EFTA01098979.pdf
dataset_9 pdf 489.0 KB • Feb 3, 2026 • 5 pages
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN'tsit.a.
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN
)
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) NO. ST-10-CV-443
)
FANCELLI PANELING, INC., )
)
Defendant. ) (CARROLL, J.)
)
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED REPLY
WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
COMES NOW Defendant, FANCELLI PANELING, INC. ("Fanelli"), by and through
its undersigned counsel, to move this Honorable Court for its Ordergranting Defendant in this action
leave to file an Amended Reply, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 12 & IS, LRCI 7.1(d), Super. Ct.
Rules 7, 48 U.S.C. §1561 and the Constitutional considerations embodied therein.
In support of its Motion, Defendant states the following facts and circumstances:
1. Defendant incorporates by reference the matter contained in its May 10° Motion to Extend
Time to File Leave to File Out of Time and in its May 14° Motion for Leave to File
(Amended) Reply Out of Time (nunc pro tune))
Although the Amended Reply is 21 pages, the Court has previously granted leave to
exceed the page limit and that Order is applicable hereto. LRCi 12.1(d).
EFTA01098979
DEPENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILEAMENDED REPLY
&stein. et al. v. Fancelli
Page 2
2. In filing its Amended Reply May I Counsel then considered its jurisdictional challenges
to the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(1-6), subject to a first time permissible
amendment as a matter of course and without need of leave, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(2)(1). Counsel raised those specific objections by motion, as permitted by Rule 12(b).
A jurisdictional motion is not within the definition of pleading provided by Fed. R. Civ. P.
7(a), but several of its jurisdictional challenges must be initially raised in direct response to
this pleading, the First Amended Complaint, upon pain of waiver and before pleading
further. Rule 12(g)(2) & (k).
3. In reviewing the interaction of rules and time limits between the Courts from a less hectic
vantage yesterday, Counsel noted that leave of Court is required for filings subsequent to the
reply in local motions practice. LRCi 7.1(a).
4. Accordingly, counsel moves that the instant Motion be accepted. mine pro tune, to the May
10th & 14th Motions and/or the May 11ih filing of the Amended Reply and to accept it as
filed.
5. Should the Court deem a sanction appropriate after considering the foregoing, counsel
requests that it be exclusively his, for the least amount, pursuant to LRCi 11.2.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant
the following relief:
A. To Permit Defendant to amend its Reply, mine pro itinc; and
B. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
EFTA01098980
DEFENDANT'S MOTIONFOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED REPLY
jpstein. et al. v. Fancelli
Page 3
DATED this IS I day of March, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
Treston
MOOR DS SELL, P.C.
V.I. Bar No. 10
Attorneys for Defendant
P.O. Box 310 (14A Noire Gade)
St. Thomas, VI 00804-0310
PHONE:
FAX:
EMAIL:
CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE
I hereby certify that on this ISth day of March, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was served by first
class mail, postage prepaid, upon Denise Francois, Esquire, Hodge & Francois, #1340 Taameherg,
St. Thomas, V.I. 00802.
EFTA01098981
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN IS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN
* * * * *
)
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v . ) NO. ST-10-CV-443
)
FANCELLI PANELING, INC., )
)
Defendant. ) (CARROLL, J.)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes on the Defendant's March 10, 2011 Motion to Extend Tinge in
Which to Respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause, March 14, 2011 Motion for Leave to
File its (Amended) Complaint Out of Time and the instant Motion for Leave to File Amended
Reply (num pro tune) and it
APPEARING TO THE COURT that said Motion should be granted for excusable
neglect and/or good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Defendant's Amended Reply shall be accepted as filed March 11,
2011; and it is further
ORDERED
EFTA01098982
ORDER
&stein.et al. v. FenceIli
Page 2
ENTERED THIS I)AY OF , 2011:
Hon. JAMES CARROLL, JUDGE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE V I.
ATTEST:
Venetia H. Velazquez, Esq.
CLERK OF COURT
By:
(Deputy) clerk
Distribution list:
All Counsel of Record
EFTA01098983
Entities
0 total entities mentioned
No entities found in this document
Document Metadata
- Document ID
- 1e9af58f-ca56-4b65-86fd-929676fbe572
- Storage Key
- dataset_9/EFTA01098979.pdf
- Content Hash
- c8f42096304ea44bb502ab2cbf1e42b9
- Created
- Feb 3, 2026