Court Opinion

ID: 9917238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 18:15:14.37347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:38.851079
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

                                   DIVISION OF ST CROIX

 EDWARD JOHN and MYRTLE RYAN AS
 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
 ESTATE OF GARNETT RYAN
                                                               CASE NO SX 2005 CV 00484
                                 Plaintiffs,
  v

 HOVENSA LLC JOHN EVANKO and
 KARI EVANKO

                                Defendants

Appearances

LEE J ROHN ESQ
Lee J Rohn and Associates, LLC
Christiansted V1 00820
For Plamttﬁfs

CARL A BECKSTEDT III ESQ
Beckstedt & Kuczynski LLP
Christiansted VI 00820
For Defendants
                                     Cite as 2024 VI Super 1U

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

 ﬁl 1   THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint John Evanko as the
Personal Representative of the Estate of Kari Evanko (“Motion”) and have him substituted into
the matter on behalf of Kari Evanko, deceased Plaintiffs, Edward John (“John”) and Myrtle Ryan
as personal representative of the Estate of Garnett Ryan (“Ryan”), move pursuant to Rule 25 of the
Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (V! R Cw P. 25(a)) and § 77 of Title 5 Virgin Islands
Code (5 VI C 77), for the substitution of John Evanko, a party defendant, for Kari Evanko,
deceased, another party defendant Plaintiffs argue that their Motion is timely, but if untimely, the
untimeliness is the fault of defense counsel, that Defendant HOVENSA LLC’s (“HOVENSA”)
objection to the Motion was untimely, that HOVENSA lacks standing to challenge the Motion and
ﬁnally, that there is “good cause” to grant the substitution and appoint John Evanko as the personal
representative HOVENSA opposes the Plaintiffs’ Motion arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims did not
survive, the Motion was not timely and does not survive under the “good cause” standard, and that
Plaintiffs are required to open a probate proceeding or otherwise establish that John Evanko is the
proper party to substitute for Kari Evanko
Edward John et al v HOVENSA LLC et a1                                      Cite as 2024 V] Super 1U
Case No SK 2005 CV 00484
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Page 2 of 10

Factual and Procedural Background

1|2    The procedural posture of this case is worth outlining as the conduct of the parties in
contributing to this 18 year old case is relevant to the Court’s conSIderation of the Motion and for
substitution On August 2, 2005, Edward John and Garnett Ryan ﬁled a suit against Defendants
HOVENSA, LLC, Best Construction, and John Evanko and Kari Evanko (jointly referred to as the
“Evankos”) for defamation, wrongful discharge, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
intentional/negligent inﬂiction of emotional distress and punitive damages Best Construction and
HOVENSA answered the complaint timely, but it was not until October 27, 2006, that the Evankos
answered the amended complaint The Evankos defend against defamation, inﬂiction of emotional
distress claims and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing For the next six (6) years, the
parties actively engaged in discovery In February 2012 and June 2012, Motions for Summary
Judgment1 were ﬁled by the Evankos and HOVENSA, respectively On May 21 2012 the Court
signed an agreed Order of Dismissal of Best Construction The matter appeared ready for trial and
the Court ordered the ﬁling of ﬁnal joint pretrial orders and proposed civil jury instructions by
August 1, 2012, with a calendar call scheduled for October 9, 2012 The calendar call was later
continued without a date
1|3    Over the next three years there were several substitutions of counsels for the defendants
and the ﬁling of a notice of automatic bankruptcy stay by HOVENSA on September 18 2015
Three years later, on October 25, 2018, Plaintiffs ﬁled notice of lifting the bankruptcy stay on
proceedings against HOVENSA The Court held a conference hearing on February 25, 2019,
during which the Plaintiffs’ attorney stated that all discovery was completed The Court’s Record
of Proceedings show that the parties were to submit a new scheduling order within 30 days of the
conference hearing This was not done
114     On August 26, 2020, Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint a second time to name
Myrtle Ryan as the personal representative for the Estate ofGarnette Ryan, deceased, and to clarify
her claims The motion was granted on October 19, 2020, without opposition Over a year later,
on December 9, 2021 , Plaintiffs moved to appoint John Evanko as the personal representative for
the Estate of Kari Evanko, deceased, to which HOVENSA ﬁled a written opposition HOVENSA
also answered the Second Amended Complaint on December 10, 2021 John Evankos did not
answer the Motion to Substitute him to defend on behalf of the Estate of Kari Evanko, and the
Plaintiffs did not submit evidence that John Evanko consented to the substitution Sixteen years
after the commencement of this matter, the case again stalled after Plaintiffs’ and HOVENSA’s
brieﬁng of the Motion and to substitute John Evanko to defend this action on behalf of Estate of
Kari Evanko, deceased
‘5      The Plaintiffs ﬁled with the Court a copy of a public announcement of the death of “Kari
Lynn Evanko” and an electronically generated report from the public records of the State of Texas,
Jefferson County on the death of Kari Lynn Evanko The announcement and death record show

