made clear in Benjamin, the Superior Court is “foreclosed from considering evidence from any source outside of the pleadings and the exhibits attached to the pleadings [when deciding] whether it [is] proper to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” 56 V.I. at 566. The documents the Superior Court considered in ruling on the motion were not attached to the pleadings, and so by considering this evidence to grant Hamed’s motion, the Superior Court in effect granted Hamed summary judgment, and not judgment on the pleadings. Rivera-Moreno v. Gov’t of the V.I., 61 V.I. 279, 312 (V.I. 2014) (“[T]he substance and function of a Superior Court order controls over the form.”) (citing In re Drue, 57 V.I. 517, 527-28 (V.I. 2012)); cf. Leavell v. Kieffer, 189 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>). While the Superior Court does have the
holding that protective features of special exception procedure should not be circumvented by a motion for summary judgment on the pleadings where plaintiffs pleadings fail to state a cause of action holding that a court may consider materials outside the pleadings to determine its jurisdiction holding that a trial court entered judgment on the pleadings where the decision did not depend on any document outside the pleadings holding that pleadings could not be amended where no evidence offered during trial was outside the issues in the original complaint holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint