Court Opinion

ID: 9914758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 21:12:50.847442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:25.402522
License: Public Domain

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

                                                      CIVIL NO. SX-20-MC-090

     IN RE: TOBACCO LITIGATION                        Complex Litigation Division
                                                      (Re: 20-CV-719 through 722)

                                 Cite as: 2023 VI Super 81U

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                 (Filed December 29, 2023)

      Andrews, Jr., Judge

                                       INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiffs, four St. Croix residents, brought separate actions 1 on September

16, 2020, against cigarette manufacturer R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

(Reynolds), cigarette wholesaler Island Saints Corp., and cigarette retailers United

Corp. and KAC357 Inc.              They allege, as a result of smoking cigarettes

manufactured and sold by the defendants, they contracted smoking related

diseases including lung cancer, bladder cancer, laryngeal cancer, chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart disease. They further allege Reynolds,

and other cigarette manufacturers, engaged in fraud and conspiracy by

misrepresenting the health effects and addictive nature of cigarette smoking.

Plaintiffs claim they relied on the misrepresentations, continued smoking and

developed the diseases. This Court, on August 10, 2023, dismissed Plaintiffs’

1
    All four cases are grouped under the above-captioned master case.
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 2

fraud and conspiracy claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs now seek

permission: to conduct jurisdictional discovery to collect evidence to show

Reynolds and its co-conspirators targeted the Virgin Island with their fraud and

conspiracy; and to later replead the dismissed claims. Reynolds responds that

Plaintiffs have waived their right to seek jurisdictional discovery by strategically

choosing not to seek it earlier; and their request is an improper fishing expedition

since jurisdictional discovery would be futile. For the reasons mentioned below,

this Court concludes that Plaintiffs waived jurisdictional discovery and such

endeavor would be futile.

                                  RELEVANT BACKGROUND

          The pertinent filings that occurred prior to Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional

discovery are follows:

          09-16-20       Complaints by Elminio Soto, Austin R. Georges, Carlos
                         Schuster and Hayden Barry
                         SX-2020-CV-719, 720, 721, 722

          12-28-20       Order Opening Master Case and grouping Plaintiffs’ cases 2
                         SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 1

          01-04-21       Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction by
                         Reynolds regarding all cases
                         SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 7

          09-01-21       Case Management Order setting final discovery deadline in all
                         cases for 07/31/22 and setting first trial for January 2023
                         SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 65

2
    A fifth case, i.e., Bruney v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc. Et. Al. (SX-2020-CV-376), was included in
    the grouping but was dismissed on April 21, 2023 by stipulation of the parties.
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 3

      10-18-21      Case Management Order issued re-setting trial of first case for
                    February 2023
                    SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 70

      02-15-22      Case Management Order for Barry case only resetting
                    discovery deadline for 04/30/22 and re-setting trial for
                    September 19, 2022
                    SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 83

      03-09-22      Amended Case Management Order for Barry re-setting
                    discovery deadline for 06/10/22 and trial for November 7, 2022
                    SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 95

      10-27-22      Order Granting Continuance of Barry November 7, 2022 trial
                    SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 137

      11-21-22      Trial Notice setting Barry trial for April 11, 2023
                    SX-2020-MC-722, CMS No. 134

      01-12-23      Amended Case Management Order in Soto and
                    Schuster cases re-setting discovery deadline to 02/10/23 and
                    setting trials for July and September 2023
                    SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 155

      01-12-23      Amended Case Management Order in Bruney and
                    Georges re-setting discovery deadline to 02/28/23 and re-
                    setting trials for October 2023 and January 2024
                    SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 156

      03-14-23      Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Counts 5 and 6 in Barry
                    SX-2020-CV-722, CMS No. 147

      03-20-23      Order entered continuing Barry April 11, 2023 trial and
                    permitting Plaintiff up to 03/27/23 to file an amended complaint
                    SX-2020-CV-722, CMS No. 154

