FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX
SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION ) CASE NO SX 16 CV 065 Plaintiff, ) ) ACTION FOR DECLARATORY IUDGMENT V I ) [URY TRIAL DEMANDED MANAL MOHAMMAD YOUSEF ) Defendant/ ] Counterclaimant )
HISHAM HAMED derivatively on behalf 5 ] CASE NO SX 16 CV 650 of SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION ) Plaintiff ) DERIVATIVE SHAREHOLDER SUIT ACTION ) FOR DAMAGES AND CICO RELIEF V ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED FATHI YUSUF ISAM YOUSEF and JAMIL ) YOUSEF ] Defendants, ) ) and ] ) SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION ) Nominal Defendant ) ; MANAL MOHAMMAD YOUSEF a/k/a ) CASE NO SX 17 CV 342 MANAL MOHAMAD YOUSEF ] Plaintiff ) ACTION FOR DEBT AND FORECLOSURE OF ) REAL PROPERTY MORTGAGE V )) * * *
SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION ) Defendant / Counterclaimant / ) Consolidated with 8X 16 CV 065 Third Party Plaintiff, ) ) V ) FATHI YUSUF ) Third Party Defendant ) I Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp, er al 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS SX 16 CV 065 / 8X 16 CV 650 / 5X 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 2 of 17
Cite as 2020 VI Super 43
Appearances
JOEL H HOLT ESQ Law Offices of Joel H Holt Christiansted VI 00820 For Sixteen Plus Corporation and stham Horned
CARL] HARTMANN Ill ESQ Christiansted VI 00820 For Sixteen Plus Corporation and Hisham Hamed
MARKW ECKARD ESQ Hamm Eckard LLP Gallows Bay VI 00820 For Sixteen Plus Corporation and Hisham Hamed
GREGORY H HODGES ESQ CHARLOTTE PERRELL ESQ LISA MICHELLE KOMIVES ESQ Dudley Newman Feuerzeig LLP St Thomas V100804 For Fathi Yusuf
JAMES L HYMES III Law Office ofjames L Hymes, P C St Thomas Vi 00802 For Mann] Mohammad Yousefi lsam Yousefi and jam! Yousef
MEMORANDUM OPINION MOLLOY judge 111 THESE MATTERS came before the Court for a hearing on whether they require exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case keep costs reasonable and promote effective decision making by the court the parties and counsel VI R Civ P 92(a) Although this Court does believe that these cases do warrant exceptional judicial management, the Court concludes that transferring them to the Complex Litigation Division would be counterproductive Several related cases are being presided over by another judge with the assistance of a judicial master Assigning related cases to the same Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ flamed v Yusuf, et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 V1 Super 43 CASE NOS 8x 16 CV 065/SX 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 3 of 17
judge can be more efficient because the judge then has knowledge of both cases and their respective procedural histories and can issue any other orders short of formal consolidation to avoid unnecessary cost or delay In re Kelvm Manbodh Asbestos thlg Series 69 V l 394, 422 (Super Ct 2018) (quotingV I R Civ P 42(a)(3) However only the above captioned cases were referred for a determination whether they should be designated as complex Accordingly for the reasons stated below, the Court declines to designate the cases as complex I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 112 In an August 16, 2019 Order the Honorable Iomo Meade referred the above captioned cases to the undersigned judicial officer pursuant to Virgin islands Rule of Civil Procedure 92(e)(1] to consider and determine whether th[e] case[s] should be treated as complex subject to the provisions of (b)(c) and (d) of this Rule (Order 2 entered Aug 21, 2019) The Clerks Office forwarded the cases to the Complex Litigation Division after which this Court issued an order scheduling a hearing and granted each party leave to file one brief as to whether the cases should be designated as complex The Court also directed that any party 5 appearance at the hearing [would not] be construed as a waiver of any preserved defense or objection to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court ofthe Virgin Islands (Order 2 entered Sept 3 2019 ) Manal Mohammad Yousef ( Manal ) Isam Yousuf( Isam ) and lamilYousuf( Jamil”), and Hisham Hamed( Hisham ), Sixteen Plus Corporation ( Sixteen Plus ) and Fathi Yusuf ( Fathi ) filed briefs 1 Counsel for Fathi and counsel for Hisham and Sixteen Plus appeared at the hearing and argued their respective positions Counsel for Manal Isam and Jamil had asked to be excused 113 Some background is necessary to explain what Fathi refers to as the protracted and acrimonious litigation related to the families long term ioint business interests which encompasses multiple civil cases pending in the courts of the Virgin islands including the main case between the parties Hamed v Yusuf, et a] Case No SX 12 CV 370 and assigned to the Honorable Douglas A Brady (Fathi s Opp n to Transfer to Complex Lit Div 2 filed Sept 3 2019 (hereinafter Fathi Opp n ) ) The dispute between Fathi and Mohammad A Flamed ( Mohammad ] specifically and the Hameds and the Yusufs in general has generated no fewer than nineteen cases
1 Because several parties are both plaintiffs and defendants and further because multiple people with the same last names are parties to several cases related to the above captioned cases the parties will be referred to by their first names throughout this Opinion to avoid confusion Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi er a1 / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp , at a] 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS 8x 16 CV 065 / 5x 16 CV 650 / 8X 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 4 of 17
in the Virgin Islands courts judge Meade only referred the three cases captioned above for a determination because the other cases are assigned to different judges But the Court must address all the cases to tell the broader story ‘[[4 The dispute between the Hameds and the Yusufs was summarized in Yusufv Horned 59 V l 841 [2013) Yusufand Hamed grew up as neighbors in a village in the West Bank In 1973 Hamed immigrated to the United States settling on St Croix where Yusuf lived with his wife Several years later in 1979 Yusuf incorporated United Corporation as a Virgin Islands corporation and began constructing the Plaza Extra supermarket in a shopping center owned by United in Estate Sion Farm on St Croix After Yusuf was unable to secure funding to complete the store Hamed sold his two grocery stores and invested a total of $400,000 into the Sion Farm store According to Hamed, this investment resulted in an equal partnership between Yusuf and Hamed after other investors abandoned the project
