £124)

Faasimiie: (504) 884-3765 PLO. Box. 370, Christiansted. USV1 00821 knetion@bucnscharest.com Office: (340) 777-PATE (7283)

ryeltan@burmscharest.com Pax: (888) 889-1132 jsoykagéiburnscharest.com Pate@SumLawVi.com | SuntawVi@gmailcom

NOTE: The defendant, if served personality, is required to file his answer or other defense with the Clerk of thy Court and to serve a copy thereof upon the pigintifls attorney, within twenty-ome (23) days after servies of this summons. See, VLE BR. Civ. Pro 12(a)(1I(A). The defendsnt, if served by publication or by personal service outside of the jurisdiction, is required to fite bis answer or other defense with the CHerk of this Court, and to serve a copy thereof upon the attorney for the plaintiff, within thirty (0) days afier compfiction of the period of pubjication or personal service outside the jurisdiction.

See, TITLE S VLC. § 112 AND V.I. RB. Civ. PRO 12(A}(1)(B) AND Frvi.e 5 VLC. § 4981

This summons did not bear the Clerk’s signature nor the Court's seal and was not filed with the Court. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, attached to the summons, consisted of a list of 97 complaints filed with the Court (twenty-eight of which are grouped under the instant master case). See Mot. for J. on the Pleadings; Ex. J; Ct.’s Ex 1 at2. No affidavit nor other proof of service was filed with the Court. See CMS for Cases Listed on Ct.’s Ex. 1. On October 31, 2022, this Court grouped all but one of the 28 cases under the instant master. Order Opening Master Case, 10/31/22, CMS #1. One, i.e., 2022-114 was added to the master on January 8

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 7 2025. Order Grouping Cases, 01/08/25, CMS# 50 75 Between October and November 2022 Plaintiffs filed forty-five (45)

individual complaints against IMC. See Ct.’s Ex 1 at 3 - 4; IMC’s Ex. K The

court clerk signed, sealed, and issued summons, on or before November 28 2022, for all of the complaints. See Ct.'s Ex. 1 at 3 4. On January 10, 2023

Plaintiffs counsel served copies of the forty five complaints on Attorney Newman via a thumb drive.’ Mot. for J. on the Pleadings 18; Ex. K Along therewith

counsel served a single summons captioned [Janice George (and 68 others, See Exhibit A) v. Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Cor, containing counsel's

electronic signature under the name of Court’s Clerk Id.; Ex. K, as shown below

7 Counsel actually served seventy-one (71) complaints on Attorney Newman. Twenty (20) of them are grouped under master case SX-2022-MC-054 and are addressed in a separate opinion. Three (3) of them are grouped under master case SX-2022-MC-007. As explained earlier three (3) of the cases were grouped under the instant master and dismissed in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 8

SUMMONS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION

OF ST, CRIOX

} Civit No. SX-2622-CV-465, 466, 472,

Janice George (and 68 others, See Exhibit 4} } $06-8i4, 547-420, 522-847, 549.567, } $69-871, 573-578, S77-578 de SZ

Plaintig. }

“ ; Complex Litigntion Division Virgin Islands Industrial Maintensace Corp. } Adlon Re Benwass

Defendant, }

} JURY TRIAL DEMAND

To: Fodd A. Newman, Esq., agent for Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Comp.

Address Dudley, Nowman & Pauerzeig, LLP 1131 King Street, Cheistiansted, V.1, 00820

Within the time Jimited by fsw you (see note below) you are hereby required to appear before this Court anc answer toa complaint fled ageinst you in this action. in case of your failure to appear or answer, a judgmentby default will de takes against you as demanded in the complaint.

This 10th day of January

2023. Tatears Chores

dd

Neteonm,

Koren &. Beg.

knebson@bumschacest.com ‘Office: (340) 777-PATE (7283)

rat anlar epi Paraben men com [Senta ViGlamait com NOTE: The defendant, if seevint persoaally, is requited to file his answer or ther defense with the Clesk Of tke Court and to serve a copy thereat upon the plaintiff's attorney, within twealy-one {21} days afier service of this summons. See, V5. R. Cly, Pro #2{a}(iKA}. The defendant, if served by publicationor by personal sorvice outside of the jurisdiction, fs required t Me his answer or ober defense with tbe Clerk af this Court, and to serve « copy shercof upon the sttoraey for the plaintiff, within thirty (36) days efter completion of the period of publication of personal scrvice cutside the jusisdiction.

See. PHPLE 5 VLC. § 112 annVE, R. Cry. Pro 124415)

AND TALE 5 VAC.

§ d9t?

