COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, White and Retired Judge Frank UNPUBLISHED
STEVEN ROCKEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN STEVEN ROCKEY, DECEASED MEMORANDUM OPINION v. Record No. 1920-22-3 PER CURIAM JULY 18, 2023 BENNY CLARK MEDINA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NELSON COUNTY Michael R. Doucette, Judge
(Joseph A. Sanzone; Sanzone & Baker, L.L.P., on brief), for appellant.
(Marc A. Peritz; Flora Pettit PC, on brief), for appellee.
Steven Rockey, Administrator of the Estate of Benjamin Steven Rockey (the Estate),
appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing the Estate’s complaint against Benny Clark Medina for
lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Estate argues that the circuit court erred by not
allowing the Estate to replead or amend the complaint. The Estate next contends that the circuit
court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing Medina’s contacts
with the Commonwealth of Virginia. Finally, the Estate alleges that the circuit court erred by not
allowing the Estate’s “[s]upplemental [m]emorandum in [o]pposition to [Medina]’s [m]otion to
[d]ismiss” to be treated as a motion to reconsider.
After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral
argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a);
Retired Judge Frank took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D).
This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). Rule 5A:27(a). The record on appeal is insufficient for this Court to reach the issues that the
Estate raises because the Estate has failed to file a transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu
of a transcript for the October 4, 2022 hearing. A transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu
of a transcript for that hearing is indispensable for review of the Estate’s assignments of error.
For the following reasons, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
“When reviewing a trial court’s decision on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, granting it the benefit of any reasonable inferences.” Nielsen v.
Nielsen, 73 Va. App. 370, 377 (2021) (quoting Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 258 (2003)).
Here, Medina is the prevailing party.
On August 26, 2018, Benjamin Steven Rockey (Rockey) allegedly died by suicide in
Virginia. On August 24, 2021, the Estate filed a complaint against Medina, a California resident,
alleging wrongful death.1 The Estate alleged that Rockey’s death by suicide was “a proximate
result of injuries that he suffered from an assault” by Medina years earlier.
In April 2022, Medina filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Medina claimed to have only visited Virginia twice and that the only
interactions he had with Rockey were “many years ago” in California. Medina argued that there
was no causal link between the Estate’s claim and any of Medina’s activities in Virginia.
The Estate opposed the motion to dismiss. The Estate claimed that Medina “creates,
produces, and distributes motion pictures as well as conduct[s] business in other entertainment
mediums including promotional modeling in its various forms.” Rockey was a model and actor,
and “became involved” with Medina as he tried to advance his career in the entertainment
1 In August 2020, the Estate filed the same cause of action, but non-suited the action on August 23, 2021. -2- industry. The Estate alleged that during the course of their relationship, Medina committed “an
assaultive homosexual encounter” that left Rockey with “recurring psychological injuries,”
which ultimately led to Rockey’s suicide. In the motion, the Estate claimed personal jurisdiction
over Medina, arguing that Medina’s films “have been targeted to be shown in Virginia and
generate revenue . . . to be returned to him” and that Rockey “was lured into [Medina]’s home
upon the guise of becoming one of the actors or models who would become a part of” Medina’s
“far-reaching enterprise.”
On October 4, 2022, the parties convened for hearing on Medina’s motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction.2 At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court took the matter
under advisement for 21 days.
Following the hearing, the Estate filed a “Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support
of[]their Opposition to [Medina]’s Motion to Dismiss” (supplemental memorandum). In the
filing, the Estate stated that at the October 4, 2022 hearing, the circuit court found that the Estate
“only presented evidence that related to [Medina]’s corporate, and not individual, relationship
with the [Commonwealth] of Virginia” and permitted the Estate 21 days to present additional
evidence in support of its jurisdictional claims. The Estate argued that it had “established
substantial evidence of [Medina’s] entertainment activity” in Virginia. The Estate also alleged
that Medina’s business “solicited and employed entertainers who traveled from Virginia in
pursuit of furthering their careers” and that Rockey’s contact with Medina “arose f[ro]m Medina
transacting business in Virginia, and his pursuit of an entertainment career.”
The parties reconvened for a hearing on October 31, 2022. During the hearing, the circuit
court denied the Estate’s claim that the additional 21 days was for the Estate to offer more
2 A transcript, or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript, of this hearing has not been made part of the record. -3- evidence of personal jurisdiction. Rather, the circuit court delayed its ruling for 21 days to give
the Estate time “to decide whether or not [it] wanted to pursue a non-suit” in this matter. During
the hearing, the Estate informed the circuit court that it would not pursue a non-suit.