      03-27-23      First Amended Complaint in Barry re-charging Counts 5 and 6
                    SX-2020-CV-722, CMS No. 156

      04-17-23      Order rescheduling Barry trial to September 11, 2023,
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 4

                    Soto to November 13, 2023, Georges to January 22, 2024 and
                    Schuster to March 4, 2024
                    SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 173

      04-20-23      Motion to Dismiss Counts 5 and 6 of Barry Amended Complaint
                    For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by Reynolds
                    SX-2020-CV-722, CMS No. 170

      04-25-23      Amended Order issued Rescheduling Barry trial to September
                    5, 2023, Soto to January 22, 2024, Georges to March 4, 2024
                    and Schuster to April 29, 2024
                    SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 178

      05-19-23      Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Counts 5 and 6 by Plaintiff
                    SX-2020-CV-722, CMS No. 179

      06-16-23      Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Reynolds
                    SX-2020-CV-722, CMS No. 186

      08-10-23      Order Dismissing Counts 5 and 6 of Amended Complaint in
                    Barry
                    SX-2020-CV-722, CMS No. 202

      08-18-23      Order Cancelling Barry September 5, 2023 trial
                    SX-2020-CV-722, CMS No. 213

      12-13-23      Global Case Management Order rescheduling Barry
                    trial to June 3, 2024, Soto to August 12, 2024, Georges to
                    October 7, 2024 and Schuster to January 1, 2025.
                    SX-2020-MC-090, CMS No. 192

      On August 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion For Jurisdictional Discovery

and Additional Time to Replead. Reynolds filed its opposition on August 28, 2023

and Plaintiff replied on September 1, 2023. Thereafter, Reynolds filed a Motion

For Leave to File a Surresponse and a proposed surresponse on September 7,

2023. Plaintiff replied to the surresponse on September 18, 2023. No hearing was
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 5

held on the motion for jurisdictional discovery.

                                APPLICABLE LAW

        The trial court has wide discretion to determine whether to grant

jurisdictional discovery. West Indies Corp. v. Pro-Source, Inc., Civ. No. ST-01-CV-

355, 2007 V.I. LEXIS 44 at *7, (Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2007). It “must limit the

frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” by the rules under certain

circumstances including when “the party seeking discovery has had ample

opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action.” V.I.R. Civ. P.

26(b)(3)(C). A party can waive jurisdictional discovery by failing to timely request

it. See Evans-Freke v. Evans-Freke, 75 V.I. 407, 469 n 47 (V.I. 2021) (stating that

if the party wished, “she could have requested jurisdictional discovery as to

Stephen’s travel. As she did not do so, she waived her right to request such

relief.”).

        Virgin Islands courts have consistently held that a plaintiff’s right to

jurisdictional discovery should be sustained where “a plaintiff presents factual

allegations that suggest ‘with reasonable particularity’ the possible existence of the

requisite ‘contacts between [the party] and the forum state.’” Phillips v. Woodforest

Construction, LLC, Civ. No. ST-2020-CV-317, 2023 WL 4930127 at *19 (Super.

Ct. Jul. 31, 2023) (citing Pichierri v. Crowley, Civ. No. ST-08-CV-340, 2009 V.I.

LEXIS 92 (Super. Ct. June 29, 2009)); Atrium, V.I., LLC v. Atrium Staffing, LLC, 69

V.I. 259, 271-72 (Super. Ct. Aug. 9, 2018) citing (citing Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 6

Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 456 (3d Cir. 2003)); Power v. Blue Serenity, LLC, Civ.

No. ST-13-CV-523, 2014 V.I. LEXIS 113 at *10 (Super. Ct. Dec. 08, 2014), citing

Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 456 (3d Cir. 2003); Pichierri v.