‘ The Motions for Summary Judgment will be decided by separatejudgment of this Court
Edward John et al v HOVENSA LLC e! a!                                    Cite as 2024 V] Super 1U
Case No SX 2005 CV 00484
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Page 3 of 10

that “Kari Lynn Evanko”2 died on June 7, 2014, in Jefferson County The Court will take judicial
notice of her death 3
116     For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion to substitute a personal
representative for Defendant Kari Evanko deceased However, the Court will not permit the
substitution of Defendant Johm Evanko for Defendant Kari Evanko, deceased

                                          DISCUSSION
Survival of Plaintiff’s Claims
17      Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint makes two personal injury claims (defamation and
negligent/intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress) and one common law claim for damages
sounding in contract law (breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing) against Defendant Kari
Evanko Determining the survival of these claims is the ﬁrst step in the Court’s consideration of
whether it should permit the substitution of a personal representative for Kari Evanko If none of
the claims survive, the Court’s inquiry ends and the claims against Kari Evanko must be dismissed
However, if any claim against Kari Evanko survives her death, the Court must consider the
appointment and substitution of a personal representative to continue the defense of the claims
against her estate See, 5 VI C § 78 Based upon the arguments of the parties, the Court will
consider two statutory provisions which govern the survival of claims following the death of a
party 5VIC§77and15VIC {$601
'18     Title 5 Virgin Islands Code, §77 governs the survival of personal injury and other tort
claims Jeremzah v V1rg1n Islands Dep t ofHum Servs 77 V I 310 317 2023 VI SUPER 34 1]
8 (Super Ct 2023) It speciﬁcally provides that “[a] thing in action arising out of a wrong which
results in physical injury to the person shall not abate by reason of the death of the wrongdoer,
any other person liable for damages for such injury, nor by reason of the death of the person
inj ured ” 5 V.I C § 77 This section allows personal injury actions to continue alter the death of
an injured party and] or the party accused of wrongdoing Martinez v Hess 011 Vzrgm Islands
Corp   69 VI 519, 543 (Super Ct 2018)          The personal injury claim, however, must allege
physical injury and have occurred during the lifetime of the injured party [d In paragraph 45 of
the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege physical injuries because of the Defendants’

2 Plaintiffs’ counsel represents to the Court that by the submission of the public record and death
announcement for Kari Lynn Evanko, that Kari Evanko and Kati Lynn Evanko, deceased, are one
and the same person This representation is accepted subject to V1 R Civ P 11 ( See, VI Taxt
Assoczatton v Virgm Islands Port Authority 2015 WL 3814174 (Super Ct 2015) (The Superior
Court considered the circumstances of counsel’s misrepresentations and determined that they were
not intentional and did not amount to sanctionable conduct ))
3 Courts can take judicial notice of the death of a party based upon public records and
announcement In re 2020 VI SUPER 53 1] 50 (Super Ct Apr 26 2020) revd and remanded
sub nom Metivzer v Lockheed Martm Corp 2023 V14 1| 50 (Mar 30 2023)
Edward John et a] v HOVENSA LLC et a!                                      Cite as 2024 V] Super 1U
Case No SX 2005 CV 00484
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Page 4 of 10