At the close of the hearing, the circuit court stated it would “enter up judgment” as it had
ruled on October 4, 2022. The Estate then orally moved the circuit court to reconsider its ruling
based on the supplemental memorandum. The circuit court denied the Estate’s motion because
the information from the supplemental memorandum “could have been included in the initial
memorandum.”
The circuit court issued a written order granting Medina’s motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction and denying the Estate’s oral motion for reconsideration based upon its
supplemental memorandum. The circuit court dismissed the Estate’s complaint with prejudice.
The Estate appeals.
ANALYSIS
The Estate alleges that the circuit court erred in failing to permit the Estate to amend its
complaint. The Estate also challenges the circuit court’s dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction despite Medina’s contacts in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Finally, in the third
assignment of error, the Estate claims that the circuit court erred by failing to treat the Estate’s
supplemental memorandum as a motion to reconsider.
The record, however, does not contain a transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu
of a transcript of the October 4, 2022 hearing. See Rule 5A:8(a) and (c). If an appellant “fails to
ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written statement of facts necessary to permit
resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error affected by such omission will not be
considered.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii); see Browning v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, White and Retired Judge Frank UNPUBLISHED
STEVEN ROCKEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN STEVEN ROCKEY, DECEASED MEMORANDUM OPINION v. Record No. 1920-22-3 PER CURIAM JULY 18, 2023 BENNY CLARK MEDINA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NELSON COUNTY Michael R. Doucette, Judge
(Joseph A. Sanzone; Sanzone & Baker, L.L.P., on brief), for appellant.
(Marc A. Peritz; Flora Pettit PC, on brief), for appellee.
Steven Rockey, Administrator of the Estate of Benjamin Steven Rockey (the Estate),
appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing the Estate’s complaint against Benny Clark Medina for
lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Estate argues that the circuit court erred by not
allowing the Estate to replead or amend the complaint. The Estate next contends that the circuit
court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing Medina’s contacts
with the Commonwealth of Virginia. Finally, the Estate alleges that the circuit court erred by not
allowing the Estate’s “[s]upplemental [m]emorandum in [o]pposition to [Medina]’s [m]otion to
[d]ismiss” to be treated as a motion to reconsider.
After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously holds that oral
argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a);
Retired Judge Frank took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(D).
This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A). Rule 5A:27(a). The record on appeal is insufficient for this Court to reach the issues that the
Estate raises because the Estate has failed to file a transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu
of a transcript for the October 4, 2022 hearing. A transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu
of a transcript for that hearing is indispensable for review of the Estate’s assignments of error.
For the following reasons, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
“When reviewing a trial court’s decision on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, granting it the benefit of any reasonable inferences.” Nielsen v.
Nielsen, 73 Va. App. 370, 377 (2021) (quoting Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va. App. 255, 258 (2003)).
Here, Medina is the prevailing party.
On August 26, 2018, Benjamin Steven Rockey (Rockey) allegedly died by suicide in
Virginia. On August 24, 2021, the Estate filed a complaint against Medina, a California resident,
alleging wrongful death.1 The Estate alleged that Rockey’s death by suicide was “a proximate
result of injuries that he suffered from an assault” by Medina years earlier.
In April 2022, Medina filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Medina claimed to have only visited Virginia twice and that the only
interactions he had with Rockey were “many years ago” in California. Medina argued that there
was no causal link between the Estate’s claim and any of Medina’s activities in Virginia.
The Estate opposed the motion to dismiss. The Estate claimed that Medina “creates,
produces, and distributes motion pictures as well as conduct[s] business in other entertainment
mediums including promotional modeling in its various forms.” Rockey was a model and actor,
and “became involved” with Medina as he tried to advance his career in the entertainment
1 In August 2020, the Estate filed the same cause of action, but non-suited the action on August 23, 2021. -2- industry. The Estate alleged that during the course of their relationship, Medina committed “an
assaultive homosexual encounter” that left Rockey with “recurring psychological injuries,”
which ultimately led to Rockey’s suicide. In the motion, the Estate claimed personal jurisdiction
over Medina, arguing that Medina’s films “have been targeted to be shown in Virginia and
generate revenue . . . to be returned to him” and that Rockey “was lured into [Medina]’s home
upon the guise of becoming one of the actors or models who would become a part of” Medina’s
“far-reaching enterprise.”
On October 4, 2022, the parties convened for hearing on Medina’s motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction.2 At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court took the matter
under advisement for 21 days.
