Back to Network
3
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
6 / 3
Mentions
Document Mentions (3 shared documents)
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ated to conduct purposely directed at the forum state. Id. Defendant maintains that this Court lacks specific jurisdiction over it as well, because Fancelli does not have sufficient minimum contacts with the Virgin Islands to support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with due process. See Int'l Sho
e and as may be developed through discovery. The reservation of rights was just that. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs Amended Complaint against Defendant Fancelli must be dismissed, with prejudice, for all, or any of the foregoing reasons. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to gr
and Defendant can thereafter admit, or deny the specifics of same. Personal jurisdiction alleged through some subsection of the long-arm statute, 5 V.I.C. § 4903, over this non-resident Defendant was not affirmatively plead in the First Amended Complaint-it is argued in opposition to the Motion to Dism
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
and that venue is improper.' e Court finds that Fancelli conducted business and contracted to supply services or things in 's Territory. Therefore, Fancelli is subject to the Court's jurisdiction. In addition, the Court ds that Plaintiffs have pleaded a sufficient claim for breach of a third-party benefi
Amended Complaint, arguing, among other things, that Plaintiffs' service of process was insufficient that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Fancelli; that Plaintiffs do not state a laim for relief; that Plaintiffs have failed to join a necessary party; and that venue is improper.' e Court finds
Id Id In re Kevin Manloodh, 47 V.1.267, 277 (Super. Ct 2005); see also Godfrey v. Intl Moving Consultants, Inc., t I .1. 60, 66 (D.V.1. 1980). 5 V.I.C. § 4903(a)(1). Berrran4 2010 WI, 2507305, at '9 (citing Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 332 (3d Cir. 009)). Aftrnbook 47 V.I. a
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
to Mr. Jean Pierre Fancelli. 5 In addition, Defendant specifically informed Plaintiffs' counsel, Darren lndyke, that because of limitations with Mr. Fancelli's ability to communicate in English, Mr. lndyke should communicate with Mr. Fancelli through Mr. Barthod . Pl. Ex. 3 Thus, Mr. Barthod has been pre
Ex. 4. In support of its argument for insufficient service of process, Defendant asserts that the ...Summons and Complaint (sic) were delivered to Fancelli's office in New York on or about November 29, 2010 and left at that location with an unauthorized employee of Fancelli Paneling, Inc." However, Mr.
rned to the Territory on multiple occasions from May 2009 to March 2010 to resume the installation. FAC ¶9 and P1. Ex. 8 Affidavit of Gary Kerney. 5 V.I.C. § 4903(a)(1). Defendant's conduct rose to the level of doing business and was more than a consequential act. Bertrand v. Cordiner at *17 citing Man
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (57)
Entities connected to both Fancelli and V.I.C.
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON197 w/ Fancelli·52 w/ V.I.C.
DI
Darren Indyke
PERSON94 w/ Fancelli·25 w/ V.I.C.
U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION10 w/ Fancelli·57 w/ V.I.C.
Woody Allen
PERSON15 w/ Fancelli·19 w/ V.I.C.
Richard Kahn
PERSON12 w/ Fancelli·20 w/ V.I.C.
New York
LOCATION8 w/ Fancelli·24 w/ V.I.C.
St. John
LOCATION7 w/ Fancelli·18 w/ V.I.C.
Marc Rich
PERSON19 w/ Fancelli·5 w/ V.I.C.
Condoleezza Rice
PERSON12 w/ Fancelli·12 w/ V.I.C.
George W. Bush
PERSON2 w/ Fancelli·20 w/ V.I.C.
the State of New York
LOCATION10 w/ Fancelli·12 w/ V.I.C.
Prince Andrew
PERSON10 w/ Fancelli·10 w/ V.I.C.
Alan Dershowitz
PERSON13 w/ Fancelli·6 w/ V.I.C.
DF
Denise Francois
PERSON16 w/ Fancelli·2 w/ V.I.C.
JF
Jean Pierre Fancelli
PERSON15 w/ Fancelli·2 w/ V.I.C.
Prince Charles
PERSON7 w/ Fancelli·10 w/ V.I.C.
Michael Jackson
PERSON12 w/ Fancelli·4 w/ V.I.C.
Joi Ito
PERSON12 w/ Fancelli·4 w/ V.I.C.
L.S.J.
ORGANIZATION5 w/ Fancelli·10 w/ V.I.C.
Saint James
LOCATION7 w/ Fancelli·7 w/ V.I.C.