2020 Unpublished Opinions News Summary

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.