Unpublished Opinions News Summary

Wed, 04 Sep 2024 15:16:00 GMT

Upon consideration of a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Superior Court judge assigned to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner in Riley v. Gov’t of the V.I., Super. Ct. Civ. No. 43/2019 (STT), asserting that the Superior Court judge has failed to rule on the merits of the habeas corpus petition for a nearly one and a half year period, the petition for mandamus is granted, and the Superior Court judge is directed to issue a final judgment in the underlying proceeding concerning the habeas corpus petition within 60 days or take other meaningful action to further disposition of petitioner’s case in that period.

Tue, 03 Sep 2024 12:46:00 GMT

Upon a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Superior Court judge assigned to the case of o Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization, Super. Ct. Civ. No. 70/2009 (STT), asserting that the Nominal Respondent has failed to rule on numerous motions over a period of years, the petition is granted, and the Nominal Respondent is directed to issue rulings on all pending motions in the underlying proceeding within 60 days or take other meaningful action to further disposition of petitioner’s case in that period.

Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:56:00 GMT

In longstanding litigation involving numerous causes of action pled against several defendants, this appeal was filed after the Superior Court granted a partial final judgment relating to a prior summary judgment opinion and order disposing of some, but not all, of the claims in the action. On a joint motion by the parties asking for a determination whether jurisdiction over this appeal is proper in this Court, which has jurisdiction over all appeals arising from final judgments, final decrees or final orders of the Superior Court, as provided in 4 V.I.C. § 32(a) and 48 U.S.C. § 1613a(d), while none of the statutory exceptions to the final judgment rule applies to this case, the Superior Court certified its summary judgment opinion and order as a partial final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure. There is no conflict between that Rule and prior case law, which had noted that the Superior Court, as a lower court, could not unilaterally adopt a court rule that would compel the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over an appeal. Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) was promulgated directly by this Court pursuant to its rulemaking authority, and therefore does not infringe on its authority as the court of last resort for the Virgin Islands. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to review the Superior Courts’ August 19, 2015 opinion and order in light of the January 7, 2021 opinion and order designating it as a partial final judgment pursuant to Virgin Islands Civil Rule 54(b).

Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:53:00 GMT

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:30:00 GMT

A motion to stay arbitration pending disposition of this appeal is granted. The appellant has made the requisite showing of likely success on the merits and has satisfied other applicable factors to qualify for a stay pending appeal. All action in AAA Case No. 01-19-0003-0079, including the arbitration hearing scheduled for February 22-24, 2021 pursuant to the January 29, 2020 order of the Superior Court, is stayed pending resolution of the appeal in this matter.

Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:25:00 GMT

The Supreme Court declines to exercise its discretion to grant a petition for permission to appeal pursuant to title 4, section 33(c) of the Virgin Islands Code because answering the question of whether detrimental reliance is an element of a claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Although the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect on March 31, 2017, and rejected the heightened pleading standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the Superior Court nevertheless mistakenly applied the old pleading standard rather than the relaxed current standard. Because it is possible that the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing would survive dismissal under Rule 8 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, resolution of the certified question at this stage of the proceedings would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the underlying litigation. Accordingly, the petition for permission to appeal is denied.

Fri, 06 Mar 2020 18:26:00 GMT

On a petition for writ of prohibition, requesting that a Superior Court judge be enjoined from requiring an attorney to personally appear as counsel for an indigent juvenile even though another attorney entered an appearance on the juvenile’s behalf, the petition is denied. The petitioning attorney may have attempted to comply with the appointment order by having other counsel file a notice of appearance and then appearing as counsel for the juvenile at all subsequent proceedings. However, since the petitioning attorney did not file the stipulated notice provided for in the appointment order, or successfully move for and obtain permission to substitute in accordance with Rule 210.2(e), the filing of a notice of appearance by the other attorney did not displace the petitioner from her role as appointed counsel. The procedure utilized in this case resulted in the juvenile being represented simultaneously by the petitioner as appointed counsel and the second attorney as retained counsel. It has not been demonstrated that the right to the writ is clear and indisputable, in that petitioner failed to comply with either the provisions of the appointment order or Supreme Court Rule 210 pertaining to substitution of appointed counsel. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

Mon, 09 Sep 2019 19:49:00 GMT

In a personal injury action by a plaintiff seeking damages for injuries suffered as a passenger on a boat owned and operated by the defendant when he negligently crashed it onto a rocky outcropping near Cruz Bay, St. John, the subject of this Court’s July 16, 2019 opinion, on a post-judgment motion for clarification as to whether the new trial ordered in this matter is limited to the issue of damages, the issue is appropriate for a clarification request because it seeks solely to define the parameters of the remand in this action. The prior opinion identified two errors committed by the Superior Court that were not harmless: exclusion of portions of the expert testimony of an expert witness, and instructing the jury on comparative negligence in the absence of any supporting evidence. Because the excluded portions of the expert’s testimony concern only the extent of the injuries suffered by plaintiff and bear no relevance to the issue liability, the Superior Court’s error in excluding this testimony warrants a new trial only as to the issue of damages. Likewise, the error in instructing the jury on comparative negligence could only have impacted the jury’s verdict with respect to damages, and therefore constitutes grounds for ordering a new trial solely as to this issue. Thus the motion for clarification is granted and it is ordered that the new trial in this matter required by this Court’s July 16, 2019 order shall be limited in scope to damages.