The Sion Farm store opened in 1986 with Yusufhandling the financial aspects ofthe business and Hamed managing the store 5 inventory and warehouse The Sion Farm store (colloquially known as Plaza East ] proved successful, leading to the construction of two more stores one in Tutu Park Mall on St Thomas in 1993 and another in Grove Place on the west end of St Croix (referred to colloquially as Plaza West ) in 2002 in 1996 Hamed retired from his role in the operations ofthe business due to illness giving a power of attorney and delegating his management responsibilities to one of his sons Waleed Hamed After Mohammad Hamed s retirement the Yusufand Hamed families continued joint management of the stores with members of both families co managing each store
In 2003 United and members of the Yusuf and Hamed families were indicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands for tax evasion resulting in a plea agreement entered in 2011 Pursuant to the agreement, United agreed to plead guilty to tax evasion and the charges against the individual members of both families were dismissed As a result of the criminal proceeding a federal receiver was appointed to oversee the profits from the Plaza Extra stores in 2003 holding these funds in escrow outside of the parties control
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX
SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION ) CASE NO SX 16 CV 065 Plaintiff, ) ) ACTION FOR DECLARATORY IUDGMENT V I ) [URY TRIAL DEMANDED MANAL MOHAMMAD YOUSEF ) Defendant/ ] Counterclaimant )
HISHAM HAMED derivatively on behalf 5 ] CASE NO SX 16 CV 650 of SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION ) Plaintiff ) DERIVATIVE SHAREHOLDER SUIT ACTION ) FOR DAMAGES AND CICO RELIEF V ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED FATHI YUSUF ISAM YOUSEF and JAMIL ) YOUSEF ] Defendants, ) ) and ] ) SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION ) Nominal Defendant ) ; MANAL MOHAMMAD YOUSEF a/k/a ) CASE NO SX 17 CV 342 MANAL MOHAMAD YOUSEF ] Plaintiff ) ACTION FOR DEBT AND FORECLOSURE OF ) REAL PROPERTY MORTGAGE V )) * * *
SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION ) Defendant / Counterclaimant / ) Consolidated with 8X 16 CV 065 Third Party Plaintiff, ) ) V ) FATHI YUSUF ) Third Party Defendant ) I Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp, er al 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS SX 16 CV 065 / 8X 16 CV 650 / 5X 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 2 of 17
Cite as 2020 VI Super 43
Appearances
JOEL H HOLT ESQ Law Offices of Joel H Holt Christiansted VI 00820 For Sixteen Plus Corporation and stham Horned
CARL] HARTMANN Ill ESQ Christiansted VI 00820 For Sixteen Plus Corporation and Hisham Hamed
MARKW ECKARD ESQ Hamm Eckard LLP Gallows Bay VI 00820 For Sixteen Plus Corporation and Hisham Hamed
GREGORY H HODGES ESQ CHARLOTTE PERRELL ESQ LISA MICHELLE KOMIVES ESQ Dudley Newman Feuerzeig LLP St Thomas V100804 For Fathi Yusuf
JAMES L HYMES III Law Office ofjames L Hymes, P C St Thomas Vi 00802 For Mann] Mohammad Yousefi lsam Yousefi and jam! Yousef
MEMORANDUM OPINION MOLLOY judge 111 THESE MATTERS came before the Court for a hearing on whether they require exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case keep costs reasonable and promote effective decision making by the court the parties and counsel VI R Civ P 92(a) Although this Court does believe that these cases do warrant exceptional judicial management, the Court concludes that transferring them to the Complex Litigation Division would be counterproductive Several related cases are being presided over by another judge with the assistance of a judicial master Assigning related cases to the same Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ flamed v Yusuf, et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 V1 Super 43 CASE NOS 8x 16 CV 065/SX 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 3 of 17
judge can be more efficient because the judge then has knowledge of both cases and their respective procedural histories and can issue any other orders short of formal consolidation to avoid unnecessary cost or delay In re Kelvm Manbodh Asbestos thlg Series 69 V l 394, 422 (Super Ct 2018) (quotingV I R Civ P 42(a)(3) However only the above captioned cases were referred for a determination whether they should be designated as complex Accordingly for the reasons stated below, the Court declines to designate the cases as complex I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 112 In an August 16, 2019 Order the Honorable Iomo Meade referred the above captioned cases to the undersigned judicial officer pursuant to Virgin islands Rule of Civil Procedure 92(e)(1] to consider and determine whether th[e] case[s] should be treated as complex subject to the provisions of (b)(c) and (d) of this Rule (Order 2 entered Aug 21, 2019) The Clerks Office forwarded the cases to the Complex Litigation Division after which this Court issued an order scheduling a hearing and granted each party leave to file one brief as to whether the cases should be designated as complex The Court also directed that any party 5 appearance at the hearing [would not] be construed as a waiver of any preserved defense or objection to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court ofthe Virgin Islands (Order 2 entered Sept 3 2019 ) Manal Mohammad Yousef ( Manal ) Isam Yousuf( Isam ) and lamilYousuf( Jamil”), and Hisham Hamed( Hisham ), Sixteen Plus Corporation ( Sixteen Plus ) and Fathi Yusuf ( Fathi ) filed briefs 1 Counsel for Fathi and counsel for Hisham and Sixteen Plus appeared at the hearing and argued their respective positions Counsel for Manal Isam and Jamil had asked to be excused 113 Some background is necessary to explain what Fathi refers to as the protracted and acrimonious litigation related to the families long term ioint business interests which encompasses multiple civil cases pending in the courts of the Virgin islands including the main case between the parties Hamed v Yusuf, et a] Case No SX 12 CV 370 and assigned to the Honorable Douglas A Brady (Fathi s Opp n to Transfer to Complex Lit Div 2 filed Sept 3 2019 (hereinafter Fathi Opp n ) ) The dispute between Fathi and Mohammad A Flamed ( Mohammad ] specifically and the Hameds and the Yusufs in general has generated no fewer than nineteen cases