Crowley, Civ. No. ST-08-CV-340, 2009 V.I. LEXIS 92 at *4 (Super. Ct. Jun. 29,

2009); accord Aldossari v. Ripp, No. 21-2080, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25563 at

*259 (3d Cir. 2022). Conversely, jurisdictional discovery should be denied where

the factual allegations do not suggest “with reasonable particularity” the possible

existence of the requisite contacts between the defendant and the Virgin Islands.

See Fatouros v. Lambrakis, 627 Fed. App. 84, 88 (3d Cir. 2015) (concluding district

court did not abuse its discretion by declining to allow jurisdictional discovery, as

plaintiff “did not present factual allegations that suggested with reasonable

particularity the possible existence of the requisite minimum contacts.”) (emphasis

supplied). As the Third Circuit puts it, “[a] plaintiff may not, however, undertake a

fishing expedition based only upon bare allegations, under the guise of

jurisdictional discovery.” Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA,

623 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2010). This analysis is clearly case specific.

                                    ANALYSIS

      Plaintiffs seek a 120-day period to pursue further discovery claiming they

“need jurisdictional evidence to show R.J. Reynolds and its co-conspirators

targeted the USVI with their fraud and conspiracy and to properly amend their
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 7

complaints to preserve jurisdiction on these counts.” Mot. for Jurisdictional Disc. 2.

The particular counts Plaintiffs reference are 5 and 6 of their complaints which

charge fraud and civil conspiracy. They wish to request documents, take witness

testimony, issue interrogatories and requests for admission, and take corporate

representative depositions “on where and how RJR directed its fraud and

conspiratorial activities.” Id. As explained below, Plaintiffs waived jurisdictional

discovery and such discovery would be futile in any event.

   1) Plaintiffs Waived Their Right to Request Jurisdictional Discovery.

      A review of the pleadings in these matters reveals Plaintiffs’ dilatory conduct

with respect to seeking jurisdictional discovery.      Reynolds filed its motion to

dismiss as to all Plaintiffs on January 4, 2021. It specifically argued with respect

to Plaintiffs’ fraud and conspiracy claims (Counts 5 and 6) that “the Complaints

contain no allegation that Plaintiffs were injured as a result of any conduct

purposefully directed at the U.S. Virgin Islands.” Reynolds’ Mot. to Dismiss

(01/4/21), 1. In the face of this challenge, Plaintiffs nevertheless opted not to seek

jurisdictional discovery. Instead, they mention in their opposition “if the Court is

inclined to hold an evidentiary hearing, the Plaintiff must be permitted Jurisdictional

Discovery to collect jurisdictional evidence through Interrogatories, Requests for

Admission and corporate representative depositions of RJR.” Pls.’ Opp’n to

Reynolds’ Mot. to Dismiss (01/23/21), 4. They further asserted “[h]owever, the

Plaintiffs believe an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary and an unproductive use
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 8

of the court’s and parties’ time.” Id. The Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing.

Thus, as per Plaintiffs’ determination, jurisdictional discovery was a non-issue.

      On March 14, 2023, this Court dismissed Counts 5 (Fraudulent

Concealment and Misrepresentation) and 6 (Civil Conspiracy) of Barry’s initial

complaint for failure to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Order

Regarding Mot. to Dismiss (03/14/23), 14.         Specifically, the court found the

complaint deficient for: 1) failure to allege how Reynolds’ cigarettes were supplied

to the territory (i.e., directly from Reynolds or through a stateside wholesaler); and

2) failure to allege a specific contact or purposeful direction of Reynolds’ activities

to the Virgin Islands. Id. at 13. The Court explained that Barry’s general allegations

were insufficient to permit for adequate assessment of the nature of the claimed

contact by Reynolds or whether Barry’s claim arises out of the alleged contact(s).

Id. at 13-14. The order clearly signaled: the need to plead specific jurisdictional

allegations regarding Reynolds’ contact with the Virgin Islands; and the Court’s

concern about its ability to assess whether Barry’s claims arise out of the alleged

contacts.

