Hall et al v. Hall et al

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
ELSA HALL as PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE OF
ETHLYN LOUIS HALL, and ELSA Hall
as TRUSTEE of the ETHLYN LOUISE
HALL FAMILY TRUST,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL H. HALL, Jr. and HALL &
GRIFFITH, P.C.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
) Civil No. 2011-54
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SAMUEL H. HALL, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELSA HALL,
Defendant.
)
)
)
) Civil No. 2013-95
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ATTORNEYS:
Andrew C. Simpson, Esq.
Emily A. Shoup, Esq.
Law Offices of Andrew Simpson
St. Croix, U.S.V.I.
For Elsa Emily Hall in her representative capacity and as
trustee.
Carl A. Beckstedt, III, Esq.
Beckstedt and Associate
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Elsa Emily Hall in her personal capacity.
Robert L. King, Esq.
Law Offices of Robert L. King
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
Case: 3:11-cv-00054-RAM-GAT Document #: 462 Filed: 03/28/17 Page 1 of 5

Elsa Hall v. Samuel Hall
Civil No. 2011-54
Samuel Hall v. Elsa Hall
Civil No. 2013-95
Order
Page 2
For Samuel Hall and Hall and Griffith, PC.
Marie E. Thomas-Griffith, Esq.
Hall & Griffith, P.C., PC.
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Samuel Hall and Hall and Griffith, PC.
ORDER
GÓMEZ, J.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court deny the amended
motion of Samuel Hall and Hall & Griffith, P.C., for costs.
On May 9, 2011, Ethlyn Hall, individually and as Trustee of
the Ethlyn Louise Hall Family Trust (the “Trust”), filed a
complaint against Samuel Hall and his law firm, Hall and
Griffith, P.C., in Civil No. 11-54 (the “Trust Action”). The
complaint raised claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
Ethlyn Hall passed away after the Trust Action commenced. One of
her daughters, Elsa Hall, continued the action as the personal
representative of the estate.
Samuel Hall then filed a nine-count counter-claim against
the Trustee in the Trust Action. He also filed a nine-count
complaint against Elsa Hall in her personal capacity (“Elsa
Hall”) in Civil No. 2013-95 (the “Samuel Hall Action”).
Case: 3:11-cv-00054-RAM-GAT Document #: 462 Filed: 03/28/17 Page 2 of 5

Elsa Hall v. Samuel Hall
Civil No. 2011-54
Samuel Hall v. Elsa Hall
Civil No. 2013-95
Order
Page 3
On February 14, 2014, the Trust Action and the Samuel Hall
Action were consolidated. Prior to trial, the Court dismissed
Samuel Hall’s counterclaims in the Trust Action.
In January, 2015, the Trust Action and the Samuel Hall
Action were tried before a jury. The jury rendered a verdict in
favor of Samuel Hall and Hall & Griffith, P.C., in the Trust
Action. The Court entered judgment in the Trust Action on
February 4, 2017, and dismissed the Trust Action on the merits.
On March 4, 2015, Samuel Hall and Hall & Griffith, P.C.,
moved for attorney’s fees and costs. On March 30, 2016, the
Court entered an order on that motion.
With respect to attorney’s fees, the Court denied the
motion as untimely because more than 28 days had passed between
the entry of judgment and filing of the motion. The Court held
that the motion for costs was timely. However, “the costs
demanded [were] not distributed between the Trust Action and the
Samuel Hall Action.” Civ. No. 2011-54, ECF No. 452 at 26. As
such, the Court was unable to “determin[e] whether the costs are
better attributed to the Trust Action or the Samuel Hall
Action.” Id. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for costs.
The Court granted Samuel Hall and Hall & Griffith, P.C., leave
Case: 3:11-cv-00054-RAM-GAT Document #: 462 Filed: 03/28/17 Page 3 of 5

Elsa Hall v. Samuel Hall
Civil No. 2011-54
Samuel Hall v. Elsa Hall
Civil No. 2013-95
Order
Page 4
to file an amended bill of costs in the Trust Action no later
than April 11, 2016.
On April 11, 2016, Samuel Hall and Hall & Griffith filed an
amended motion for costs. The motion asserted that Samuel Hall
and Hall & Griffith, P.C., were entitled to an award of
$27,844.25 in costs in the Trust Action. In support of the
motion, Samuel Hall and Hall and Griffith, P.C., attached a list
of charges that the motion asserted were either (1) costs
“solely related to the Trust Action”; or (2) a 70% assessment of
costs related to both actions. See Civ. No. 2011-54, ECF No. 456
at 2.
The Court referred the amended motion for costs to the
Magistrate Judge. On March 24, 2017, the Magistrate issued a
Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge found that Samuel Hall and Hall &
Griffith, P.C., “failed to provide any competent evidence to
support their allocation of costs between [the Trust Action] and
the Samuel Hall Action.” Civ. No. 2011-54, ECF No. 461 at 3.
Further, Elsa Hall’s opposition to the amended motion of costs
pointed out this deficiency. In reply, Samuel Hall and Hall &
Griffiths, P.C., provided only “copies of checks from their
checking account, many of which contain scant information
Case: 3:11-cv-00054-RAM-GAT Document #: 462 Filed: 03/28/17 Page 4 of 5

Elsa Hall v. Samuel Hall
Civil No. 2011-54
Samuel Hall v. Elsa Hall
Civil No. 2013-95
Order
Page 5
regarding what [Samuel Hall and Hall & Griffiths, P.C.,] were
paying for, along with a few redacted Lexis statements and one
deposition invoice.” Id. Samuel Hall and Hall & Griffiths, P.C.,
provided nothing further to demonstrate “why the costs were
incurred” or “the propriety of the 70%-30% allocation.” Id.
Accordingly, the Magistrate recommended denying the amended
motion for costs.
Upon de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.
The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED in part and MODIFIED in part; it
is further
ORDERED that amended motion for costs is DENIED without
prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that by no later than 3:00 PM on Monday, April 10,
2017, Samuel Hall and Hall & Griffith, P.C., shall, to the
extent they wish to do so, submit an amended bill of costs in
the Trust Action.
S\
Curtis V. Gómez
District Judge
Case: 3:11-cv-00054-RAM-GAT Document #: 462 Filed: 03/28/17 Page 5 of 5