1 Because several parties are both plaintiffs and defendants and further because multiple people with the same last names are parties to several cases related to the above captioned cases the parties will be referred to by their first names throughout this Opinion to avoid confusion Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi er a1 / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp , at a] 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS 8x 16 CV 065 / 5x 16 CV 650 / 8X 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 4 of 17
in the Virgin Islands courts judge Meade only referred the three cases captioned above for a determination because the other cases are assigned to different judges But the Court must address all the cases to tell the broader story ‘[[4 The dispute between the Hameds and the Yusufs was summarized in Yusufv Horned 59 V l 841 [2013) Yusufand Hamed grew up as neighbors in a village in the West Bank In 1973 Hamed immigrated to the United States settling on St Croix where Yusuf lived with his wife Several years later in 1979 Yusuf incorporated United Corporation as a Virgin Islands corporation and began constructing the Plaza Extra supermarket in a shopping center owned by United in Estate Sion Farm on St Croix After Yusuf was unable to secure funding to complete the store Hamed sold his two grocery stores and invested a total of $400,000 into the Sion Farm store According to Hamed, this investment resulted in an equal partnership between Yusuf and Hamed after other investors abandoned the project
The Sion Farm store opened in 1986 with Yusufhandling the financial aspects ofthe business and Hamed managing the store 5 inventory and warehouse The Sion Farm store (colloquially known as Plaza East ] proved successful, leading to the construction of two more stores one in Tutu Park Mall on St Thomas in 1993 and another in Grove Place on the west end of St Croix (referred to colloquially as Plaza West ) in 2002 in 1996 Hamed retired from his role in the operations ofthe business due to illness giving a power of attorney and delegating his management responsibilities to one of his sons Waleed Hamed After Mohammad Hamed s retirement the Yusufand Hamed families continued joint management of the stores with members of both families co managing each store
In 2003 United and members of the Yusuf and Hamed families were indicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands for tax evasion resulting in a plea agreement entered in 2011 Pursuant to the agreement, United agreed to plead guilty to tax evasion and the charges against the individual members of both families were dismissed As a result of the criminal proceeding a federal receiver was appointed to oversee the profits from the Plaza Extra stores in 2003 holding these funds in escrow outside of the parties control
Around the time of the plea agreement in 2011 management cooperation between the two families began to break down The store managers started requiring that a member of both the Yusuf and Hamed families sign off on any distribution of funds from Plaza Extra accounts and Fathi Yusuf alleged that a review of financial records required by the plea agreement revealed that members of the Hamed family had been stealing money from the stores Yusuf then attempted to evict Plaza East from United 3 shopping center A few months later Yusuf informed Mohammad Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Horned v Yusufi et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp, et a1 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS 8X 16 CV 065 /S)( 16 CV 650 / 8X 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 5 of 17
Hamed of his intention to end their business relationship, sending a proposed Dissolution of Partnership agreement to Hamed on March 12 2012 and initiating unsuccessful settlement negotiations
Using his power of attorney for Mohammad flamed, Waleed Hamed on September 17 2012 fil[ed] a complaint against Fathi Yusuf and United Corporation in the Superior Court The complaint alleged that Fathi Yusuf and Mohammad Hamed had formed a partnership in 1984 through which they agreed to jointly manage the stores and equally share the profits and losses
Id at 843 45 (citations omitted) This case Horned v Yusuf case number SX 12 CV 370,2 referred to as the Main Action or the Main Case by the parties is assigned to judge Brady He issued a preliminary injunction in January 2013 to maintain the status quo between the families and their businesses during litigation See Horned v Yusuf, 58 VI 117, 138 (Super Ct 2013) (directing that operations continue as they have through the years, no funds to be disbursed without the mutual consent of [Mohammed] and [Fathi] and all checks require two signatures ), revd In part on othergrounds 59 V I 841 (2013) Fathi appealed that injunction But the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands affirmed as to all but the form of security See Yusuf 59 VI at 859 (citing Fed R Civ P 65(c)) 1T5 By 2014 Mohammad 3 children Waleed Hamed ( Waleed ) Waheed Hamed [ Waheed ), Mufeed Hamed ( Mufeed ’) Hisham, and another Hamed Yusuf family business Plessen Enterprises Inc had been joined as parties to the Main Action See generally Homed v Yusuf, 62 V l 38 (Super Ct 2014) judge Brady eventually appointed a liquidating partner and adopted a wind up plan to dissolve the Hamed Yusuf partnership See Yusuf v Horned, 62 VI 565 (2015) (per cunom) A judicial master was also appointed to assist the court and the parties with winding up the partnership See Horned v Yusuf, 69 VI 168 171 (Super Ct 2017) ( [T]he Court appointed Honorable Edgar D Ross to serve as judicial Master in this action, to direct and oversee the winding up ofthe flamed Yusuf partnership ) 1T6 Meanwhile a second case Mohammed Homed et a] v Fat/n Yusufi case number 8X 12 CV 377 was filed on September 19, 2012 [the 377 Action ) two days after the Main Case was filed by
2 Homed v Yusufi et a] case number 8X 12 CV 370 was commenced on September 17 2012 removed to the District Court on October4 2012 and remanded on November 16 2012 See generally Horned v Yusuf, Civ No 2012 099 2012 US Dist. LEXIS 163857 [DVI Nov 16 2012) Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Horned v Yusuf et al / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp at a] 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS sx 16 CV 06S [3x 16 CV 650/Sx 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 6 of 17
