Benta v. Christie's, Inc.

OAKLAND BENTA, JEFFREY J. PROSSER,and DAWN E. PROSSER, Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTIE'S, INC., CHARLES ANTIN, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP,YANN GERON, WILLIAM H. STASSEN,DAVID M. NISSMAN, and JAMES P. CARROLL, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2013-0080

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

June 21, 2021

Attorneys:

Yvette D. Ross-Edwards, Esq.,

Jeffrey B.C. Moorhead, Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

For Plaintiffs

Lawrence H. Schoenbach, Esq.,

New York, NY

For Plaintiff Jeffrey J. Prosser

Bernard C. Pattie, Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

Elizabeth C. Viele, Esq.,

New York, NY

For Defendant William Stassen

Bernard C. Pattie, Esq.,

St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

For Defendant Yann Geron

Gordon Rhea, Esq.,

Mount Pleasant, SC

For Defendants Christie's, Inc.

and David Nissman

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lewis, District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the "Emergency Motion to [] Strike Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint" (Dkt. No. 59) filed by Defendants William H. Stassen and Yann Geron;¹ "Plaintiffs' Resistance to Defendants' Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint" (Dkt. No. 63); the "Joinder by Defendants Christie's, Inc., Antin, and Nissman to Emergency Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint" (Dkt No. 64); "Defendants William H. Stassen and Yann Geron's Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint" (Dkt. No. 66); "Plaintiffs' Motion Supplementing the Record" (Dkt. No. 73); "Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201, or Motion for Other Miscellaneous Relief;" (Dkt. No. 58); and "Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal" (Dkt. No. 79).

Upon consideration of the entire record and for the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Defendants' Motions to Strike and dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court will also grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 58) to the extent that the Court will consider the judicial dockets and court decisions identified in the Motion, but will deny the Motion to the extent that it seeks judicial notice of disputed facts in those cases. The Court will also deny that Motion to the extent it seeks to unseal records in the criminal case of United States v. A. Williams, Case No. 3:2012-cr-033. Finally, Plaintiffs' Motion Supplementing the Record will be granted (Dkt. No. 73), and Plaintiffs' Motion to File under Seal (Dkt. No. 79) will be denied as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Original Complaint

As described in this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on March 17, 2017 granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 54; 55), Plaintiffs Oakland Benta ("Benta"), Jeffrey Prosser ("Prosser") and Dawn Prosser ("Mrs. Prosser") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint in July 2013 against Defendants Christie's, Inc. and Charles Antin, a Christie's employee; attorneys William H. Stassen, Yann Geron, and David M. Nissman; and "Certain Un-Named Co-Conspirators." (Dkt. No. 55 at 2). Plaintiffs' claims arose from the efforts of James P. Carroll ("Trustee Carroll"), the Chapter 7 Trustee of Jeffrey Prosser's Bankruptcy Estate, to recover a collection of wines located at the residence of Prosser and Mrs. Prosser (the "Prossers"), at Estate Shoys on St. Croix in July 2011. Id. at 2-3.

As background, Prosser and two businesses he owned and controlled—Innovative Communications Company, LLC ("ICC-LLC") and Emerging Communications, Inc. ("ECI")—filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2006 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (the "Bankruptcy Court"). (Case Nos. 06-bk-30007; 06-bk-30008; 06-bk-30009). A third business owned by Prosser, Innovative Communications Corporation ("New ICC") filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2007 (Case No. 07-bk-30012). Prosser's individual Chapter 11 case was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding, and Trustee Carroll was appointed to handle that Estate. Another Trustee, Stan Springel, was appointed as the Chapter 11 Trustee for the Estates of the bankrupt businesses. See Springel v. Prosser (In re Prosser), No. 3:2013-cv-0087, 2017 WL 721991, at *2-3 (D.V.I. Feb. 23, 2017).

In December 2007, Trustee Springel and Trustee Carroll filed an adversary proceeding against Prosser, Mrs. Prosser, and other Prosser family members asserting that they possessedproperty and monies belonging to the various Bankruptcy Estates (the "Turnover Proceeding"). (Bankr. Case No. 3:2007-ap-03010, at 1). Among the property claimed as part of the Estates was a wine collection stored at various Prosser residences and other locations.² In February 2011, the Bankruptcy Court determined, following a contested hearing, that the wines possessed by the Prossers were part of Prosser's Bankruptcy Estate. Pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's Order, the Prossers were directed to turn over the wines to Trustee Carroll. (Case No. 3:2007-ap-03010, Dkt. No. 728 at 133). Trustee Carroll, who had been authorized to employ Christie's earlier in the proceeding, asked Christie's employees to package and move the wine collection from the Estate Shoys residence. (Dkt. No. 55 at 2-3).³