      In response to the dismissal, Barry amended his complaint and added new

allegations including:

      1) Reynolds directly supplied their cigarettes to Virgin Island wholesalers.
         Am. Compl. ¶ 14, p 5.

      2) Reynolds directed specific acts nationwide toward the American Public
         to propagate fraud and conspiracy in the Virgin Islands. Id. ¶ 23, p 7.
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 9

      3) As a result of Reynolds’ tortious acts specifically directed to the Virgin
         Islands, including the propagation of a nationwide conspiracy designed
         to spread to the Virgin Islands, Plaintiff suffered injuries. Id. ¶ 24, p 8.

      4) Since 1955 to 2000, Reynolds purposefully directed a massive scheme
         of lies and misrepresentations nationwide to the American Public, which
         included the U.S. Virgin Islands. Id. ¶ 25, p 8.

      5) Defendants’ nationwide conspiracy was reported in Virgin Islands
         newspapers, radio, and newspapers. Id. ¶¶ 29 - 33, p 9 - 12.

      6) [L]awyers, acting as agents under the direction of the Tobacco
         Defendants acted to aid, abet, assist, develop and propagate the
         Tobacco Defendants’ fraud, misrepresentation, and conspiracy as far as
         possible, specifically directing and reaching the U.S. Virgin Islands as
         part of their nationwide campaign.” Id. ¶ 266, p 64.

These new allegations, although containing the words “specific”, “specifically” and

“purposefully directed” do not identify the nature of Reynolds’ conduct purportedly

directed to the Virgin Islands.

      On April 20, 2023, Reynolds again moved to dismiss the fraud and

conspiracy claims (Count 5 and 6) in Barry’s amended complaint for lack of

personal jurisdiction. It argued that Barry’s fraud and conspiracy claims did not

arise out of the conduct alleged in the complaint and that the conduct was not

purposefully directed at the Virgin Islands. Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, 2. Again,

Barry chose not to seek jurisdictional discovery to support his complaint

allegations, nor did he request an evidentiary hearing. Instead, he chose to rely

on documentary evidence (presumably already in his possession) to support

numerous contacts he claimed were made by Reynolds including: the distribution
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 10

of cigarettes in the Virgin Islands, national broadcasting of false statements and

misrepresentations; the creation of a “controversy”; cigarette commercials directed

to the Virgin Islands; nationwide propagation of “the controversy”; advertising of

filtered cigarettes on packs and national magazines; publication of tobacco

industry committee’s pledge published in Virgin Islands newspapers; publication

of tobacco industry committee’s response to EPA draft on second-hand smoking

in the St. Croix Avis; tobacco industry statements regarding cigarette filters in the

St. Croix Avis; and television appearances by tobacco spokespersons in St. Croix.

The Court found Barry’s submitted documents insufficient to support personal

jurisdiction either because they contained no fraudulent message, was not directed

to the Virgin Islands by Reynolds and/or Barry did not rely on them. Barry knew,

or should have known, his bare complaint allegations would not suffice to

overcome a challenge to jurisdiction since the Court could only accept as true

allegations that were supported by affidavits or other competent evidence. Yet, he

chose to proceed without seeking further discovery. Molloy v. Independence Blue

Cross, 56 V.I. 155, 173 (V.I. 2012).

      All Plaintiffs now seek jurisdictional discovery:

      1) after two and one-half years since Reynolds challenged this Court’s
         jurisdiction over the same fraud and conspiracy claims;

      2) after the Court found Barry’s support for his complaint allegations was
         insufficient;

      3) after discovery deadlines have expired (the last being 02/28/23, i.e.,
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 11

           2020-720 for Georges); and

       4) when trials for Plaintiffs were set to commence in 2023 and 2024.