Mohammed Walled, Waheed, Mufeed and Hisham against Fathi The complaint was later amended, however to add Fathi 5 sons Yusuf Yusuf ( Yusuf’ ), Maher Yusuf( Maher J and Nejeh Yusuf [ Nejeh) as defendants and to add tort claims and allegations of fraud concerning monies transferred to Sixteen Plus to purchase land See generally Hamed v Yusuf, SX 12 CV 377 2016 WL 11639571 *1 2 [VI Super Ct May 6 2016] The September 2012 Action is currently assigned to Judge Brady and remains pending 2013 Cases 1J7 Four more cases each a spinoff of the Main Action were filed in 2013 [collectively 2013 cases ] Three were filed in the St Croix District United Corporation v Waleed Horned et a] case number SX 13 CV 003, filed on January 3 2013 (the 003 Action J assigned to Judge Brady Yusuf Yusufv Waleed Horned et a] SX 13 CV 120 filed on April 16 2013 (the 120 Action ) assigned to the Honorable Harold W L Willocks United Corporation v Wadda Charrzez et al case number SX 13 CV 152, filed on May 3 2013 (the 152 Action J initially assigned to the undersigned judicial officer One case was filed in the St Thomas/St John District case, United Corporation v Waheed Horned case number ST 13 CV 101 filed on March 5, 2013 [the 101 Action ) and assigned to the
Honorable Michael C Dunston 1J8 Judge Dunston initially granted judgment in part on the pleadings in the 101 Action in favor of Waheed See generally United Corp v Homed ST 13 CV 101 2013 VI LEXIS 50 (Vi Super Ct June 24 2013) revd in part 64 Vi 297 (2016) He also granted summary judgment in favor of Waheed See generally United Corp v Hamed ST 13 CV 101 2014 WL 12906419 [Vi Super Ct Sept 2, 2014), revd 69 VI 297 (2016) United Corporation had sued Waheed as manager of its Plaza Extra grocery store on St Thomas [claiming] he used United 3 inventory to secretly operate a competing business United Corp v Hamed 64V] 297 300 [2016) United alleged that in 1995 Hamed used $70,000 of United 5 funds for an unauthorized purpose through a cashier 5 check [and] only learned of these acts in October 2011, when federal prosecutors returned financial records that were seized in 2001 as part of a tax evasion prosecution against both United and Hamed Id Judge Dunston entered final judgment in favor of Waheed on the statute of limitations but United appealed and prevailed See generally id ( Because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding when the statute of limitations began to run in this case, we reverse and remand the Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 VI Super 43 CASE Nos SX 16 CV 06S /SX 16 CV 650 / 3X 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 7 of 17
case for further proceedings ') 119 On remand Fathi now as liquidating partner, moved to consolidate the 101 Action with the Main Action or to dismiss the 101 Action See generally United Corp v Hamed ST 13 CV 101, 2016 VI LEXIS 176 *7 (VI Super Ct Oct 24 2016) He also moved to consolidate the 003 Action with the Main Action Judge Brady denied the motion as to the 003 Action and dismissed with prejudice instead because the same claims were pending in two cases Fathi alerted Judge Dunston to Judge Brady 5 dismissal and moved to dismiss the 101 Action See id at *7 n 14 Waheed did not object but asked that dismissal be with prejudice and with an award of costs United Corporation could have moved to consolidate much sooner which he argued shows that the sole purpose of the current proceedings in conjunction with the other actions with the same parties has been to intimidate harass and deplete the resources of the Hamed family Id at *8 Judge Dunston granted the dismissal to avoid duplicative litigation or inconsistent opinions and in the interests of judicial economy Id at *12 All parties now agree that [Waheed] is subject to the same claims asserted in this matter in the [main] case pending before Judge Brady Id at *11 But he declined to dismiss with prejudice so as not to limit other litigation " Id He also declined to award costs and attorney 5 fees because all parties will continue to incur substantial litigation costs including attorney 5 fees Id at *12 13 Having dismissed the 101 Action Judge Dunston denied consolidation as moot 1J10 Meanwhile in the 120 Action, Judge Willocks was addressing actions taken by the board of directors on behalf of Plessen Enterprises a Virgin Islands corporation jointly and equally held between the Hamed families and the Yusuf family Yusufv Hamed SX 13 CV 120 2016 V l LEXIS 38, *1 [VI Super Ct Apr 19 2016) Yusuf brought the 120 Action as a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of Plessen Enterprises against Waleed Waheed Mufeed Hisham and their corporation Five H Holdings Inc claiming conversion and unjust enrichment, and seeking an accounting for $460,000 that went missing from Plessen Enterprises corporate accounts Waleed moved to dismiss for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 1 which Judge Willocks denied See Yusufv Hamed SX 13 CV 120 2016VI LEXIS 239 *10 (VI Super Ct Aug 15 2016) ( In a scenario where half of the directors of an even numbered board are alleged to be interested and lack independence the directors who cannot impartially consider the demand essentially have the power to prevent the corporation from filing suit Given this reality, it would be Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf, et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp 9: a] 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS 8x 16 CV 065/Sx 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 8 of 17