wrongful conduct which the Court ﬁnds satisﬁes the physical injury requirement for survival under
§ 77
1|9    Further, under § 77 the following damages are available “loss of earnings and expenses
sustained or incuned [by the decedent] as a result of the injury[,]” including “damages for pain,
suffering and disﬁgurement, or punitive or exemplary damages, or prospective proﬁts or earnings
after the date of death Gerald v R J Reynolds Tobacco Co 67 V I 441 477 (V I Super 2017)
Plaintiffs are also entitled to seek punitive damages and damages for decedents’ pain and suffering
and loss of enjoyment of life under § 77 Id Here, Plaintiffs seek damages for physical and
psychological injuries, loss of regulation, humiliation, scorn, loss of income, loss of capacity to
earn income, medical expenses, mental anguish, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and
punitive damages under Count I defamation and Count IV inﬂiction of emotional distress Not
only do the claims for defamation and negligent/ intentional inﬂiction of emotional distress
survive, but the claimed damages may be recoverable, if proven
110    While §77 limits survival to personal injury tort actions for which there is a physical injury,
15 V I C § 601 expands the types of claims that by be pursued by or against a deceased’s estate
§ 601 states
       Subject to the provisions of sections 76 and 77 of Title 5, cause of actions by one person
       against another, whether arising on contract or otherwise, survive to the personal
       representatives of the former and against the personal representatives of the latter When
       the cause of action survives, as herein provided, the executors or administrators may
       maintain an action thereon against the party against whom the cause of action accrued, or
       after his death, against his personal representatives
15 V] C § 601 § 601 clearly permits the survival of claims “arising on contract ” The duty of
good faith and fair dealing is an implied covenant sounding in contract law Donovan v A H
Riise Glﬂ Shop Inc     2018 WL 11290354 at *4 (VI Super May 15 2018) Hence Plaintiffs
claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing survives under § 601
Timeliness of the Motion to Substitute

1111   The Court next considers the timeliness of the objection to the Motion This requires a
review of two provisions goveming the substitution of a party 5 V] C §78 and Rule 25(a) of the
Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (V! R sz P. 25(a)) 5 V I C §78 provides that [n]o
action shall abate by the death or disability of a party or by the transfer of any interest therein, if
the cause of action survives or continues ” 5 VI C § 78 Personal injury or tort claims survive
the death of a party See generally id § 77,Augustm v Hess 011 Virgin Islands Corp 67 V I 488,
508 (Super Ct 2017) Hence, if a party dies while a case is pending, “the court may at any time
within two years thereaﬁer, on motion, allow the action to be continued by or against his personal
representatives or successor in interest ” Id § 78
1112    The Virgin Islands Supreme Court promulgated a rule also regarding substitution Rule 25
of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] motion for substitution may be
made by any party or by the decedent's successor or representative   [and] may be granted at any
Edward John et al v HOVENSA LLC et a1                                       Cite as 2024 VI Super 1U
Case No SX 2005 CV 00484
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Page 5 of 10

time within two years after the death VI R CW P 25(a)(1) In re 2020 VI SUPER 53 1] 32
The two year deadline is procedural, tantamount to a statute of limitations, and a party’s failure to
meet the deadline may warrant dismissal See, In Re Deceased Plamtzﬁfs er a1 73 VI 165 2020
WL 2096427 (Super Ct 2020)

1113   Plaintiffs ﬁled their Motion on December 9, 2021, over seven years after the death of
Defendant Kari Evanko This is clearly outside of the two year window provided by 5 VI C §78
and VI R Civ P 25(a) Defendants ﬁled an objection to the Motion within the calendar time
permissible under the rules, after receiving an extension by the Court to respond However,
Plaintiffs argue that irrespective of timely compliance with the time provided in the rules, a party’s
lack of standing to object equates to a failure to timely object This argument will be separately
addressed, as it asks the Court to narrow a party’s opportunity to object not just by the time
provided in § 77, but to those litigants who are actual heirs or successors in interest to the deceased
party’s estate
HOVENSA’s Standing to Oblect
1114   Plaintiffs ﬁled their Motion to substitute over seven years after Defendant Kari Evanko
died They maintain, however, that despite its lateness, the Motion is not “untimely” because no
one with standing challenged the Motion Their argument centers on 5 VI C § 77, which is a
claims processing limitation rule “akin to a statute of limitations” See In re Deceased Plamtzﬂs,
2020 WL 2096427, at *1 10 11 16 Plaintiffs argue that regardless of when the objection was
ﬁled, only Defendant John Evanko, who they have asked to be appointed the personal
representative of the Estate of Kari Evanko, or an heir or successor in interest, is able to raise the
claims processing limitation defense under §77 They maintain that Defendant HOVENSA is not
an heir or successor in interest to Kati Evanko’s estate, and hence cannot properly object Plaintiffs
conclude that since no person with interest in the Estate of Kari Evanko has appeared or objected
within the time permitted, any obj ection is waived The Court disagrees

