Skip to Content
Judiciary of the US Virgin Islands
Supreme Court
Superior Court
Supreme Court
of the
Virgin Islands
A+
A-
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
Judicial Home
Superior Court
About Us
Justices
Chief Justice Rhys S. Hodge
Associate Justice Maria M. Cabret
Associate Justice Ive Arlington Swan
Associate Justice Harold W.L. Willocks
Hours and Locations
Holidays
Contact Us
Administration
Offices of the Court
Office of Bar Admissions
Overview
Committee of Bar Examiners
Regular Admissions
Special Admissions
Pro Hac Vice Admissions
Bar Schedule of Fees
Office of the Clerk
Promulgation and Administrative Orders
Self Help Guide
Fee Schedule
Forms
Contact Us
Rules
Opinions
Oral Arguments Calendar
Court Calendars
Archived Court Calendars
Current Court Calendars
May 2025 OA Calendar
Judicial Home
Superior Court
About Us
Justices
Chief Justice Rhys S. Hodge
Associate Justice Maria M. Cabret
Associate Justice Ive Arlington Swan
Associate Justice Harold W.L. Willocks
Hours and Locations
Holidays
Contact Us
Administration
Offices of the Court
Office of Bar Admissions
Overview
Committee of Bar Examiners
Regular Admissions
Special Admissions
Pro Hac Vice Admissions
Bar Schedule of Fees
Office of the Clerk
Promulgation and Administrative Orders
Self Help Guide
Fee Schedule
Forms
Contact Us
Rules
Opinions
Oral Arguments Calendar
Court Calendars
Archived Court Calendars
Current Court Calendars
May 2025 OA Calendar
MENU
Supreme Court of the US Virgin Islands
»
Court Opinions
»
Published Opinions
»
2020 Published Opinions
»
Sheesley v. Palermo
A+
A-
Sheesley v. Palermo
Sub Menu
Skip Sidebar Navigation
Sheesley v. Palermo
S. Ct. Crim. No. 2017-0043
Last item for navigation
Case Caption:
Sheesley v. Palermo
Case Number:
SCT-CIV-2020-0015
Date:
01/29/2025
Author:
Swan, Ive Arlington
Citation:
2025 VI 5
Summary:
In an appeal from the Superior Court’s imposition of sanctions against an attorney in a personal injury case pursuant to Rule 11 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the court’s denial of his motion to reconsider the court’s imposition of sanctions, both arising from the attorney’s certification in connection with a supplemental Rule 26 disclosure he filed indicating that a potential witness had discoverable information about the litigation, this attorney was afforded ample opportunity to address the issue of whether he made a reasonable inquiry concerning the extent of the potential witness’s knowledge before making that filing. Nevertheless, that filing caused plaintiff’s counsel to depose the potential witness, only to determine that the potential witness in fact had no such information, thus wasting the time of both the court and plaintiff’s counsel and resulting in an unnecessary delay of the proceedings and needless increase in the cost of the litigation. Even though the Superior Court cited Rule 11 as the basis for its sanctions ruling, the Superior Court, in fact, considered the correct reasonable inquiry requirement embodied in Rule 26 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, and it made the required finding that the attorney’s certification under Rule 26 was sanctionable pursuant to that standard. Its use of Rule 11 as the basis for its sanctions ruling, rather than Rule 26, was therefore harmless. Accordingly, the Superior Court’s imposition of sanctions against the attorney is affirmed, as well as its denial of the attorney’s motion to reconsider the imposition of sanctions.
Attachment:
Open Document or Opinion