§6 This summons did not bear the Clerk’s signature nor the Court's seal and was not filed with the Court. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, attached to the summons consisted of a list of 71 complaints filed with the Court (forty-five of which are grouped under the instant master case). See Mot. for J. on the Pleadings; Ex. J Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1, 3-4. No affidavit nor other proof of service was filed with the Court. See CMS for Cases Listed on Ct.’s Ex. 1 at 1,3-4. On October 31, 2022 this Court grouped one of the 45 cases (i.e., 22-471) under the instant master Order Opening Master Case, 10/31/22, CMS #1. On January 9, 2023, the Court added 40 of the 45 cases to the instant master. Order Amending Schedule of Cases, 01/09/23, CMS #9. The remaining 4 cases (i.e., 22-517, 22-520, 22-525 and 22-552 were added on March 5, 2025. Second Order Amending Schedule of

In Re Aabsatos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 9 Cases, 03/05/25, CMS # 104

6 Between November 10, 2022 and April 11, 2023 the Court stayed

proceedings under the instant master case and extended time for IMC to file its answers. Order Granting Extension of Time to Answer and Stay of Litig for 90

days, SX-2022-MC-053, 11/10/22, CMS # 6; Order Granting Extension and Stay for 60 days. SX-2022-MC-068, 02/21/28, CMS # 16 1” On October 30, 2024 Plaintiffs filed two complaints against IMC, i.e., 24

365 and 24-367. See Ct's Ex. 1 at 4. They amended the complaints on November 4, 2024 and added more defendants. See CMS, 2024-367, 2024-365 11/04/24 CMS #4. No summons was filed and none were issued by the Court

relative to those cases See CMS SX 2024 CV 365 and 367 10/31/24 to

11/30/24 On November 16 2024 Plaintif counsel served copies of me aye amended complaints on Attorney Newman. Supp Mot for J.on the Pleadings 9;

Ex, P Along therewith counsel served a single summons for each complaint with captions matching the captions on the complaints and bearing counsel's electronic signature under the name of court clerk Id Ex P No affidavit nor other proof of service was filed with the Court relative to these two cases See CMS, SX-2024-CV-365 and 367. On January 8, 2025 , this Court grouped Case No. 2024-CV-365 under the current master Order Grouping Cases 01/08/25 CMS # 50. On January 27, 2025, Case No. 2024-CV-367 was added to the instant _— Order Grouping Cases, 01/27/25, CMS # 61

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 10

98 During 2022, 2023 and 2024, IMC noted its objection to service of process regarding the complaints in several documents filed with the Court as follows

1) October 27, 2022 In a Stipulation For Extension of Time to Answer and For Stay of Litigation, IMC noted, “Insofar as this stipulation is construed as an appearance by Defendant VIIMC, it is a special appearance, with all rights reserved, including, but not limited to, service and jurisdiction defenses, if any.” CMS re all cases on Ct.’s Ex. A at 2 (28 Cases)

10/27/22, Stipulation For Ext. 1 at n 1

2) January 12, 2023 in a response to this Court’s January 9, 2023 Order adding forty-three cases to the instant master case, IMC stated it “reserves all rights and defenses in all ASC IV [SX-2022-MC-053] cases, including to the sufficiency of process and proper service of process.” IMC’s Resp. to Ct.’s January 9, 2023 Order 2 at n 1, 01/12/23, CMS # 11 (SX-2022 MC-053)

3) February 15, 2023 In a Joint Status Report filed by the parties, IMC noted “insofar as this stipulation is construed as an appearance by Defendant VIIMC it is a special appearance, with ail rights reserved in each and every case, including, but not limited to, service and jurisdiction defenses Joint Status Report 1 at n 1, 02/15/23, CMS # 16 (SX-2022-MC-053)

4) August 21, 2024 In Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, “the Parties agree[d] that IMC reserves all right and defenses including to the court's jurisdiction in any constituent case under ASC IV and V, if such a case was not properly served upon IMC The Parties agree there is no waiver of any such right or defense by IMC as a result of this joint submission Joint Proposed Scheduling Order (SX-2022-MC-053), Ex. A, 1 atn 1 08/21/24, CMS # 21, 22 (Omnibus Scheduling Order)

5) September and October 2024 IMC filed its Answers to Plaintiffs’ compiaints during September and October 2024 Therein it raised the affirmative defense of insufficient service of process and lack of jurisdiction including the lack of the clerk’s signature and the court's seal. Answers re all cases