1115    Defendant HOVENSA has an interest in the Evankos remaining or removal as parties in
this action The basis for the claims and defenses raised by the parties confers upon HOVENSA
an interest that gives it standing (HOVENSA’s response to and handling of complaints by the
Evankos of alleged defamatory statements by the Evankos against the Plaintiffs are the basis of
the Plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants) In fact, in In Re, the Superior Court found that “the
defendants”, none of which were heirs or successors of interest in deceased parties’ estate, but all
of whom were corporate defendants, either did not waive any objection to timeliness or did timely
object to the motions to substitute (In re, 2020 VI SUPER 53, 1! 33 This ﬁnding recognizes the
right of non moving parties to object to a motion to substitute even though they may not be heirs
or successors in interests to the deceased party’s estate where the nonmoving party’s interest in
the case is tied to the deceased party’s alleged conduct

1H6 All arguments considered, the Court ﬁnds that HOVENSA timely objected However,
dismissal is not mandatory Mettvzer v Lockheed Martm Corp , 2023 VI 4, 1| 6 The Court must
now consider whether the Plaintiffs’ failure to move within two years is excusable for “good cause”
Edward John et al v HOVENSA LLC et a1                                    Cite as 2024 V] Super 1U
Case No SX 2005 CV 00484
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Page 6 of 10

after ﬁrst considering the Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants waived their right to challenge the
timeliness of the Motion

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Substitute Survives For “Good Cause”
117    Recently, the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands, in Metwter v Lockheed Martm Corp
determined that the statute of limitation deadline stated in Rule 25 of the Virgin Islands Rules of
Civil Procedure does not preclude the court from considering whether there is “good cause” to
permit the tardy motion to substitute under Rule 6(b)(1) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil
Procedure (V! R Cw P. 6(b)(1)) Metlvzer v Lockheed Martin Corp 2023 VI *4, 1| 6 In so
doing, the Court is bound to make appropriate ﬁndings and assign weight to all the relevant Rule
6(b)(l) factors“, as the denial of a motion to substitute may result in the dismissal of the viable
claims of a deceased party See Hallzday v Footlocker Speaalty Inc 53 VI 505 511 (VI 2010)
1118    Rule 6(b)(1) enumerates several factors that the Superior Court may consider in deciding
whether to grant a request to extend the date for doing an act, including whether the request to
extend time is made before or aﬁer the required date, the reason for the movant's delay, whether
the reason for delay was within the reasonable control of the movant, the danger of prejudice to
the parties, the length of the delay, the potential impact of the delay on judicial proceedings,
whether the party seeking the extension has acted in good faith, and all other relevant
circumstances surrounding the party's failure to meet the originally prescribed deadline V I R
CIV P 6(b)(1) Mettwer v Lockheed Martin Corp 2023 V14 1| 16
1119    Plaintiffs’ Motion was ﬁled seven years aﬁer the death of Kari Evanko; yet Plaintiffs argue
that their motion is not “untimely” and its tardy ﬁling beyond its control This argument requires
the Court to look at the legal representation of the parties throughout this litigation Plaintiffs
blame the Defendants for their untimely ﬁling for substitution, arguing that the challenge was
waived because the knowledge of Defendant Kari Evanko’s death should be imputed to defense
counsel since defense counsel (through prior law ﬁrms) represented all Defendants up to and
including the period of Kari Evanko’s death The record does not support this argument
120     The record shows that Attorney Beth Moss, of Bryant Barnes Moss & Beckstedt, LLP,
entered an appearance in this matter and answered the First Amended Complaint on behalf of
HOVENSA Then, in November 2006, Beth Moss, Esq , ﬁled an appearance and answered the
First Amended Complaint on behalf of John Evanko and Kari Evanko on December 17, 2008,
Attorney Linda J Blair, of Bryant Barnes Moss Beckstedt & Blair LLP, initially substituted in for
Defendant HOVENSA only Subsequent ﬁlings by Attorney Blair were on behalf of HOVENSA
only However, on September 22, 2011, Attorney Blair signed a stipulation for extension of time
on behalf of HOVENSA an_d the Evankos for the completion of mediation Again, on February 28
2012 Attorney Blair ﬁled a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of HOVENSA and the
Evankos
121    After the death of Kari Evanko in 2014, on July 15, 2015, Sunshine Benoit, Esq , of Bryant
Barnes & Benoit LLP, stipulated to substitute on behalf Attorney Linda Blair for all defendants
Subsequently on September 18 2015 Defendant HOVENSA ﬁled Notice of Bankruptcy Two

