S. Ct. Civ. No. 2015-0123 and S. Ct. Civ. No. 2016-0022

In review of multiple submissions in an appeal from denial of injunctive relief in a matter arising in part from commercial rent arrangements, in light of multiple scheduling and extension orders by this Court, failure to file appendix volumes on the schedule and in the manner prescribed, filing of an oversized brief, and other procedural disputes, and considering responses filed to an order to show cause, as well as applications for a dismissal of the appeal for want to timely prosecution, a petition for mandamus, and other applications of the parties - while the actions and statements of counsel for appellants throughout this appeal demonstrate a lack of effort to comply this Court's rules and Orders, including numbering of pages of the joint appendix, and failure to meet deadlines, the Court will not prejudice appellants by dismissing this case for want of timely prosecution solely due to their counsel's conduct, because they are appealing, inter alia, a published opinion that conducted an extensive Banks analysis regarding an issue of first impression. Moreover, this is an issue capable of repetition in numerous other cases. However, the Court strongly advises all counsel for appellants to fully comply with all of this Court's rules and orders in the future. Failure to do so may result in sanctions, including - but not limited to - referral to the Disciplinary Counsel for further investigation. Due to failure to comply with Rules 15 and 24 joint appendix Volume V is rejected and appellants' brief is sua sponte rejected due to its citations to joint appendix Volume V. The Court will require appellants to file a corrected Volume V and an amended brief correcting the page numbers cited in the appendix. Since these matters were not addressed for some time, the Court will allow appellants to update their brief factually, and substantively (with legal authority issued after April 4, 2016). The brief must comply with the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure effective March 1, 2017 and must total no more than 10,800 words exclusive of the table of contents, table of authorities and certifications, and cannot include any new arguments. Both the Amended Brief and the Corrected Volume V of the joint appendix must be filed within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this Order. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions imposed upon all counsel for the appellants. Unlike other cases that have considered applications for a writ of mandamus in the discovery context, none of the orders challenged in this matter involves an issue of first impression, nor have appellants/petitioners shown that they constitute a judicial usurpation of power, a clear abuse of discretion, or a manifest injustice. Thus, exercising jurisdiction to consider a writ of mandamus for these discovery orders is not appropriate and the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.