illogical for the Court to refuse to excuse demand for futility ] The 120 Action remains pending However, in December 2019 Judge Willocks consolidated it sua sponte with the Main Action 1i 11 The 152 Action is by United Corporation against Wadda Charriez a former Plaza Extra office manager allegedly for misreporting hours and fraudulently obtaining over $40,000 in compensation Charriez counterclaimed for witness intimidation under 42 U S C § 1985 intentional infliction of emotional distress defamation and civil conspiracy alleging pretextual firing in retaliation for her having testified in favor of Mohammed in the Main Action She also filed a third party complaint against Fathi for intentional infliction of emotional distress defamation, and filing a false criminal complaint As with the other 2013 Cases Fathi as liquidating partner to consolidate the 152 Action with the Main Action Charriez opposed This Court denied Fathi s motion without prejudice finding the claims somewhat related but still separate and distinct from the Main Action The 152 Action remains pending but was reassigned to Judge Meade, after the undersigned judicial officer was assigned to sit in the Complex Litigation Division 2014 Cases 11 12 Two cases were filed in July 2014 both by Mohammed (collectively the 2014 Cases ) Hamed v Yusuf case number SX 14 CV 278 filed July 7 2014 [the 278 Action J and initially assigned to the undersigned judicial officer and Horned v United Corporation case number SX 14 CV 287 filed on July 14 2014 (the 287 Action ) and assigned randomly to Judge Brady In the 278 Action Mohammad sued Fathi for debt and conversion of funds allegedly from a 1994 sale of land in Estate Dorothea on St Thomas owned by another Hamed Yusuf corporation Y&S Corporation Fathi referred to the Main Case and counterclaimed for accounting dissolution and wind up of the Y&S Corporation, and conversion unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims He also asked that a receiver be appointed In the 287 Action Mohammad sued United Corporation for a judgment declaring that he owns 50% of three plots of land in Estate Enfield Green on St Croix, land allegedly purchased by United Corporation over Mohammed s objection Mohammed referred to the Main Case and counterclaimed against United Corporation for slander oftitle and a declaratoryjudgment Everyone stipulated to consolidate the 278 Action with the Main Case which Judge Brady approved on April 15 2016 and to consolidate the 287 Action with the Main Case which the undersigned judicial officer also approved The 2014 Cases remain pending Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf, et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 Vi Super 43 CASE NOS SX 16 CV 065 / SX 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 9 of 17
and consolidated with the Main Action 2015 Cases 1113 Three cases were filed in 2015 two criminal and one civil The criminal cases, filed by the People of the Virgin Islands charged Waleed in case number 5X 15 CR 352 and Mufeed, in case number SX 15 CR 353, with embezzlement of the $460,000 funds allegedly missing from Plessen Enterprises, which is at issue in the April 2013 Action that Judge Willocks recently consolidated with the Main Action Both criminal cases were randomly assigned to Judge Willocks who granted a motion the People filed on May 24 2016 to dismiss 3 The civil case Yusuf v Peters Farm Investment Corporation et a] case number ST 15 CV 344, was filed in the St Thomas/St John Division on July 27 2015, and assigned to the Honorable Denise M Francois 4 Fathi filed the July 2015 Action against Peter 5 Farm Investment Corporation ( Peter 3 Farm J Sixteen Plus, Mohammad Waleed Waheed Mufeed and Hisham for an order pursuant to section 193 of title 13 ofthe Virgin Islands Code to compel a meeting ofthe shareholders ofSixteen Plus and Peter 5 Farm to elect directors to dissolve both companies and to appoint a receiver The defendants answered moved to sever (because different corporations were at issue] and to transfer venue to St Croix But on November 28 2016 the parties jointly moved to dismiss without prejudice which was granted on December 15 2016 All cases filed in 2015 are no longer pending 2016 Cases 1J14 Three cases were filed in 2016 (collectively the 2016 Cases J Sixteen Plus Corporation v Yousefi case number SX 16 CV 065 filed on February 12 2016 (the 065 Action J initially assigned at random to the undersigned judicial officer Hamed, et al v Bank ofNova Scotla eta! case number 5X 16 CV 429 filed on August 1 2016 (the 429 Action J randomly assigned to Judge Brady and Hamed v Yusufi case number SX 16 CV 650 filed on October 31 2016 (the 650 Action J also initially assigned at random to the undersigned judicial officer Also Waleed filed a petition to in 2016 to probate his father Mohammad s will Mohammad had passed away on June 16 2016 The
3 Mufeed and Waleed later petitioned to expunge the charges but the Superior Court (Mackay J J denied the petition on procedural grounds finding that they should have been filed separately not jointly Mufeed and Waleed appealed but the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petitions were dismissed without prejudice To date they have not re filed separately
4 The Honorable Kathleen Mackay recused because of a prior representation while in private practice Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi at a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS 8X 16 CV 065/Sx 16 CV 650/Sx 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 10 of 17
Clerk 8 Office assigned In re Estate ofMohmmad A Hamed case number 8X 16 PB 076 at random to the Honorable Miguel A Camacho 1115 In the 065 Action Sixteen Plus sued Manal Mohamed Yousef [ Manal ) for a judgment declaring null, void, and unenforceable a $4 500 000 mortgage that Sixteen Plus had given Manal in 1997 for seventeen properties in the U S Virgin islands Sixteen Plus alleges that Manal was a straw mortgagee because she signed the mortgage after the properties were purchased and did not advance any monies Manal appeared denied Sixteen Plus allegations, and counterclaimed for debt and foreclosure This case was referred to the Court to determine if it should be deemed complex 1116 In the 429 Action Waleed initially sued Bank ofNova Scotia but later amended the complaint to add KAC357, Inc as a plaintiff and to add Fathi Maher Yusuf and United Corporation as defendants On his own behalf he claims malicious prosecution and defamation against the Yusufs and United Corporation because of the 2015 criminal cases while KAC357 asserts trade disparagement prima facze tort and civil ClCO claims against the Yusufs and United Corporation Waleed also sued Bank of Nova Scotia for negligence claiming the bank failed to maintain proper records which contributed to Waleed s arrest and subsequent prosecution 1117 And in the 650 Action Hisham derivatively on behalf of Sixteen Plus sued Fathi lsam Yousuf and Jamil Yousef for civil CICO, conversion and civil conspiracy claims against all defendants and against Fathi specifically also as asserted the tort of outrage, breach of fiduciary duties and usurping corporate opportunities Fathi moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for failure to join Manal whom he claimed was an indispensable party He also cited the 065 Action and argued that [i]t makes no sense to try to re litigate those same issues in this convoluted derivative case' (Def Fathi Yusufs Mot to Dismiss 27 filed Jan 9 2017 Hamedv Yusufi et a] SX 16 CV 650 ) This is the second case referred to this Court to determine whether it should be deemed complex 1118 Because of a standing recusal 5 the Clerk 5 Office reassigned both the 065 Action and the 650 Action The 065 Action went to Judge Willocks, who presided over the case until September 10 2018, when he granted a motion Sixteen Plus filed to consolidate the 065 Action with another case filed in 2017, discussed further below For reasons unclear from the record the 065 Action was later
5 For personal reasons the undersigned judicial officer recuses from cases in which Attorney Kye Walker appears as counsel because Attorney Walker is a close personal friend and lawyer for the undersigned Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf, et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a! 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS 3x 16 CV 06S / sx 16 CV 650 / 5x 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 11 of 17
reassigned to Judge Meade along with the 650 Action 2017 Cases 1J19 Three cases were filed in 2017 (collectively the 2017 Cases J Waleed Waheed Mufeed, and Hisham filed Hamed v Yusuf] case number 8X 17 CV 015 ( the 015 Action J for damages from Maher Yusuf for negligence assault with a deadly weapon and emotional distress and sought an injunction restraining Maher from stalking, harassing or threatening them The 015 Action was assigned randomly to Judge Brady However the Hameds voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice on February 23, 2017 before Maher answered or moved for summary judgment 1J20 Fathi and United Corporation filed Yusufv Estate of Hamed et a] case number ST 17 CV 384 in the St Thomas/St John District ( the 384 Action J against Mohammad s estate the Mohammad A Hamed Living Trust and Waleed as executor and trustee Fathi and United Corporation want to set aside transfers allegedly done fraudulently to render flamed insolvent to the extent that his interests in the remaining Partnership assets were insufficient to cover his portion ofthe Partnership liabilities including rent owned to United (Comp! 1i 28 J The Clerk 5 Office assigned the 384 Action at random to Judge Dunston who later consolidated it sua sponte with the Main Action and transferred venue to St Croix See generally Yusufv Estate of Hamed ST 17 CV 384 2018 V I LEXIS 41 (VI Super Ct Apr 5 2018) The 384 Action remains pending assigned to Judge Brady and consolidated with the Main Case 1J21 Manal filed Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corporation case number SX 17 CV 342,[ the 342 Action J, for debt and foreclosure of the same mortgage at issue in the 065 Action The Clerk 3 Office assigned the case at random to Judge Meade Sixteen Plus appeared and counterclaimed against Manal and filed a third party complaint against Fathi for intentional wanton extreme and outrageous conduct and to estop Fathi and Manal from foreclosing on the mortgage This is third case referred to this Court to determine if it should be deemed complex 2018 Cases 1J22 Only one case between the Hameds and the Yusufs was filed in 2018 KAC357, Inc v Yusufi at a] case number SX 18 CV 219 assigned randomly to Judge Meade ( the 219 Action J KAC357, Inc a corporation formed by the Hameds to manage the supermarket business after the partnership was dissolved sued Yusuf and the Hamed Yusuf Partnership a/k/a the Plaza Extra Supermarket Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Horned v Yusufi et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS 8X 16 CV 065/SX 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 12 of 17
Partnership, for debt and unjust enrichment allegedly for paying partnership debts for tax services credit card bills, and utilities bills totaling over $100 000 The parties later stipulated and on August 15 2018 Judge Meade approved a request to consolidate the 219 Action with the Main Case
Assigned 7 Consolidated with Case Date Filed to Pending Anothei Case?
The Main Case Se-tember 17 2012 I! The 377 Action Setemher 19 2012 -'l——_ a The 003 Action anua 8 2013 mm m The 101 Action March 5 2013 "M a The 120 Action Ari] 16 2013 Willocksfi Yes with Main Case I! The 152 Action Ma 3 2013 __—I_ The 278 Action ul 7 2014 Yes with Main Case I! The 287 Action til 14 2014 Yes with Main Case I] ST 15 CV 344 ul 27 2015 _-im- sx 15 CR 352 November 20 2015 Willocks “—31;- sx 15 CR 353 November 20 2015 Wiliocks —-:y_ The 065 Action Februa 16, 2016 The 429 Action Au ust 1 2016 w No, but motion to 14 The 650 Action October 31, 2016 Meade Yes consolidate With 065 Action endm v The Hamed August 26 2016 Camacho n/a Probate The 015 Action anua 20 2017 mm The 384 Action Au ust 24 2017 Yes with Main Case The 342 Action Au, ust 31 2017 Yes With 065Action The 219 Action June 14 2018 Yes with Main Case [I DISCUSSION 1i23 In support of designating these cases as complex, Hisham and Sixteen Plus assert that these cases appear to fit into the definition of being a presumptive matter pursuant to Rule 92(b)(4), as these cases certainly involve investment losses involving multiple parties (Hisham Sixteen Plus Corp Br 12 filed Sept 3 2019 (quotingVi R Civ P 92(b)[4)) (hereinafter Hisham Br ))Hisham and Sixteen Plus explain that Sixteen Plus was formed as a corporation specifically to purchase a
6 For reasons unclear from the record the April 2013 Action remains assigned to Judge Willocks despite his December 2019 Order consolidating it with the Main Action which would have reassigned the case to judge Brady Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp, at a] 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS SX 16 CV 065 / SX 16 CV 650 / SX 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 13 of 17