41d
Edward John et a] v HOVENSA LLC et a1                                      Cite as 2024 V1 Super 1U
Case No SX 2005 CV 00484
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Page 7 of 10

years later, on February 13, 2017, Paul R Neil, Esq , of Barnes & Benoit LLP5, appeared and was
permitted to substitute for Sunshine Benoit, Esq For over three years, the firm of Barnes & Neil
LLP6 represented all defendants Then on April 18, 2018 Carl Beckstedt Esq of Beckstedt &
Associates was permitted to substitute for Paul R Neil, Esq , of Barnes & Neil, LLP for
HOVENSA only Attorney Beckstedt never appeared for the Evankos Of record, Carl Beckstedt,
Esq , is counsel for HOVENSA and Paul R Neil, Esq , was the last known attorney for John
Evanko and Kari Evanko Hence, Plaintiffs’ premise for claiming that HOVENSA’s counsel, Carl
Beckstedt, Esq , should have known of the death of Kari Evanko and given notice of the death is
ﬂawed because Attorney Beckstedt does not represent a successor ﬁrm to the Evankos attorneys,
and did not at any point represent all three parties
1122    Moreover, a plaintiff is charged with prosecuting her case, and a failure to zealously do so
may result in a dismissal   See, Modeste v Virgin Islands Police Dep't, 2023 VI SUPER 21, 11 2
(Super Ct May 5, 2023)       This duty to prosecute includes taking all actions necessary to move
the case forward, even in the absence of a diligent defendant As discussed earlier, John Evanko
and Kari Evanko have not been active in this case since the brieﬁng of their motion for summary
judgment in 2012 For at least nine years, no attention was given to their absence from the case
by any party Even after the bankruptcy was lifted in 2017, Plaintiffs made no effort to ascertain
the status ofthe Evankos in this matter, until recently when Plaintiffs investigated to determine the
status of Kari Evanko This lack of diligence has contributed to at least the most recent ﬁve year
delay, signiﬁcantly slowing this judicial proceeding and adding to the congestion of the Court’s
calendar
1l23    Nonetheless, the Court ﬁnds that there is good cause to permit the substitution Since the
ﬁling of this matter in 2005, the parties appeared to have engaged in discovery and motion practice
cooperatively and in good faith There were several discovery motions for extension of time that
were ﬁled jointly (stipulations), three amendments to the pleadings, and substantial discovery
activity The record is void of court orders to which the parties did not comply and reﬂects the
parties’ diligence in moving the case along This case involved multiple defendants and third
party claimant(s), some of which were resolved during the litigation The ﬁrst scheduling order
was issued in February 2012 In compliance with the scheduling order, the parties ﬁled their
substantive motions(s) and responses Subsequently, in August 2012, the Court required the ﬁling
of pretrial memorandums and proposed jury instructions By October 2012, the hearings in the
case were continued without date The matter was reassigned four times to judges in the succeeding
years, and counsel for the parties also changed several times In 2015, HOVENSA ﬁled for
bankruptcy which the Plaintiffs notiﬁed the Court in 2017 when the stay was lifted Shortly
thereafter, the Court takes notice that Hurricanes Irma and Maria substantially damaged the
territory in September 2017 slowing the progressions of legal proceedings Then the COVID 19
pandemic from 2019 to 2021 caused further delays These unfortunate occurrences delayed the
Court’s docket and created challenges for the Court and counsel in the management of cases

