Case Caption: Pollins v. Feuerstein et alCase Number: SCT-CIV-2020-0099Date: 01/24/2025Author: Cabret, Maria M. Citation: 2025 VI 3Summary: Regarding an appeal from the Superior Court’s orders denying plaintiff’s motion for a third extension of time to complete service and granting the individual defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, an evidentiary hearing is deemed to be necessary to determine whether the plaintiff’s motion should be granted by operation of Rule 4(n), either because, under all the circumstances, plaintiff has established the good cause required for a mandatory extension of the period within which to accomplish service of process or because the circumstances warrant a discretionary extension of such period, notwithstanding that they do not rise to the level of good cause required for a mandatory extension, as well as resolution of the matter of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The matter is remanded to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant has engaged in evasion of process, whether the defendant has waived his objection to proper service or has otherwise consented to jurisdiction, and whether the Superior Court may exercise jurisdiction over the defendant under the Virgin Islands’ long-arm statute, 5 V.I.C. § 4903. Both orders are reversed and the matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issues of service of process and personal jurisdiction.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion