67 V.I. 271
Superior Court of The Virgin I...2017Background
- Plaintiff Cyril Mitchell sued Alcoa, St. Croix Alumina, and General Engineering alleging workplace exposure to bauxite dust and resulting pneumoconiosis; complaint filed Oct. 19, 2007.
- Defendants filed motions to dismiss and Alcoa answered; Mitchell repeatedly sought leave to amend, eventually proposing an amended complaint that dropped St. Croix Alumina and punitive damages against Alcoa.
- The case was transferred among judges and consolidated into the In re: Alumina Dust Claims master case; subsequent administrative transfers and the death of a judge complicated proceedings.
- Mitchell’s amended complaint as filed contained extraneous allegations (referencing parties he did not sue) and did not clearly reflect dropped counts/defendants; a stipulation dismissed General Engineering.
- Several motions remained technically pending: St. Croix Alumina’s motion to dismiss (Jan. 8, 2008), Alcoa’s motion to dismiss (Nov. 14, 2008), Mitchell’s initial motion to amend, and Mitchell’s request to continue/stay the case pending Lockheed Martin rulings in other consolidated cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mitchell's earlier motion to amend remains live | Mitchell sought leave to amend to clarify allegations against Alcoa | N/A (motion superseded by later amendment) | Deemed withdrawn because a later motion to amend was granted and rendered the earlier motion moot |
| Whether Alcoa's motion to dismiss remains effective | Mitchell contends he amended to conform to LaBast rulings; Alcoa did not oppose the second amendment | Alcoa initially argued complaint failed to state a claim | Deemed withdrawn — Alcoa failed to oppose the second motion to amend and did not renew its motion as to the amended complaint |
| Whether St. Croix Alumina’s motion to dismiss is moot or withdrawn | Mitchell agreed to dismiss St. Croix Alumina in his second motion to amend | St. Croix Alumina had moved to dismiss earlier and did not get an express dismissal order in Mitchell's file | Court grants St. Croix Alumina’s motion (to make record clear) but orders Mitchell to replead to eliminate ambiguity |
| Whether the case should remain in the Alumina Dust master case and whether stay/continuance is proper | Mitchell asked to stay/hold discovery pending rulings on Lockheed Martin summary judgment motions in other consolidated cases | Defendants and court noted Lockheed Martin rulings would not resolve Mitchell’s Alcoa claims and no formal stay was sought by parties | Motion to continue/stay denied; case removed from master case and ordered to proceed separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Der Weer v. Hess Oil V.I. Corp., 60 V.I. 91 (Super. Ct. 2014) (motions remain pending until ruled on; subsequent events can render motions moot)
- In re Q.G., 60 V.I. 654 (Super. Ct. 2014) (decisions of one Superior Court judge are persuasive but not binding precedent on other Superior Court judges)
- Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008) (circumstances can cause a motion to be deemed withdrawn)
- Rogers v. Clinton, 794 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. 1990) (a party may withdraw a motion before decision)
- Hammons v. Table Mt. Ranches Owners Ass’n, 72 P.3d 1153 (Wyo. 2003) (withdrawn motions leave the record as if never filed)