5 Barnes &Benoit, LLP is the successor ﬁrm of Bryant, Barnes & Benoit LLP with the apparent
difference being the change in the partner, “Bryant”
6 Barnes & Neil, LLP is the successor ﬁrm of Barnes & Benoit, LLP, with the apparent difference
being the change in the partner
Edward John et al v HOVENSA LLC et a1                                        Cite as 2024 VI Super 1U
Case No SX 2005 CV 00484
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Page 8 of 10

Hence, the Court ﬁnds that external factors beyond the parties’ control played a contributing role
in delaying this case to which the Court will give weight While Plaintiff is at fault for not diligently
prosecuting this matter after the stay was lifted in 2017, the Court recognizes several intervening
occurrences also impaired the progression of this case
1|24     In 2021, Plaintiffs were permitted to substitute a personal representative for deceased
Plaintiff, John Edward, with the written consent of the proposed personal representative Allowing
a substitution for the Estate of Kati Evanko would set this matter on track for a trial order Absent
fault by any party that outweighs the intervening circumstance, no sanctions would be appropriate
Because neither dismissal nor sanctions are mandatory, Metzvzer v Lockheed Martm Corp 2023
VI 4, 1| 12 (Mar 30, 2023), this Court will ﬁnd “good cause” to permit this matter to proceed to a
decision on its merits against Kari Evanko’s estate through an appointed personal representative

John Evanko Is Not A Proper Par_ty To Substitute For Kari Evanko, Deceased

1|25   Pursuant to V1 R Civ P 25(a)(1), if a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the
court may order substitution of a “proper party” Augustm v Hess 01] Virgin Islands Corp 67
V I @ 513 Exactly who is considered a “proper paity”, if not an executor or administrator, has
garnered some attention by our courts when deciding whether the proposed personal representative
should be appointed In Augustin v Hess 011 Virgin Islands Corp , the Superior Court spent
considerable time addressing its concerns and frustration with the appointment process for
personal representatives who are substituting in a civil action       Citing to a Wyoming case, the
Augustin Court echoed that ‘the only test of who is appointed as personal representative         cannot
simply be who ﬁrst gets to the courthouse ” 67 V I 488, 513, quoting, m re Estate ofJohnson,
231 P 3d 873 881 (Wyo 2010) The Augustin Court questioned whether the proper appointment
depended on who was named in a will, whether there was a probate proceeding an how would the
protections of the Virgin Islands probate laws be implemented to the beneﬁt of the heirs and
creditors, who are the lawful heirs and conﬂict of interest concerns      In the end, it opted to “wait
and see” in the absence of guidance from our Supreme Court while it proceeded with appointing
the recommended person

1|26 This same approach was followed by the Superior Court in Brown v Lorlllard Inc 2012
WL 12994998 at *1 (V I Super Mar 30 2012) The Brown Court, in reviewing the substitution
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, concluded that to determine who is a “proper party”,
the Court must look to the parties' submissions and relevant case law Id Of course, the Brown
case preceded the adoption of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, and the current
interpretation of who would be a ‘proper party’ may be decided differently This Court, however,
considers the Brown’s Court’s guidance to be on point, on whether John Evanko should be the
personal representative for Kari Evanko

1127    The allegation in paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Complaint is that John Evanko and
Kari Evanko were married at all times alleged In its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint,
HOVENSA admitted the allegation that the parties were married at all times alleged but had “no
01/09/2024
        IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                    District of St. Croix

Edward John et al,                       Case Number: SX-2005-CV-00484
                     Plaintiff           Action: Damages
v.

HOVENSA L.L.C et al,
                 Defendant.

                                 NOTICE of ENTRY
                                       of
                                     ORDER
 To Lee J. Rohn, Esq.                        Carl A. Beckstedt, III, Esq.
 :

                   Please take notice that on January 09, 2024
         a(n)              Memorandum Opinion and Order
                  dated    January 09, 2024       was/were entered
                      by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.

Dated    January 09, 2024                                    Tamara Charles
 :
                                                           Clerk of the Court
                                              By:

                                                            Tisha Laurencin
                                                             Court Clerk II