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 11

on Ct.’s Ex. A at 2 - 4, Affirmative Defenses 6) October 11, 2024 In a Stipulated Motion For Extension of Time filed on October 11, 2024, IMC noted it was filing the motion “without waiver of any defense, including defenses to service or jurisdiction that it may have in-any individual case.” Stipulated Mot. for Extension of Time 1 at n 1, 10/11/24, CMS # 25 (SX-2022-MC-053)

7) December 23, 2024 In an Unopposed Motion For Leave to File Brief Exceeding Page and Word Limit, IMC noted “as it has several times in the course of this litigation, VIIMC continues to reserve its right to all defenses in all constituent cases including, but not limited to service, process, and jurisdiction defenses.” Unopposed Mot. For Leave to File Br. 1 at.n 1, 12/23/24, CMS # 45 (SX-2022-MC-053)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19. IMC filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or Altematively

For Summary Judgment on January 8, 2025 On February 7, 2025, IMC filed a Supplement to its motion. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on February 12, 2025 and IMC replied on February 28, 2025. On March 11, 2025, this Court issued an order treating IMC’s motion as one for summary judgment. The Court held a hearing on the motion on May 5, 2025 and took the matter under advisement

APPLICABLE LAW

410 Since this Court converted IMC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings summary judgment jurisprudence applies thereto. Under Virgin Islands law summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 12

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” V.I.R. Civ. P. 56(a); Machado v. Yacht Haven U.S.V.1., LLC, 61 V.1. 373 380 (V.I. 2014) (stating summary judgment is not to be granted unless “the pleadings, discovery, and disclosures of materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact.). The movant bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact based upon the record. Aubain v. Kazi Foods of V.L, LLC, 70 V.I. 943, 948 (V.I. 2019) (quoting Brodhurst v. Frazier, 57 V.I. 365, 373 - 74 (V.I. 2012)). The moving party may meet his burden by “pointing out that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. If this is done, the burden shifts to the non moving party to demonstrate with affirmative evidence from which a jury might reasonably rule in his favor. Id. Pursuant to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court affirmative evidence’ means ‘actual evidence’ and ‘not mere allegations’.” Basic Sves, Inc. v. Govt. of the V.I., 71 V.1. 652, 659 (V.I. 2019). in considering a summary judgment motion, “this Court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id. Here, Plaintiffs are the non-moving parties LEGAL ANALYSIS

411 Defendant IMC seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaints on grounds they failed to properly effect service of process on it since: a) the summonses served did not bear the Court’s signature nor seal; b) they were not addressed nor served

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 13

upon the proper agent for IMC®; c) Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for their failure to properly serve process; and d) a discretionary extension of time to serve is unwarranted. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 18 — 19; Reply 8. Plaintiffs contend “they fully complied with V.I.R. Civ. P. 4 when serving these cases Opp'n 14. They set forth several arguments, addressed below, in support of their contention. The parties dispute raises the following potential issues A) Whether service of process was sufficient B) Whether IMC waived service of process

C) Whether Plaintiffs have shown good cause for their failure to effect proper service; and

D) Whether the issuance of a discretionary extension of time to effect service is warranted, if good cause is not shown

The Court addresses each of these issues and, for the reasons mentioned below

concludes dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaints is warranted in all but two cases 1) Plaintiffs’ Service of Process Was Defective

{112 Plaintiffs boldly assert they have fully complied with V.I.R. Civ. P. 4 when they served the summonses and complaints herein. Opp’n 14. Rule 4, which governs summons and service of process in the Virgin Islands, provides in pertinent part

8 The evidence presented, established that the person served, i.e., Todd Newman, is not the official resident agent for service of process on IMC. Nevertheless, he works in the same law firm as the resident agent. The Court thus finds this impropriety as minor, attaches little weight to it as a basis for dismissal and does not address the argument further

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 14

(a) Contents. A summons shali be in the name of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, and it must

(6) be signed by the clerk; and (7) bear the Court's seal

(b) Issuance. On or after filing the complaint, the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal. if the summons is properly completed, the clerk must sign, seal and issue it to the plaintiff for service upon the defendant. A separate summons must be issued for each defendant to be served

(m) Proving Service

(1) Affidavit Required. Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court

V.LR. Civ. P. 4. The unrebutted evidence on the record clearly establishes that Plaintiffs woefully failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 4 4113 Although the clerk issued “signed and sealed” summonses for seventy-two of the seventy-five complaints, Plaintiffs did not serve them. Instead, they served documents, titled “SUMMONS,” on September 29, 2022 and January 10, 2023 that were unsigned by the clerk and did not bear the court’s seal as required by Rule 4(a)(6) and (7). Further, the documents served bore captions created by Plaintiffs’ counsel! that do not exist in the Court's filing system [such as “Henry (and 96 others, See Ex. A) v. IMC” and “George (and 68 others, See Exhibit A) v IMC”) as they were never filed with the Court. Accordingly, these signature/seal deficient purported summons were void ab initio and incompetent to invoke the

In Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 16 Court's personal jurisdiction Similarly Plaintiffs attempted service of such

unauthorized deficient summons bore no legal effect Estate of Skepple Vv Bank of Novia Scotia 69 V.I 700 f2t (V | 2018) (stating [a]ny attempted service by a method that has not been previously authorized cannot be regarded as effective service i.e legal notice and cannot bring the person within the court's power ) The Court notes that Plaintiffs also failed to comply with Rule 4 by not filing any proof of service as required by V.IL.R. Civ. P 4(m)\(1) How, under these circumstances Plaintiffs conceive the notion that they fully complied with Rule 4 remains a mystery to the Court.? Rule 4 is plain and unambiguous Plaintiffs attempted service of process was woefully defective 2) IMC Did Not Waive Service of Process 14 Even where service of process is defective this Court can acquire jurisdiction over a defendant if he voluntarily appears. 5 V.I.C. § 115 (providing [a] voluntary appearance of the defendant shall be equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him."). Under such circumstances, service of process is considered waived. A defendant may also waive a personal jurisdiction challenge where he submits to the Court's jurisdiction by seeking affirmative relief (e.g., by requesting “that the court exercise its power to redress an independent wrong that is alleged to have been committed by the opposing litigant.”). Pollins

° At the May 5, 2025 hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel switched positions and conceded he did not “technically” comply with the requirements of Rule 4

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 16

v..Feurstein, No. 2020-0099, 2025 V.i. Supreme LEXIS 3, at * 22 (V.I. Jan. 24 2025). Such affirmative relief could take the form of a request to disqualify counsel, strike inflammatory allegations, or award sanctions presented in the motion to dismiss or answer. Id. at 23 915 Here, IMC filed several documents prior to filing its answer, as explained below, wherein they asserted service of process was defective. It subsequently filed answers and again asserted service of process was defective. Under these circumstances its answer is not a voluntary appearance equivalent to personal service of summons or a waiver thereof. See Club Comanche v. Danested Assocs., Civil No. 933/1995, 1997 V.I. LEXIS 33, at * 6 (Terr. Ct. July 11, 1997) (concluding the filing of an answer did not constitute a voluntary appearance under 5 V.I.C. § 115 since the defendant asserted therein that service was insufficient.). A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege. Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411, 417 (2022); Ubiles v. People of the Virgin Islands, 66 V.I. 572, 586 (V.I. 2017) (citing Johnsonv. Zerbst, 304 U S. 458, 464 (1938)) (stating “[a] waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.”). The multiple assertions by IMC prior to filing and in its answer, that service of process was defective clearly establishes its intention not to waive the right to challenge service of process. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Olivier, No. 708329/16, 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3828 at * 17 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. May 22, 2019) (finding no waiver where the

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 17

defendant filed an answer containing the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction.). Under Virgin Islands rules, a waiver of such a defense occurs when the defendant fails to make it by motion or include it in a responsive pleading V.ILR. Civ. P. 12(h)(1)(B). Here, IMC filed the instant motion challenging service of process and included such challenge in its answer. They also did not seek any affirmative relief that may be construed as a submission to this Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court concludes IMC did not waive its right to challenge service of process

3) Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Good Cause For Their Failure to Effect Proper Service of Process

116 Virgin Islands Civil Rule 4(n) governs motions to dismiss for lack of service in pertinent part it provides

Time Limits for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, 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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period

V.LR. Civ. P. 4(n). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to effect service of process within 120 days of filing any of the complaints. This is evident as no proper service has been made to date, and the complaints were filed since 2022 (i.e., over two years ago). The last complaint (excluding those filed in 2024) was filed November 16 2022. See Ct.’s Ex.1. Evenconsidering the five-month stay (i.e., from November 2022 thru Apr. 2023), the 120-day service deadline expired around August 16 in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 Vi Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 18

