IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OPINION OF ...

Watts v. Two Plus Two, Inc.S.Ct. Civ. No. 2007-127Concurring OpinionPage 19 of 23Orders. Nonetheless, Appellant’s counsel vehemently maintains that he never receivedAppellees’ letters. First, evidence on the record fails to reveal adequate proof thatAppellees served Appellant with their demand for document production. Second,Appellant’s counsel vociferously and stridently maintained at the trial court’s hearing thathe never received the trial court’s Scheduling Order, while asserting that he hadencountered similar problems with receiving correspondences from the trial court. Inresponse to Appellant’s counsel’s contention, the trial court summarily rejected thisargument. Therefore, no investigation into the validity of Appellant’s counsel’s assertionthat he did not receive certain court documents was ever conducted by the trial court.E. Meritoriousness of the Claim or DefenseA claim or defense is “meritorious when the allegations of the pleadings, ifestablished at trial, would support recovery by plaintiff or would constitute a completedefense.” Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 263 (citing Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869-70) (internal quotationmarks omitted). A review of the allegations in the complaint supports a conclusion thatAppellant advances a meritorious claim.Appellant filed a five–page, six–count May 27, 2003 Complaint, which states theplace, date and time of the incident that resulted in his injuries. Appellant further describeshow, without any provocation by him and “for no explainable reason” he was assaulted byWatts, who was acting within the scope of his employment with Two Plus Two. Appellantexplicitly invokes the theory of respondeat superior in his complaint. Appellant expoundshow he has “suffered great pain of body and mind” as a direct and proximate result ofBell’s unprovoked assault upon him. Lastly, Appellant sets forth the duty Appellees owedto him and explains how that duty was breached because of the negligence of Appellees.