Following the hearing, the Estate filed a “Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support
of[]their Opposition to [Medina]’s Motion to Dismiss” (supplemental memorandum). In the
filing, the Estate stated that at the October 4, 2022 hearing, the circuit court found that the Estate
“only presented evidence that related to [Medina]’s corporate, and not individual, relationship
with the [Commonwealth] of Virginia” and permitted the Estate 21 days to present additional
evidence in support of its jurisdictional claims. The Estate argued that it had “established
substantial evidence of [Medina’s] entertainment activity” in Virginia. The Estate also alleged
that Medina’s business “solicited and employed entertainers who traveled from Virginia in
pursuit of furthering their careers” and that Rockey’s contact with Medina “arose f[ro]m Medina
transacting business in Virginia, and his pursuit of an entertainment career.”
The parties reconvened for a hearing on October 31, 2022. During the hearing, the circuit
court denied the Estate’s claim that the additional 21 days was for the Estate to offer more
2 A transcript, or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript, of this hearing has not been made part of the record. -3- evidence of personal jurisdiction. Rather, the circuit court delayed its ruling for 21 days to give
the Estate time “to decide whether or not [it] wanted to pursue a non-suit” in this matter. During
the hearing, the Estate informed the circuit court that it would not pursue a non-suit.
At the close of the hearing, the circuit court stated it would “enter up judgment” as it had
ruled on October 4, 2022. The Estate then orally moved the circuit court to reconsider its ruling
based on the supplemental memorandum. The circuit court denied the Estate’s motion because
the information from the supplemental memorandum “could have been included in the initial
memorandum.”
The circuit court issued a written order granting Medina’s motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction and denying the Estate’s oral motion for reconsideration based upon its
supplemental memorandum. The circuit court dismissed the Estate’s complaint with prejudice.
The Estate appeals.
ANALYSIS
The Estate alleges that the circuit court erred in failing to permit the Estate to amend its
complaint. The Estate also challenges the circuit court’s dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction despite Medina’s contacts in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Finally, in the third
assignment of error, the Estate claims that the circuit court erred by failing to treat the Estate’s
supplemental memorandum as a motion to reconsider.
The record, however, does not contain a transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu
of a transcript of the October 4, 2022 hearing. See Rule 5A:8(a) and (c). If an appellant “fails to
ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written statement of facts necessary to permit
resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error affected by such omission will not be
considered.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii); see Browning v. Browning, 68 Va. App. 19, 30 (2017)
(applying rule).
-4- “On appeal, we presume the judgment of the trial court is correct . . . .” Bay v.
Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 520, 528 (2012). “The burden is upon the appellant to provide [the
appellate court] with a record which substantiates the claim of error. In the absence [of a
sufficient record], we will not consider the point.” Dixon v. Dixon, 71 Va. App. 709, 716 (2020)
(alterations in original) (quoting Robinson v. Robinson, 50 Va. App. 189, 197 (2007)).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs. In the absence of a transcript or a
written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript, the Court cannot determine what evidence the
parties presented at the October 4, 2022 hearing. Under both the first and third assignments of error,
the Estate alleges that during the October 4, 2022 hearing, the circuit court “adopted reasoning that
was not argued by either party” and that, during the hearing, the Estate’s counsel “stated that he
thought that he could produce evidence of [Medina’s] personal involvement” in Virginia. The
Estate contends that the circuit court should have permitted it to present the additional arguments
raised in the supplemental memorandum following the October 4, 2022 hearing. We are unable to
consider these assignments of error, however, without a transcript, or a written statement of facts in
lieu of a transcript, of the October 4, 2022 hearing, as the record does not contain what arguments
the parties raised at the hearing and what reasoning the circuit court adopted.3
We are also unable to review the Estate’s challenge to the circuit court’s dismissal of the
complaint. At the October 31, 2022 hearing, the circuit court stated that it would “enter up
judgment as far as [the circuit court] ruled back” during the October 4, 2022 hearing. Without a
transcript, however, this Court is unable to review the evidence and arguments that the circuit court
3 We further note that the Estate limits the third assignment of error to arguing that the circuit court “erred by not allowing [the Estate]’s Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to [Medina]’s Motion to Dismiss to be treated as a Motion to reconsider the Court’s October 4, 2022, ruling in this case.” The circuit court, however, considered the Estate’s motion to reconsider and denied it. On appeal, the Estate makes no specific argument attempting to demonstrate how the circuit court may have abused its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration. -5- considered during the October 4, 2022 hearing when dismissing the Estate’s complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
Moreover, without a complete record of the arguments the Estate made or the positions it
took at the October 4, 2022 hearing, we cannot know whether the Estate presented the specific
arguments it advances on appeal to the circuit court. See Rule 5A:18 (an appellate court will only
consider arguments that timely were raised in the trial court). We therefore conclude that a
transcript, or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript, from the October 4, 2022 hearing is
indispensable to a determination of the Estate’s assignments of error. See Bay, 60 Va. App. at
528-29.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s ruling is affirmed.
Affirmed.
-6-