They have had ample opportunity to seek jurisdictional discovery and chose not

to do so.     It is inequitable for a plaintiff to strategically forego a request for

jurisdictional discovery, await the court’s decision on a motion to dismiss, and then

seek permission to conduct discovery. Under the circumstances, Plaintiffs have

waived their opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery by failing to timely

request it.3 Further, a grant of jurisdictional discovery will result in a 120-day

discovery period. This will be followed by a motion to amend, a motion to dismiss,

an opposition thereto, a reply, possibly a motion hearing, and a ruling by the Court.

Considering scheduling limitations, this process will very likely delay the scheduled

trials for another year. This reality mitigates against a grant of jurisdictional

discovery.

       Plaintiffs make several arguments in an attempt to justify jurisdictional

discovery, all of which lack merit. They argue Adams v. N.W. Co., Inc., 63 V.I.

427, 439 (Super. Ct. 2015) supports the notion that, where a complaint is subject

to dismissal, the court must permit a curative amendment unless it would be

3
  Although the Court’s dismissal order on March 14, 2023 applied to the Barry case, the other
plaintiffs are represented by the same lawyers. Their complaints contain almost identical
allegations. Their discovery deadlines have long passed and the identical motion to dismiss their
claims has been pending since January 4, 2021. Consequently, this Court concludes that the
other plaintiffs have waived their right to seek jurisdictional discovery as well.
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 12

inequitable or futile. Pls.’ Mot. for Jurisdictional Disc. 2 n 3.    First, Plaintiffs’

complaints are not “subject to dismissal” they were already dismissed which makes

Plaintiffs’ discovery request a belated one.     Second, as explained below, an

amendment would be inequitable and futile. Plaintiffs claim, pursuant to this

Court’s August 10, 2023 memorandum in the Barry case, “all that is lacking are

certain allegations showing that Tobacco Companies and their co-conspirators

purposefully targeted the Virgin Islands.” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs misread this Court’s

ruling. Barry’s deficiency went beyond his allegations and involved his support (i.e.

proof) thereof. He failed to:

      1) support certain allegations with affidavits or other competent evidence;

      2) specify details of alleged false misrepresentations;

      3) specify how alleged false misrepresentations were distributed to the V.I.;

      4) show certain alleged misrepresentations were directed to the V.I.; and

      5) show he relied on the alleged misrepresentations.

See Memo Op. (08/10/23), pp 13 - 29. Plaintiffs claim, “these exact same claims

of fraud and conspiracy have been found to meet the threshold for personal

jurisdiction in Brown/Gerald v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.”. Pls.’ Mot. for

Jurisdictional Disc. 8.    This argument is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ motion for

jurisdictional discovery and appears more as an attack on the Court’s conclusion

that Plaintiffs’ failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction.   Furthermore, the

Brown/Gerald court did not address the key issue here, i.e., sufficiency of proof of
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 13

fraudulent activities directed to the Virgin Islands. 4

        In their reply, Plaintiffs make further arguments in support of their request

for jurisdictional discovery. They claim “[p]laintiffs’ opposition on January 23, 2021,

requested jurisdictional discovery.” Pls.’ Reply to Reynolds’ Opp’n to Mot. for

Jurisdictional Disc. 1. This statement is simply false. Plaintiffs made no such

request.5 Instead they opined they must be permitted jurisdictional discovery if the

Court is inclined to hold an evidentiary hearing. Their false assertion warrants no

further discussion. Plaintiffs argue, Reynolds “waived its argument of personal

jurisdiction” as to the fraud and conspiracy counts by not pushing the Court to rule

on its motion to dismiss and by participating in the ligation. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs did

not raise this argument in their opposition to Reynolds’ motion to dismiss.

Therefore, it is waived as the Court has already ruled. Plaintiffs argue they relied

on the Court’s statement on March 17, 2023 that this was a simple pleading issue.

