Raymond L. Finch

U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands district Retired 2018 · served 1994–2018 Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 25 signed orders read

Judge Finch no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Finch decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

An arbitration agreement remained enforceable when the employee accepted benefits under it and could not show both procedural and substantive unconscionability.

“Because Wilhelm ratified the contract by accepting the ACP Bonuses, she has foregone her fraudulent inducement defense.”

Fourth Amendment suppression arguments failed where the challenged area qualified as an open field and officers observed evidence in plain view.

“Because the open fields doctrine applied, the officer's presence and search of the overgrown area ... did not violate Defendants' Fourth Amendment rights.”

Procedural preferences

Late evidence required a concrete showing of excusable neglect; affidavits based on information available during the original briefing period were not accepted.

“Plaintiffs could have obtained further details from Vargas at any time.”

A prisoner was not required to plead exhaustion because failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove.

“failure to exhaust administrative remedies must be pled and proved by the defendant.”

Cautions

Rule 11 sanctions were reserved for exceptional cases, and replacement counsel was not held responsible for pleadings that counsel did not sign or file.

“substituted counsel cannot be held accountable for pleadings or motions which they themselves did not sign or file.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

George and other homeowners v. Virgin Islands Housing Finance Authority, federal housing agencies, and contractors
1997-0177 · 2007-11-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Plaintiffs have failed to present a claim against HUD or FmHA for which relief can be granted.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted
Krimmel v. HOVENSA, L.L.C. and Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.
2002-0028 · 2007-11-28
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“the motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as to HOVIC on all counts.”

Mendez and other refinery workers v. HOVENSA, L.L.C.
2002-0169 · 2008-01-11
Motion for leave to file (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave Pursuant to Rule 6(d) to File Sworn Testimony of Dimetrio Felix Ortiz is granted”

Motion for leave to file (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs' Motions for Leave Pursuant to Rule 6(d) to File Sworn Testimony of Sr., Rene Vargas, and Charles Weaver are denied.”

Motion for leave to file (plaintiff) Denied
Coto v. Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air
2005-0191 · 2008-01-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim for Defendant's failure to maintain the stairs in a safe condition, DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim for Defendant's failure to assist, and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claim for Defendant's failure to warn Plaintiff of the wet steps.”

Mendez and other refinery workers v. HOVENSA, L.L.C.
2002-0169 · 2008-03-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“It grants summary judgment in Hovensa's favor on Plaintiffs' claim for intentional spoliation of evidence or fraudulent concealment. The Court denies summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' other claims”

Branker v. Department of Homeland Security and federal immigration officials
2007-0041 · 2008-05-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED”

United States and People of the Virgin Islands v. Bell
2008-0003 · 2008-05-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court dismisses Counts III against Bell with prejudice.”

United States v. Baker and others
2008-0008 · 2008-10-30

Before an evidentiary hearing on a joined motion to suppress wiretap evidence, the government was ordered to submit the interception applications and supporting affidavits. The order did not decide the suppression motion.

United States v. Thomas, Thomas, Meligan, and Soto
2008-0020 · 2009-02-18
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion to Suppress is DENIED.”

Wilhelm v. HOVIC, HOVENSA, L.L.C., and Amerada Hess Corporation
2005-0007 · 2009-02-19
Motions to stay (defendant) Granted

“the Court grants Defendants' Renewed Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration and Motion to Compel Arbitration.”

Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted
Warner v. Kmart Corporation
2005-0128 · 2009-05-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED”

United States v. Jackson
2009-0009 · 2009-10-02
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“Because the requirements for a valid search warrant were satisfied, Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The returned historical cases include civil-rights, prisoner, employment, personal-injury, federal-agency, property, and miscellaneous matters. The ten-case randomized cohort is too sparse for a representative caseload distribution.

A historical record

Judge Finch no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.