300 plus acre parcel of land on the South shore of St Croix often referred to as Diamond Keturah (Hisham Br 5 ) Fathi 5 family and Mohammed 8 family each owned 50% of Sixteen Plus stock See 1d Fathi and Mohammed decided to buy the Diamond Keturah property in 1997 But according to Hisham, Fathi did not want either the Government of the Virgin islands or [the bank] to know the source of the funds he was using Id 1124 Hisham alleges that Fathi was secretly diverting unreported cash from the Plaza Extra Supermarket to Sixteen Plus as part of a criminal money laundering effort Id at S 6 Again according to Hisham Fathi conspired with lsam his nephew who lived on St Martin, to launder in excess of $4 000 000 in unreported untaxed partnership funds to St Martin from the Plaza Extra Supermarket operations so that they could then wire these funds back to a Sixteen Plus account at [Bank of Nova Scotia or] BN5 in order for Sixteen Plus to use these laundered funds to purchase the Land To accomplish this task Fathi Yusuf had large sums of skimmed cash delivered to lsam in St Martin who thereafter deposited those funds into various accounts in St Martin Fathi and lsam then transferred the partnership 3 funds by wire to an account in the name of Sixteen Plus at BNS on St Croix The transfers (which exceeded $4,000 000) to Sixteen Plus account at BN5 took place between February 13th and September 4th of 1997
To further cover up the partnership source of these funds as well as to try to shelter lsam from exposure to criminal consequences from the effort to launder and use the cash from the partnership 8 supermarkets Fathi and lsam agreed to create a sham note and mortgage for the transaction naming Fathi[ s] niece who then lived in St Martin Manal as the sham mortgagee She appears to now live on the West Bank Territory adjacent to Israel Id at 6 Then in 2003 the Federal Government filed felony money laundering and tax evasion criminal charges against lsam and Fathi regarding th[e] laundering of funds to St Martin to buy the Sixteen Plus Land Id at 8 (emphasis omitted) The United States placed a lien on the Diamond Keturah property that was later removed through a plea deal Hisham claims that Fathi and lsam subsequently retained counsel on St Martin to send a demand to Sixteen Plus for payment of the sham note and mortgage Sixteen Plus allegedly owed to Malia] Id at 10 But St Martin counsel did not disclose to Sixteen Plus or the Hameds that Fathi was the person personally directing the demand’ Id Fathi had obtained a power of attorney from Manal in 2010 [t]o do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever regarding her interest in seventeen parcels of land in the U S Virgin Islands Id Ex 2 Thus, Hisham on behalf of Sixteen Plus seeks Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi at a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp er a! 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS SX 16 CV 065 / 5X 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 14 of 17
compensatory damages ofmultiple losses ofthe sale ofthe {Diamond Keturah] Land at the highest and best sales value, including treble damages where permitted by law [and] [p]unitive damages ifwarranted by the facts and applicable law (First Am Compl 23 filed Dec 23, 2016 stham, et a] v Yusufi et a] SX 16 CV 650) 1125 Based on these allegations, Hisham contends that these cases involve investment losses But during oral argument the Court pushed back noting neither the 065 Action the 342 Action nor the 650 Action [collectively the Sixteen Plus Cases ) involve securities claims VI R Civ P 92[b)(4) [emphasis added) If each case with an investment loss was presumptively complex the Court explained all mortgage foreclosure cases would have to be transferred to the Complex Litigation Division for example Instead the rule appears to contemplate shareholder lawsuits or losses from investments in stocks bonds or other large scale investments 7 But Hisham and Sixteen Plus countered that that not all investments are publicly funded and that private equity of the type involved here is increasingly a source of investment funds Accord Alpha Media Resort Inv Cases 252 Cal Rptr 3d 746 750 (Ct App 2019) [ These six actions involve 25 defendants [who] pursued an international investment scheme through which they fraudulently induced hundreds of individuals and organizations to invest in two resort properties in the Dominican Republic ); see also it! at 754 (noting that the prior judge found each case separately qualified as complex [citing Ca Rules ofCt R 3 400)) W6 Fathi denies Hisham s allegations and opposes designating the Sixteen Plus Cases as complex Fathi contends that the allegations relate to the formation of the mortgage and assent to same at best the allegations create factual issues to be determined by a trier of fact as opposed to a matter before the Complex Litigation Division requiring additional or specialized attention and care (Def Fathi Yusuf’s Opp n to Transfer to Complex Litig Div 7 filed Sept 4 2019) But Fathi also argues in the alternative that if the matter is transferred or if Judge Meade requires assistance a special master could be appointed to address these claims, either in the context of the Complex Litigation Division or directly from Judge Meade Id Pursuant to V] R Civ P 95 if a matter has been assigned to the Complex Litigation Division, a master may be appointed and assigned to assist with the cases, Fathi notes Id
7 Rule 92 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure was patterned in part after California Court Rule 3 400 Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusuf, at a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 V1 Super 43 CASE NOS 5X 16 CV O65 /Sx 16 CV 650 / 8X 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 15 of 17
1i27 Manal, Isam and Jamil also oppose transfer to the Complex Litigation Division But they focus on the language of the rules They contend that the Sixteen Plus Cases are not presumptively complex pursuant to Rule 92(b] (Yousef/Yousufs Br re Position on Complex Litig Designation 4 filed Sept 3 2019 ) if a case is not presumptively complex the Court then considers the factors identified in Rule 92(c) in determining whether the case warrants designation as a complex case Id But none ofthose factors are present here either they contend 1128 Having considered the arguments of counsel and reviewed the pleadings of the Sixteen Plus Cases, the Court concludes they should not be designated complex but for reasons different than those cited by the parties Cases are complex when they require[] exceptional Judicial management VI R Civ P 92(a) [C]lass actions Vi R Civ P 92[b)(5], securities claims or investment losses involving multiple parties Vi R Civ P 92(b)[4] and environmental tort claims, mass tort claims or toxic tort claims commenced by as one action or multiple individual actions V] R Civ P 92(b)(1) are several types of cases that are presumptively complex The Sixteen Plus Cases are not presumptively complex They do not involve environmental toxic or mass tort claims construction