Id. at 3. A statement by the Court that pleadings need to be adjusted, however, is

not a license to plead unsupportable (unprovable) facts. Plaintiffs assert “if the

4
 Plaintiffs further argue that the Brown/Gerald court issued binding law regarding inferred reliance
that was upheld by the V.I. Supreme Court. Pls.’ Opp’n to Mot. for Jurisdictional Disc. 6; Pls.’ Sur-
response to Reynold’s Sur-reply 2. In fact, the Supreme Court in the Brown/Gerald matter (76
V.I. 656) did not address the inferred reliance issue. Plaintiffs’ claim regarding binding law is thus
patently incorrect.
5
  Later, in their Reply, Plaintiffs switch position and argued “the Plaintiffs timely raised jurisdictional
discovery. Plaintiffs raised the potential need for jurisdictional discovery back in January 2021.”
Pls.’ Reply to Reynolds’ Opp’n to Mot. for Jurisdictional Disc. 7. Clearly, “requesting” discovery
is quite different to “raising the potential need” for discovery.
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 14

Court need evidence, and considering R.J. Reynolds is the possessor of the

evidence, jurisdictional discovery is necessary.” Id. at 4. The need for discovery is

not for the Court, but for Plaintiffs, to decide guided by the axiom that complaint

allegations must be supported by competent evidence. Plaintiffs argue that no

delay should be a concern as to Georges, Schuster and Soto since no ruling has

been made in those cases; and they made the same request for jurisdictional

discovery in those cases in their omnibus opposition to Reynolds’ motion to

dismiss. Id. As indicated above, no such jurisdictional discovery request was

made, and delay is a concern for all Plaintiffs as trials are set to go forth within a

year.

   2) Plaintiffs Have Failed to Justify Their Request for Jurisdictional Discovery.

        Even if Plaintiffs had not waived jurisdictional discovery, their right thereto

would be sustained only if they present factual allegations that suggest with

reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite contacts between

Reynolds and the Virgin Islands, that is, contacts, upon which Plaintiffs relied,

tending to show Reynolds purposefully directed its allegedly fraudulent messages

to the Virgin Islands. See Phillips, 2023 WL 4930127 at *19. Plaintiffs have not

met this minimal burden.

        In support of their request for jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs boldly assert

“the Plaintiffs are confident they will have sufficient documents and information to

properly replead their allegations that RJR and/or its co-conspirators purposefully
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 15

targeted the Virgin Islands with its fraudulent misrepresentations and conspiratorial

conduct.” Pls.’ Mot. for Jurisdictional Disc. 4. They do not explain why they are so

confident, nor do they specify the nature of the documents they expect to uncover.

Such assertions lack reasonable particularity to allow for a meaningful

determination of whether the requisite contacts possibly exist. Further, Plaintiffs’

failure to present prima facie evidence to support jurisdiction, over their fraud and

conspiracy claims, despite their submissions and allegations of numerous contacts

in opposition to Reynolds’ second motion to dismiss, strongly suggest the

nonexistence of the requisite contacts. Jurisdictional discovery, then, would be a

futile endeavor. Plaintiffs do not even proffer allegedly fraudulent representations

they saw, heard, or read but have no documentary support for. They do not hint

at when these fraudulent representations were made or how they were directed to

the Virgin Islands. It is apparent that Plaintiffs have no clue as to what contacts

(i.e., misrepresentations directed to the Virgin Islands) jurisdictional discovery

might uncover. Under the circumstances their request for jurisdictional discovery

manifests as a fishing expedition and is not justified. 6 See Koh v. Koo, No. 22-CV-

6
  Plaintiffs argue the Court should not be concerned about a fishing expedition since “[h]undreds
of juries on the exact same fraud and conspiracy evidence have returned verdicts on the fraud
and conspiracy counts.” Mot. for Jurisdictional Disc. 6. The logic of this argument escapes the
Court as juries decide issues of fact. They do not make determinations of whether a court has
personal jurisdiction over claims. Plaintiffs also argue that various courts “have found the
Tobacco Companies’ fraudulent conduct and conspiratorial activities disturbing, outrageous, and
reprehensible, and have not precluded such claims on the basis of personal jurisdiction.” Id. This
argument suffers from the same irrelevance and lack of specificity as Plaintiffs’ request for
jurisdictional discovery. It thus does not help Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery in the
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 16