2023 at the latest. Pursuant to Rule 4, this Court must dismiss Plaintiffs complaints without prejudice unless: a) good cause is shown for the failure to timely serve; or b) a discretionary extension to effect service within a specified time is warranted. Ross v. Hodge, 58 V.I. 292, 310 (V.I. 2013) (stating “absent proper service, a case must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant’; and “[e]ven if the court finds that no good cause exists to warrant an extension, the court must at least consider whether any other factors warrant a discretionary extension.”) 417 Good cause equates to excusable neglect and requires a demonstration of good faith on the part of the party seeking an extension of time to serve and some reasonable basis for noncompliance with the rules. Beachside Assocs., LLC v Fishman, 53 V.1.700, 713 (V.I. 2010). This Court considers three factors when determining the existence of good cause: 1) reasonableness of the plaintiffs efforts to serve; (2) prejudice to the defendant by lack of timely service; and (3) whether plaintiff moved for an enlargement of time to serve prior to the expiration of the period prescribed by Rule 4. Ghirawoo v. John-Baptiste, 74 V.I. 185, 190

(Super. Ct. 2021); Seaborne V.L. Inc. v. Kurg, No. SX-14-CV-312, 2015 V.I. LEXIS

88, at * 2, (Super. Ct. July 22, 2015); Heyliger v. Caribbean Cinemas, 64 V.I. 143 147 (Super. Ct. 2016); See also Beautyman v. Laurent, No. 20-1171, 2020 U.S App. LEXIS 31210, at **6 - **7 (3d Cir. Oct. 1, 2020) (interpreting almost identical F.R. Civ. P.4(m)). Plaintiffs’ reason for not serving the defendant “within the 120 in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 19

day period is of paramount importance.” Beachside, 53 V.|. at 713; Chiang v United States SBA, No. 07-2686, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9668, at * 115 (3d Cir May 4, 2009) (stating “the ‘primary focus’ in the good cause inquiry is on a plaintiffs reasons for noncompliance with the time limit in the first place.”) {18 Here, Plaintiffs’ efforts to serve process on IMC was far from reasonable They deliberately executed a_ shorthand maneuver to. circumvent the unambiguous requirement of Rule 4, by serving a single unauthorized counsel created summons referencing numerous complaints Such conduct constituted a flagrant violation of Rule 4 which requires plaintiffs to serve individual summonses issued by the court for each complaint. Plaintiffs provided no basis for such conduct in their opposition. However, at the May 5, 2025 hearing (for the first time), they claim their goal was to not waste the clerk’s time or overburden the court. This argument is unavailing for two reasons. First, it definitively establishes that Plaintiffs’ conduct was not the result of accident, mistake, or negligence. Instead, it stemmed from a deliberate intention to ignore well established rules of procedure. Second, their efforts spared the court little burden since the clerk had already prepared and issued valid summons, for 72 of the 75 cases addressed in this opinion, before Plaintiffs’ attempted service of the deficient summonses. See Ct.’s Ex. 1 at2-4(Set2). Accordingly, the first factor the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ efforts or reason for not effecting timely service weighs against a finding of good cause

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 20

419 IMC contends they are prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ defective service since this case concerns decades old factual allegations, and each passing year compounds their difficulty in defending the cases. Reply 9. They claim relevant witnesses pass away and potential third-party defendants may dissolve, go bankrupt or change ownership as recently occurred with the dissolution of St Croix Basic Services. ld. The Court recognizes some substance to this argument as time is always a factor, and a finding of good cause coupled with an extension to effect proper service will cause more delays. The Court notes however that IMC received actual notice of Plaintiffs’ complaints years ago when service was attempted. Accordingly, the Court finds this factor as neutral q20 The third factor weighs against a finding of good cause. Plaintiffs never sought an extension of time to effect proper service until February 2025 after IMC filed their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This was two years and four months after IMC first alerted them (in a stipulation for extension of time filed October 27, 2022) that it was raising a service of process defense, and one year nine months after the 120-day period for service expired in August 2023 for the last complaint filed (excluding the two filed in November 2024) 721 In sum, none of the factors weigh in favor of finding good cause for an extension. Even if the prejudice factor was considered to weigh in favor of an extension, “the absence of prejudice alone can never constitute good cause to excuse late service.” Beachside, 53 V.1. at 713. The Court's “primary focus is on

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 Vi Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 21

the plaintiffs reasons for not complying with the time limit in the first place.” Id (citing MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1068 1097 (3d Cir 1995)). Under the circumstances, Plaintiffs have failed:to meet their burden to show good cause for their failure to properly serve IMC 4) A Discretionary Extension Of Time Is Not Warranted {22 Plaintiffs contend they are entitled toa discretionary extension of time to perfect service since any violation is a mere technicality and IMC has not been prejudiced The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has mandated trial courts, in the absence of good cause, to consider whether any additional factors warrant an extension of time to effect proper service Beachside 53 V.I. at 716 - 18 (citing Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1306 (3d Cir. 1995)). In deciding whether to grant a discretionary extension this Court considers several factors as indicated below. Id. at 718 (explaining that in determining the appropriateness of a discretionary extension, courts should consider: whether the statute of limitations would bar the refiled action; and whether the defendant evaded service or concealed a defect in attempted service.)

