Smith v. All persons claiming a present or future Interest

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
IDA SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALL PERSONS CLAIMING A PRESENT OR
FUTURE INTEREST IN ESTATE 13,
FRIIS, LINDA V. SMITH-FRANCIS,
WILLIAM E. SMITH, ELOISE V. SMITH-
HENDRICKS, BAB FRIIS NO. 1, PAUL
HOFFMAN, JANE HOFFMAN-WALKER,
ELEANOR ADAMS HOFFMAN, MAXWELL
ADAMS HOFFMAN, GLORIA FRANCOIS
MCGOWAN, DAVID A. BORNN AS TRUSTEE
TO THE GAF TRUST ESTATE 14 JOHN’S
FOLLY EXCLUDING ALL HEIRS AT LAW,
ESTATE 15 CONCORDIA A, CORAL BAY
QUARTER, ST JOHN UNITED STATES
VIRGIN ISLANDS, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, LAND RESOURCES DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, STANLEY
SELENGUT, WILLIAM B. POPPELTON,
LORRAINE A. POPPELTON, KEVIN M.
WALSH, MARIA K. STURATIS, SCOTT E.
WILMOSKI, CHARLES M. PERDUE,
MONICA PERDUE, JOZSEF NEMETH,
NANCY NEMETH, FRED S. PATTERSON,
MARGARET D. PATTERSON, JOHN R.
PERGOLIZZI, TREASURE VIEW LLC,
GEORGE PILLORGE, DEBORAH PILLORGE,
SCOTT L. HARTSHORN, CLAUDETTE C.
HARTSHORN, HEINZ G. FISHER, LINDA
G. BURDET TRUSTEES OF THE HEINZ G.
FISHER TRUST, DONALD DURANTE,
SAFIA B. DURANTE, CRAIG E.
MITCHELL, ALAN MARTIN KAUFMAN,
RACHELLE KAUFMAN, JEFFREY J.
McCRAVE, ANN McCRAVE, DOROTHY K.
JANOSKO, WILLIAM R. KINCER, SUSAN
B. KINCER, SUSAN GREER
LITTLEFIELD, WAYNE CHESTERFIELD,
MONIQUE FRANCOIS, PEDRITO
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil No. 2011-41
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 2
FRANCOIS, SALT POND VISTA LLC,
V.I. JOSEPH PALMINTERI, CARRIE
GLENN, MARC KAVE, EMILY J.
BRATTON, RICK HATHAWAY, RENE A.
SERVANT aka RENE H. SERVANT, MARIE
THERESE L. SERVANT, LORI JANE
SNACK, BRIAN K. WALDEN,
MINISTER ISHMAEL R. MUHAMMED,
MICHAEL CARPER, REUBEN WHEATLEY,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
APPEARANCES:
Ida Smith
New York, NY
Pro se plaintiff,
Ronald W. Sharpe, USA
Jason Cohen, AUSA
St. Thomas, VI
For the United States National Park Service,
Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq.
Hodge & Francois
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Paul Hoffman; Jane Hoffman Walker; and David A. Bornn,
Trustee of the GAF Trust,
Rafael F. Muilenburg, Esq.
Morrisette & Muilenburg
St. John, U.S.V.I.
For William E. Smith; Eloise V. Smith; Deborah Pillorge;
Claudette C. Hartshorn; Scott L. Hartshorn; Linda V. Smith-
Francis; and George Pillorge,
Gloria McGowan
Pro se,
Wayne Chesterfield
Pro se,
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 2 of 7

