Gordon Ackley v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority

── Gordon Ackley v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 25-1916 & 25-3435 KH; GORDON ACKLEY; RV; JOHANN CLENDENIN; JEAN PERSAD; et al., v. VIRGIN ISLANDS WATER & POWER AUTHORITY; TANTALUS SYSTEMS, INC. a/k/a TANTALUS SYSTEMS CORP.; ITRON, INC.; ANDREW SMITH; JOHN DOES 1-10 GORDON ACKLEY; JOHANN CLENDENIN; KERRY HARRIGAN; CLIFFORD JOSEPH; RAYMOND VICTORINE; et al., Appellants in 25-1916 GORDON ACKLEY; JOHANN CLENDENIN; LEONARD STEPHEN; CATHERINE STEPHEN; THE FRUIT BOWL, INC. Appellants in 25-3435 _____________________________ Appeal from U.S. District Court, D.V.I. Judge Juan R. Sanchez, No. 3:21-cv-00081 Before: KRAUSE, CHUNG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 14, 2026; Decided Jun. 8, 2026 _____________________________ NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION * CHUNG, Circuit Judge. Appellants are representative electricity ratepayers who brought a putative class action against several defendants, including the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (“VIWAPA”), Tantalus Systems, Inc. (“Tantalus”), and Itron, Inc. (“Itron”), for claims stemming from VIWAPA’s alleged overbilling of electricity and * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. ensuing notices for discontinuation of service, and the malfunctioning of the metering system provided by Tantalus and manufactured by Itron.1 Itron and Tantalus successfully moved to dismiss Appellants’ failure-to-warn and territorial-law consumer fraud claims, and VIWAPA successfully moved for summary judgment on Appellants’ Fourteenth Amendment due process claim.2 While the motions to dismiss were pending, the Magistrate Judge stayed discovery, and at the summary judgment stage, the District Court struck certain witness testimony because Appellants failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Appellants challenge these decisions. We will affirm. I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED APPELLANTS’ CLAIMS AGAINST TANTALUS AND ITRON.3 A. The Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act does not apply to the transaction at issue. Appellants alleged that Itron and Tantalus violated the Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (CFDBPA). Appellants failed to state a claim under 1 Because we write for the parties, we assume familiarity with the factual and procedural history and recite only the facts pertinent to our decision. 2 Defendants also successfully moved to dismiss Appellants’ claim under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733. Appellants do not appeal the District Court’s dismissal of that claim. 3 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir. 2010). When doing so, “[w]e must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true [and] construe the complaint in the light [most] favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. Dismissal is appropriate when the complaint does not “contain sufficient factual allegations so as to state a facially plausible claim for relief.” Id. at 230. 2 the CFDBPA. The st