A) Prejudice to the Defendant {23 As explained above in Section 3, the Court finds the prejudice to IMC resulting from Plaintiffs’ defective service, to be minimal. However, there is a separate prejudice that would result from the grant of an extension. As explained below, a dismissal would end the litigation since the statute of limitations would

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 22

likely bar the refiling of Plaintiffs’ claims. It would in effect be a dismissal with prejudice. The grant of an extension would deny IMC the benefit of such a dismissal thus resulting in prejudice to it B) Expiration of the Statute of Limitations 924 Excluding the two complaints filed in 2024, Plaintiffs filed their last complaint on November 28, 2022. All of them involve personal injury claims governed by a two-year statute of limitations. 5 V.ILC. § 31(a)(5). Their causes of action would thus have arisen no later than the date of filing the complaints, and the statute of limitations would have expired no later than 2024. It is thus apparent that, if dismissed, Plaintiffs would be barred from refiling their claims. The Court is aware of this consequence and, finds nevertheless that it does not justify an extension of time after consideration of all the factors. See Beachside, 53 V.I. at 716 - 18 (concluding “the trial court may still deny a discretionary extension of time even if the statute of limitations would bar a plaintiff from refiling its claims.”), citing Petrucelli, 46 F.3d at 1306 C) Evasion of Service by IMC 925 Plaintiffs concede there is no evidence IMC evaded service. Opp'n 17 Nevertheless, they argue

IMC did wait years after Plaintiffs filed and served these Complaints, providing ample opportunity for IMC to raise any alleged service deficiency long before it filed its answers Instead, IMC remained silent, engaged in scheduling, and actively participated in this litigation for over two years -- only in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 23

now springing a purely technical objection. Had IMC voiced its concern in a timely manner; the parties could have resolved it without burdening the Court

Id. This argument is based on demonstrably false assertions. The record is clear that IMC in fact raised the service deficiency issue long before it filed its answers. It first raised the service deficiency issue on October 27, 2022. IMC again raised the issue six times between January 2023 and December 2024 Under these circumstances, there was no evasion of service or improper silence on the part of IMC."° D) Concealing a Defect in Attempted Service 726 Nothing in the record shows that IMC concealed any defect in Plaintiffs attempted service. To the contrary they revealed the defect many times as related above E) Promptness In Requesting An Extension q27 IMC first put Plaintiffs on notice of a potential service deficiency on October 27, 2022 through a footnote in a Stipulated Motion for Extension of time filed in all thirty service-challenged cases filed by that date. At that time, the 120-day period for service of process had not yet expired in twenty-seven of them. See Ct.’s Ex 1 at 2-3. For the next two years it noted its objection to service of process on

10 The Court further notes there has been no extensive litigation in this matter. No dates were set regarding the litigation until issuance of a case management order on January 27, 2025 after IMC filed the instant motion in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 24

six occasions in the instant master wherein the majority of the cases considered herein were grouped. Yet, Plaintiffs failed to seek an extension. Their belated request, after IMC filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings, was not prompt F) Actual Notice

428 The only factor that arguably mitigates in favor of an extension is that IMC received actual notice of Plaintiffs’ complaints. The Virgin Islands Supreme Court, however, has made clear that ‘constructive service without authorization is not legal notice; instead, attempts at such service are regarded as if no attempt was made to achieve service.” Skepple, 69 V.I. at 735. Although Plaintiffs attempted service gave actual notice, it was “not effective to allow a court to exercise power over a person.” Id G) Plaintiffs’ Reason For Not Effecting Proper Service 929 This Cout heavily weighs Plaintiffs’ reasons for not timely effecting proper service. As noted above, Plaintiffs, at the May 5, 2025 hearing, claimed their reason for not following Rule 4 was to spare the burden on the court clerks. As commendable as this goal may be, it is seriously undermined when one considers Plaintiffs’ rationale q30 To achieve Plaintiffs’ purported intent, one would expect counsel to have filed the “burden saving” summary summonses with the clerk to be signed and sealed. Instead, counsel filed the normal single summons in each of the seventy six cases. The clerk signed, sealed, and issued seventy-three of them. Amonth in Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 25