In July 2011, the Trustee and Christie's coordinated the date for the turnover of the wine collection with Prosser's attorneys. Plaintiff Benta—who was the District Police Chief of St. Croix and Training Director at the Training Bureau of the Virgin Islands Police Department ("VIPD")—was present at the Prossers' residence when Christie's employees arrived to inspect, collect and transport the wines. Id. at 2-3.⁴ After being at the Estate Shoys residence for approximately onehour, the Christie's representatives, including Defendant Antin, left the property without taking possession of the wine. Christie's agents stated that the wine was ruined due to its storage at too high a temperature. (Dkt. Nos. 55 at 3; 56 at 22-23).

After the Christie's employees left the property, Benta inspected the wine storage area and noticed that the window air conditioner unit was unplugged. Benta plugged the unit back in and estimated that it had been unplugged for about 15 minutes. (Dkt. Nos. 55 at 3; 63-8 at 42). Approximately one month later, Benta called the VIPD and made a criminal report on behalf of Prosser regarding the incident. The Reporting Officer, Melissa Freeman, stated in her report that she advised Benta that the issue was a civil matter and should be addressed in civil court. In her report, she also requested that the case be closed. (Dkt. Nos. 1; 2; 55 at 3). Despite Officer Freeman's report, Officer Cuthbert Cyril, who worked under Benta's direct supervision, continued to investigate the incident. (Dkt. No. 56 at 38). Shortly thereafter, a Virgin Islands Assistant Attorney General ("AAG") on St. Croix issued two "Forthwith Subpoenas" directed at Defendant Antin and another Christie's agent. (Dkt. No. 55 at 3-4, 6). Later, Officer Cyril sent a letter to Mrs. Prosser on the "Office of the Police Commissioner" stationery updating her on the criminal investigation. Id. at 4. After the AAG also sent a "Forthwith Subpoena" to Trustee Carroll, Carroll told the Bankruptcy Court that he viewed these actions as an effort by the Prossers and Benta to manipulate local law enforcement to interfere with the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction. Id. at 4.

In December 2011, the VIPD Acting Police Commissioner informed Benta that a recommendation for Benta's termination had been submitted to the Governor's Office because of his actions relating to the investigation of the July 2011 incident, including the alleged misuse ofPolice Commissioner stationery. Benta was suspended without pay by the VIPD. Following grievance hearings, the VIPD and Benta reached a settlement and Benta was reinstated as a VIPD Officer in approximately June 2013. Id. at 7; Dkt No. 73-1 at 2.

All of the Estate Shoys wines were subsequently sold under Bankruptcy Court supervision by Trustee Carroll at a price well below the value listed on the Trustee's initial wine inventory. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Prossers were held in contempt by the Bankruptcy Court for violating its Order to preserve the wine collection ("Contempt hearing"). (Dkt. No. 55 at 9). The Bankruptcy Court's Contempt Order and its determination of damages was appealed and affirmed by this Court. In re Prosser, 2017 WL 721991 at *15-21. Many of the allegations asserted in the Amended Complaint in this case were raised in pleadings and testimony presented to the Bankruptcy Court at the Contempt hearing. (Case No. 3:2007-ap-03010, Dkt. Nos. 781; 784; 848).

After the Contempt hearing was held, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in the instant action. (Dkt. No. 1). The Complaint asserted two claims on behalf of Benta and two on behalf of the Prossers. Benta alleged that Defendants—jointly, individually and/or in conspiracy with others—violated 42 U.S.C. § 1985(1) and caused him to be suspended from the VIPD in violation of his constitutional rights; interfered with his ability to engage in the lawful discharge of his duties; attempted to intimidate him from testifying freely as a witness; and defamed him. Benta also brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. No. 55 at 7-8).

Similarly, the Prossers alleged in the Complaint that Defendants—individually and as part of a conspiracy with each other and others—intended to harm the Prossers in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 by intimidating Benta from testifying freely in the Bankruptcy proceeding. The Prossers also brought a claim against Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. No. 55 at 8).

Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss asserting various defenses, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881) and its progeny ("the Barton doctrine"). (Dkt. Nos. 10 at 5; 14; 55 at 8-9). The Court granted the Motions to Dismiss based on Barton. (Dkt. No. 55 at 22-23). However, the Court allowed Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to attempt to allege facts that would show that Defenda...