United States v. Schooner Windspirit

Citations: 32 V.I. 285; 161 F.R.D. 321; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6789; 1995 WL 302987Docket: Civil No. 1990-343

Court: District Court, Virgin Islands; April 18, 1995; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's motion to alter the judgment issued on December 12, 1994, the plaintiff's request to file this motion out of time, and the defendants' motion for reconsideration. The Court denies the plaintiff's request to file late, noting that the plaintiff failed to justify the delay, as the judgment was served on local counsel in a timely manner. The Court emphasizes that service to any attorney of record satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, and highlights the obligation of counsel to regularly check for Court orders per local rules. The ten-day limit under Rule 59(e) is deemed jurisdictional and cannot be extended, citing relevant case law. The defendants' timely motion for reconsideration will be considered, but the Court denies their request to supplement it with additional grounds, limiting the analysis to the three issues originally presented in the December 22, 1994 motion.

Defendants contest the Court's decision to award prejudgment interest to the plaintiff, repeating arguments from their post-trial brief. The Court denies their motion to alter the judgment, emphasizing that neither Rule 59 nor Rule 60 permits revisiting previously settled arguments. The Court clarifies that the plaintiff's lack of a "loss of use" claim does not preclude their entitlement to prejudgment interest, as the defendants' negligence caused significant damage to a natural resource in a national park, impacting both recreational use and the park's preservation mission. The Court asserts that out-of-pocket expenses are not required for an award of prejudgment interest, which aims to compensate for the victim's loss regardless of the nature of that loss. Maritime law supports the award of prejudgment interest in sole fault collision cases unless exceptional circumstances exist, which the Court found did not apply here despite the plaintiff's change in damage theory during litigation.

Regarding per diem charges for re-attaching boulders to the coral reef, the defendants argue the Court erred in its assessment. The Court evaluated conflicting evidence and determined that the complexity of repairs in deeper waters warranted its calculations, which favored the defendants. Lastly, the defendants claim a miscalculation in the estimated number of boulders to be re-attached. The Court accounted for Mr. Hudson's admission of a thirty percent error in his estimate and, based on all available evidence, concluded that 322 boulders would need reattachment, rejecting the defendants' assumption of miscalculation.

Hudson's estimate was adjusted upward due to the potential for significant error, as he himself acknowledged a possible overestimation of more than thirty percent. The Court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration because they failed to identify any legal errors or present new evidence. The Court's findings, based on conflicting testimonies, reflected the best assessment given the evidence available. The calculations presented were not intended to suggest a precise scientific measure of damages, and minor adjustments by the defendants did not undermine the Court’s damage assessment. There was no reliable scientific basis to extrapolate damage beyond the first forty-eight meters of the scar, as the evidence did not support the plaintiff's proposed mathematical extension based on initial measurements. The plaintiff's inadequate case preparation contributed to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence for damages beyond this distance. Both parties' motions to alter the judgment were denied. The document notes procedural changes regarding the case’s caption and addresses a late jurisdictional objection by the defendants, which the Court deemed waived due to their prior filings and the lack of objections during pre-trial proceedings. The Park System Resource Act defines "damages" regarding restoration and loss of use. The Court also noted that restoring the deepest part of the scar would be more challenging and time-consuming compared to shallower areas.