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 3
Monique Francois
Pro se,
Pedrito Francois
Pro se,
Joseph Palminteri
Pro se,
W. Mark Hillsman, Esq.
Law Offices of Norman P. Jones, P.C.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Carrie Glenn; Lori Jane Snack; William B. Poppelton;
Lorraine A. Poppelton; Maria K. Sturaitis; Charles M.
Purdue; Monica Purdue; Salt Pond Vista, LLC; Heinz G.
Fisher; Linda G. Burdet, Trustee of the Heinz G. Fisher;
Safia B. Durante; Donald Durante,
Marc Kave
Pro se,
Emily J. Bratton
Pro se,
Rick Hathaway
Pro se,
Rene A. Servant
Pro se,
Marie Therese Servant
Pro se,
Brian K. Walden
Pro se,
John H. Benham, III, Esq.
Watts, Benham & Sprehn, P.C.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Stanley Selengut,
Mark D. Hodge, Esq.
Hodge & Francois
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Kevin M. Walsh and Treasure View LLC,
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 3 of 7

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 4
Scott E. Wilmoski
Pro se,
Jozef Nemeth
Pro se,
Nancy Nemeth
Pro se defendant.
Fred S. Patterson
Pro se,
Margaret D. Patterson
Pro se defendant.
John R. Perqulizzi
Pro se,
Terryhill Enterprises, II
Pro se,
Missouri LLC
Pro se,
Craig E. Mitchell
Pro se,
Michael E. Fitzsimmons, Esq.
Stryker, Duensing, Casner & Dollison
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Alan Martin Kaufman,
Ann McCrave
Pro se,
Jeffrey J. McCrave
Pro se,
William R. Kincer
Pro se,
Susan B. Kincer
Pro se,
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 4 of 7

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 5
Susan Greer Littlefield
Pro se,
Kurt Shore
Pro se,
Suzanne L. Shore
Pro se,
Dorothy Janosko (also known as “Dorothy K. Janoko”)
Pro se.
ORDER
GÓMEZ, J.
In an August 1, 2016, order, the Court dismissed Ida
Smith’s (“Smith”) claims against the United States for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because (1) she failed to comply
with the pleading requirements of the Quiet Title Act; and (2)
she failed to adequately allege she had standing to bring those
claims. See ECF No. 505.
In its August 1, 2016, order, the Court observed that
“Smith’s complaint contains no factual allegation showing that
the United States has injured her. That is, there are no
allegations showing that the United States had laid claim to any
real property that she claims.” Id. at 12. Rather, Smith’s
complaint included only a bare assertion that “[t]here exists a
dispute or controversy as to the location of the boundary lines”
between two parcels of property. Id. at 12-13 (quoting ECF No.
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 5 of 7

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 6
268). This “conclusory assertion of a dispute,” the Court
explained, “is not sufficient to establish standing.” Id. at 13.
Reviewing Smith’s complaint and the record, it appears to
the Court that each of Smith’s claims against the remaining
defendants may suffer from the same deficiency. Additionally,
there is no record evidence that every remaining named defendant
has been served with process or waived service of process.
Where, as here, a district court raises an issue with a
complaint’s deficiency, the plaintiff must be given notice and
an opportunity to respond. See Lassiter v. City of Philadelphia,
716 F.3d 53, 57 (3d Cir. 2013) (“We have concluded that a
district court may sua sponte raise the issue of the deficiency
of a complaint so long as the plaintiff is accorded an
opportunity to respond.” (alterations and internal quotation
marks omitted)); Wallace v. Fed. Emp. Of U.S. Dist. Ct., EDPA,
325 Fed. App’x 96, 101 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) (explaining that a
district court must provide plaintiffs with “notice and an
opportunity to respond before sua sponte dismissing their
claims”).
The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that no later than November 21, 2016, Smith shall
file a brief that will show cause why this complaint should not
be dismissed for:
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 6 of 7

Smith v. All Persons Claiming a Present or Future Interest, et al.
Civil No. 2011-41
Order
Page 7
(1) want of subject matter jurisdiction over this matter;
(2) lack of standing by Smith to bring her claims; and
(3) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the trial in this matter, previously scheduled
for Monday, November 28, 2016, is RESCHEDULED to commence
promptly at 9:00 A.M. on Monday, January 23, 2016.
S\
CURTIS V. GÓMEZ
District Judge
Case: 3:11-cv-00041-RAM-GAT Document #: 553 Filed: 11/15/16 Page 7 of 7