or more later, counsel then served the five unauthorized summary summonses on IMC and never filed them with the Court. How this procedure could have saved court time defies logic as the clerk had already prepared the summonses 31 Plaintiffs’ counsel further argued that every modern court, at least post 2010, falls on the side that-a signed and sealed summons with a modern electronic docket is anachronistic and that he complied with the common practice across the United States " Although he did not comply with Rule 4, he contended it was just a technical defect In other words counsel unilaterally chose to ignore Virgin Islands rules, which he deems antiquated, and follow foreign jurisprudence. This Court will not condone a trend that permits lawyers to choose to follow foreign (so called “modern’) jurisprudence over clear and unambiguous Virgin Islands rules when it suits them. Such is a dangerous practice that abrogates the purpose for which rules are promulgated; and is blatantly insulting. The Virgin Islands Supreme Court, not lawyers, regulates the rules of practice for Virgin Islands courts 432 Having considered the above factors, this Court finds no reasonable basis to grant a discretionary extension of time to effect proper service. The defective service did not stem from technical error, accident, or negligent conduct Plaintiffs’ counsel knew or should have known of the potential consequences of

+ Counsel made these statements at the May 5, 2025 hearing

In Re Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Ciaims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 26

serving unauthorized summonses and chose to do so anyway. Such conduct mitigates against awarding them an extension of time to effect proper service Accordingly, this Court, having considered the totality of circumstances, declines to issue a discretionary extension of time to effect proper service. See Lawrence v. Clarke, No. SX-14-CV-314, 2015 V.I. LEXIS 142, at * 7 (Super. Ct. Dec. 15 2015) (dismissing complaint for failure to timely serve where the plaintiff was on notice of the risk of dismissal and the statute of limitations barred refiling)

5) The Henry and Mcintosh Cases Warrant a Discretionary Extension q33 The above analysis suggests a different outcome for two of the 75 cases related to IMC’s motion (i.e., Henry v. V.VIMC, Et. Al, SX-2024-CV-365 and McIntosh v. V.VIMC, Et. Al, SX-2024-CV-367), even though the summons served, related to them, did not contain the Court’s signature nor seal. See IMC’s Ex. P. Several crucial factors considered above mitigate in favor of an extension such as: a) the Henry and Mcintosh cases were filed on October 30, 2024 and hence were just over three months old when IMC filed its Supplemental Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (i.e. on February 7, 2025); b) the prejudice to IMC caused by extensive delay (e.g., three years in the other cases) in effecting proper service of process in the other cases is minimal to nonexistent; c) at the time Plaintiffs sought an extension (i.e., in their February 12, 2025 Opposition to the instant motion), the 120-day period for service of process had not yet expired; and d) none of IMC’s numerous service of process notices filed in the instant master in Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV SX-22-MC-053 2025 VI Super 16P Memorandum Opinion pags 27 applied to the Henry and Meintosh 2024 cases as they were not yet fled nor were they grouped under the instant master until January 2025. For these reasons

particularly Plaintiffs timely request for an extension, the Court will deny IMC’s motion for summary judgment as to the Henty and Mcintosh cases and grant an extension to effect proper service

CONCLUSION

134 Having considered the evidence presented this Court finds that there is no

genuine issue of material fact concerning the issues raised by IMC s motion for summary judgment For the reasons stated above the Court further concludes

that 1) Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that service of process was valid and hence have not properly invoked this Court's jurisdiction over it Skepple 69 V.|. at 731 ; 2) IMC did not waive this Court's personal jeisdiction over it 3) Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to warrant an extension of time to effect proper service and 4) under the circumstances, a discretionary extension of time to serve is not warranted 35 As explained at the beginning of this opinion, the Court will: 1) strike IMC’s motion to the extent it challenges cases not grouped under the instant master case; 2) deny, as moot, IMC’s motion to the extent it applies to cases already dismissed, i.e., 20-589, 22-092, 22-523, 22-531 and 22-537; and 3) deny without prejudice IMC’s motion as to the eleven (11) cases grouped under the instant

In Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims IV, SX-22-MC-053 2025 Vi Super 16P Memorandum Opinion Page 28 master that are the subject of an automatic stay imposed since May 2022 due to

a bankruptcy petition filed by defendant HONX, Inc. i.e., SX-2022-CV-008; SX 2022-CV-032; SX-2022-CV-043; SX-2022-CV-061; SX-2022-CV-062; SX-2022 CV-063; SX-2022-CV-068; SX-2022-CV-071; SX-2022-CV-074; SX-2022-CV 075; SX-2022-CV-076. An order consistent herewith will be entered contemporaneously