6639 (JMF), 2023 U.S. District LEXIS 147802 at *11, n 5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2023)

(denying jurisdictional discovery and stating “Nor do they identify what facts they

would uncover through discovery that would support the exercise of personal

jurisdiction over the Maum Entities. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant

Plaintiffs’ belated request for jurisdictional discovery.”); Pattanayak v. Mastercard,

Inc., Civ. No. 20-12640, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47293 at *12 (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 2021)

(denying plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery and stating “Pattanayak has

provided no sense of the relevant jurisdictional facts discovery might uncover. It

amounts to little more than a bare request for an opportunity to ‘better evaluate’

Mastercard’s ‘potential contacts’ with New Jersey.”); Pfister v. Selling Source, LLC,

931 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1118 (D. Nev. 2013) (denying jurisdictional discovery and

stating “[t]o this end, plaintiff's seeking jurisdictional discovery must provide some

basis to believe that discovery will lead to relevant evidence providing a basis for

the exercise of personal jurisdiction and courts are within their discretion to deny

requests based ‘on little more than a hunch that [discovery] might yield

jurisdictionally relevant facts.’" citing Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020

(9th Cir. 2008)).

         In a final desperate attempt to justify jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs claim,

“it seems the Court did not understand the critical importance of the Fraud and

least.
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 17

Conspiracy Counts to tobacco litigation,” and purport to educate the Court

thereon.7 Pls.’ Reply to Reynolds’ Opp’n to Mot. for Jurisdictional Disc. 12. They

claim: that cigarettes have killed more than 400,000 Americans a year for decades;

tobacco companies won every suit between the 1950s and 1990s because

tobacco plaintiffs did not have tobacco companies’ internal documents showing

their fraud and conspiracy; and since the year 2000, plaintiffs won two thirds of the

cases because they obtained access to, and used, the tobacco documents. Id. at

13. Plaintiffs thus conclude that “by not finding jurisdiction over this fraud and

conspiracy counts, and not following binding case law in Gerald . . . regarding

inferred reliance in tobacco litigation for fraud and conspiracy which affected the

Virgin Islands- this Court is creating a de facto immunity for Tobacco Companies’

wrongful actions in the Virgin Islands.” Id. at 14. Once again, Plaintiffs shift focus

towards nonissues. Let it be clear, the importance of certain claims to any party is

of no concern to this Court who stands as a neutral arbiter of the law. It is not the

Court’s role to assume jurisdiction over a fraud or conspiracy claim because it is

critically important to a tobacco litigation. Jurisdiction is determined based upon

proof of legally requisite contacts not upon a plaintiff’s need or desire to “win” a

case. Second, in the Virgin Islands, decisions from one Superior Court judge are

not binding on other Superior Court judges. In sum, Plaintiffs’ tobacco litigation

7
    Counsel is hereby cautioned to constrain the level of arrogance in submissions to the Court.
    Such conduct borders on disrespect and will not be taken lightly in the future.
In Re Tobacco Litigation
SX-2020-MC-090
2023 VI Super 81U
Page 18

history does nothing to assist their burden to show that jurisdictional discovery will

possibly yield evidence of the requisite contacts to the Virgin Islands by Reynolds.

                                      CONCLUSION

      For the reasons mentioned above, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs have

waived their right to request jurisdictional discovery and any such endeavor would

be futile. An order consistent herewith will be issued contemporaneously.

DATE: December 29, 2023
                                              ALPHONSO G. ANDREWS, JR.
                                                  Superior Court Judge

Attest:
TAMARA CHARLES
CLERK OF THE COURT

_______________________
COURT CLERK III
12-29-2023
________________________
DATE