or design defect claims or claims arising out ofa natural disaster or other territory or island wide event See V I R Civ P 92(a](1) (3) They do not involve class allegations, or contribution indemnification or insurances claims arising out of other presumptively complex cases The Sixteen Plus Cases do not fit into any of the presumptively complex categories except perhaps one investment losses Here the Court does find Hisham s arguments persuasive But even if the type of losses alleged here do fit within the type of case envisioned by the rule these cases do notinvolve investmentlosses bymultiple parties VI R Civ P 92(b)(4) [emphasis added] 1f29 Other kinds of cases can be complex however Here the Court agrees with Manal, [5am and Jamil that the Court looks to Rule 92(c] for guidance to determine whether a non presumptively complex case should be designated as complex A case can be deemed complex if it involves a large number of parties V] R Civ P 92[c)(1), or when coordinated discovery [across multiple cases] would be advantageous VI R Civ P 92(c][2) Cases can also be complex if they require specialized expertise and case processing id or when issues of insurance limits on assets and potential bankruptcy can be best addressed in coordinated proceedings Id However except for presumptively complex cases, see VI R Civ P 92(b)(1) [6) or cases that the parties designate as Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi et a] / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 V1 Super 43 CASE NOS sx 16 CV 065 /SX 16 CV 650 / 3x 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 16 of 17
complex cf. Vl R Civ P 10(e] a case will not be deemed complex unless it requires exceptional judicial management The Court weighs whether management of the case on the Complex Litigation Division [d]ocket may unreasonably delay the case, increase expense complicate the action, or unfairly prejudice a party Vl R Civ P 92(c)[2) with whether the cases require specialized expertise and case processing by the Complex Litigation Division judge and staff [for] the efficient utilization of judicial resources Id 1f 30 There is no doubt that all the Hamed Yusuf cases are related Different cases can be related Abraham v St Crozx Renaissance Grp LLLP 70 VI 84 105 [Super Ct 2019) The 219 Action brought by KAC357 involves debt and unjust enrichment claims for monies advanced to the Hamed Yusuf partnership that were not reimbursed The 152 Action allegedly arose because Charriez testified in the Main Case The 2014 Cases involve land owned by the Hamed and Yusuf families and their corporations and a determination of the value ofthe land In some respects the 2014 Cases are similar to the Sixteen Plus Cases, but cases have been consolidated with the Main Case in fact only the Sixteen Plus Cases the 377 Action [the second Hamed Yusuf case which also concerns Sixteen Plus] the 152 Action and the 429 Action (involving KAC357 Bank of Nova Scotia and the circumstances leading up to the 2015 criminal cases) have not been consolidated with the Main Action 1T31 Courts try to avoid having different judges preside over related cases because of the duplication oflabor Abraham, 70 V l at 105 (citation omitted) For this reason, [m]any courts have promulgated rules that require counsel to identify related cases Id Unfortunately, the Virgin islands Judiciary has not promulgated a rule mandating that counsel identify related cases at the trial court level Id While consolidation may not have been the best tool to get the blamed Yusuf cases before the same judge since the cases do not necessarily involve a common question of law or fact V I R Civ P 42(a), it was the only tool available And while six cases are no longer pending the remaining thirteen, including the Sixteen Plus Cases are still very active and will require[] exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case[s], keep costs reasonable and promote effective decision making by the court the parties, and counsel Vl R Civ P 92[a) When two strangers go into business you usually have each one requiring formal contracts formal statements formal deposits, and everything of the kind but usually Sixteen Plus Corp v Yousef/ Hamed v Yusufi et a! / Yousefv Sixteen Plus Corp et a] 2020 VI Super 43 CASE NOS 5X 16 CV 065 /sx 16 CV 650/SX 17 CV 342 MEMORANDUM OPINION Page 17 of 17
when two friends go into business and where it becomes one happy family so many of these things are omitted and when they do fall out there arises bitterness and difficulties which make it the most difficult type of case to try Stonerv Bellows 2 VI 172 174 75 (D V I 1951) Such difficulties are compounded when the friends become family and the business becomes a family business The break up of the Hamed Yusuf friendship and the dissolution of their partnership has already required exceptional judicial management, warranting the appointing of a liquidating partner and a judicial master Even though the cases do not fit within a presumptively complex category, they clearly could qualify as complex 1132 It might be just efficient and cost effective to reassign all the cases to the same judge But only the Sixteen Plus Cases were referred to this Court to determine whether they are complex And for that reason, the Court concludes that transferring fewer than all the cases to the Complex Litigation Division would not be the most just efficient and cost effective for the Court counsel and the parties Edwards v Hess 011 VI Corp 66 V l 218 232 (Super Ct 2017) accord V] R Civ P 1 ( These rules should be construed, administered and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding ] judge Brady is currently presiding over the 377 Action and the Main Case and the five cases consolidated under it judge Meade is presiding over the 152 Action and the Sixteen Plus Cases All the cases might impact the probate Magistrate judge Camacho is presiding over if claims must be filed against Mohammed s estate To single out three ofthese cases and designate them as complex will only lead to unreasonably delay increase expense [and] complicate the action[s] V l R Civ P 92(c)(2] III CONCLUSION ‘“33 For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the Sixteen Plus Cases should not be designated as complex and returns them to the Clerk 5 Office Appropriate orders folio
Date March 16 2020 K7 ”' ’ ROBERT A OLL ATTEST judge of the uperior Court TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court
By w Court Cler Dated w