DATE: June11, 2025 ees ZS __ ALPHONSO G. ANDREWS, JR Superior Court Judge

ATTEST

Clerk of the Court COURT GEERK III os! yt le VA “uf Loe ST DATE APS

IN RE ASCD IV CLAIMS (PRIMARY)

COURT EXHIBIT 4

DOCKET CHART FOR 2022-MC-053 (91 Cases)'

OFFICIAL

CASE COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER_ IMC’s NUMBER FILED ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX. NO

SET 1 (16 Cases)

20-589 06/18/20 Dismissed 05/12/25 QO 22-092 02/25/22 Dismissed 05/08/25 N 22-523 11/11/22 Dismissed 04/30/25 K 22-531 11/14/22 Dismissed 04/30/25 K 22-537 11/11/22 _ Dismissed 04/30/25 K 22-008 01/13/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N 22-032 02/04/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N 22-043 02/11/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N 22-061 02/24/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N 22-062 02/24/22 03/07/22 03/10/22 03/29/22 N 22-063 02/25/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N 22-068 02/24/22 03/07/22 03/10/22 03/29/22 N 22-071 02/24/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N 22-074 02/24/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/29/22 N 22-075 02/25/22 NONE 03/10/22 03/30/22 N 22-076 02/24/22 03/02/22 03/10/22 03/29/22 N

' The first five (5) cases listed above have been dismissed. Those in red remain subject to an automatic bankruptcy stay since May 2022. The dates of filing the complaints, issuance of summons and filing of answers were derived from the CMS docket for the individual cases listed that are grouped under Master Case SX-2022-MC-053. The dates of attempted service were derived from IMC’s Exhibits J, K, N and P, attached to its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

OFFICIAL

CASE COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER _ IMC’s NUMBER FILED _ ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX. NO SET 2 (75 Cases)

22-114 03/04/22. + +NONE 09/29/22 01/24/25 J 22-151 05/04/22 05/06/22 09/29/22 10/21/24 J 22-181 05/26/22 05/26/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-284 08/02/22 08/03/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-302 08/03/22 08/05/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-303 08/05/22 08/05/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-305 08/08/22 08/09/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-313 08/08/22 ~—-:08/08/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-314 08/08/22 08/08/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-321 08/08/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-323 08/06/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-331 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 40/01/24 J 22-338 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-339 08/05/22 08/10/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-342 08/05/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-346 08/06/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-348 08/06/22. 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-351 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 40/01/24 J 22-354 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-356 08/09/22 08/11/22 09/29/22 10/29/24 J 22-359 08/09/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-362 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-364 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-367 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-369 08/10/22 08/12/22 09/29/22 10/29/24 J 22-384 08/08/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-386 08/11/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J 22-393 08/11/22 08/17/22 09/29/22 10/01/24 J

2.

3

OFFICIAL

CASE COMPLAINTSUMMONS —_— SERVICE ANSWER MC's NUMBER FILED _ ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX. NO 22-471 22-506 10/04/22

14/11/22

10/12/22

11/14/22

01/10/23

01/10/23

09/27/24

09/27/24

KK

22-507 11/14/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 01/13/25. K 22-508 11/14/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 kK 22-510 11/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-512 11/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-513 11/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 10/29/24 K 22-514 © 11/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-517 14/11/22 11/14/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K 22-518 11/11/22 14/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-520 11/11/22 = 11/15/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K 22-522 14/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 -K 22-524 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 10/29/24 K 22-525 11/11/22 11/18/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K 22-526 © 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-527 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-529 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-530 = 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-532 11/11/22 11/15/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-533 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-534 11/11/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-536 = 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-538 = 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-539 © 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-541 = 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-542 = 11/14/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-544 = 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-546 11/14/22 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-547 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-549 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-550 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-552 11/15/22 11/16/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K 22-554 = 11/14/22 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-557 11/14/22 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-558 11/15/22 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K

4

OFFICIAL

CASE COMPLAINT SUMMONS SERVICE ANSWER _ IMC’s NUMBER ____FILED ISSUED ATTEMPTED FILED EX. NO 22-561 11/15/22 = 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-562 11/15/22) = 11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-563 11/15/22 §=11/17/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-565 11/15/22 = 11/18/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-567 11/15/22 = 11/18/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K

22-569 11/15/22, = 11/18/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-571 11/15/22 = 11/18/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-573 11/15/22 . 11/21/22 01/10/23 01/13/25 K 22-575 11/16/22 11/21/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K 22-582 11/16/22 11/28/22 01/10/23 09/27/24 K

24-365 10/30/24 NONE 11/16/24 01/17/25 P 24-367 10/30/24 NONE 11/16/24 01/17/25 P