Andrea V. Smith v. The West Indian Company, Limited

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: July 11, 2022
• Docket: ST-18-CV-138
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

ANDREA V SMITH ) ) Plaintiff ) Case No ST 18 CV 138 ) V ) ) Action for Breach of Contract, THE WEST INDIAN COMPANY LIMITED ) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith ) and Fair Dealing Defendant ) “J APPEARANCES Karin A Bentz, Esquire Law Office of Karin Bentz 7605 Lower Hull St Thomas, Vi1 gin Islands F0; Plamtzfi’

Shari N D Andrade, Esquire Kellerhals Ferguson & Kroblin PLLC Royal Palms Professional Building 9053 Estate Thomas Suite 101 St Thomas, Virgin Islands For Defendants 2022 VI Super 64U

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

111 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following

1 Plaintiff’s Motion f01 Reconsideration of Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint filed February 15 2022

2 Defendant 5 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint filed March 11 2022

3 Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint filed March 29, 2022 and

4 Defendant s Surresponse to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsidelation of Denial of Plaintiff“ 5 Motion to Amend Complaint filed April 27 2022 Andiea Smith v The West Indian Companv Lunzted Case No ST 2018 CV 00138 Memorandum Opinion and Order July 11 2022 Page 2 of 7 2022 VI Super 64U

I BACKGROUND

112 Plaintiff commenced the present action by filing a complaint on March 12 2018 1 Three years later on May 10, 2021, Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add four new claims and nine new parties Because this motion was filed well beyond the 21 days allowed by the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure to amend the complaint once as a matter of couise, Plaintiff argued that the motion to amend should be granted because the amendments sought relate back to the original pleading and would not c1eate any undue pleJudice On September 27, 2021 , this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff” 5 Motion to Amend Complaint based on Plaintiff’s undue delay in filing the motion and finding that amending the complaint at this stage would prejudice Defendant and place an unwarranted burden on the Court

113 On Febmary 15 2022 almost five months after the Court issued its order, Plaintiff filed a Motion fox Reconsideration of Denial of Plaintiff s Motion to Amend Complaint, asking the Com“: to reconsider its denial of her Motion to Amend Complaint Plaintiff contends that the Order dated September 27, 2021, was not received by Plaintiff’s counsel until February 2, 2022 Plaintiff asserts that the motion is therefore timely since it was filed within 14 days of receipt of the Court’s Order by Plaintiff’s counsel Shall Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration be considered timely, Plaintiff argues that her motion should be granted to correct a clear error of law and manifest injustice 2

114 Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsidelation of Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint on March 11, 2022, arguing that thele is no basis to reconsider the Court’s order 3 Defendant also argues that Plaintiff” s motion has raised new reasons for the delayed filing of her Motion to Amend Complaint that must be disregarded 4 Plaintiff filed a Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint on March 29 2022 arguing that justice would be served by granting the amendment 5 The matter came before the Court for a status conference on March 30 2022, at which time Defendant s counsel advised that Plaintiff’s motions raised new issues and she would be filing a request to file a surresponse Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File Surresponse on Apiil 7, 2022 which the Court granted on April 13 2022 Defendant filed a Surresponse to Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint on April 27, 2022 The parties are currently attempting to mediate their dispute

1 As noted in the Court 5 Order dated September 27 2021 this action is the third iteration of Plaintiff‘s lawsuit against Defendant and the Court will therefore not outline the extensive factual and procedural history of this case ° Pl sMot Recons 3 3Def 3 Opp nto Pl 5 Mot Recons 3 4 Def s Opp n to P1 5 Mot Recons 5 5Pl sReply in Supp ofMot Recons 2 Andiea szth v The West Indian Company Ltmzted CaseNo ST 2018 CV 00138 Memorandum Opinion and Order July 1 1, 2022 Page 3 of 7 2022 VI Super 64U

II LEGAL STANDARD

A Motion for Reconsideration

{[5 Motions for reconsideration in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands are governed by Rule 6 4 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a party may file a motion asking the court to reconsider its order or decision within 14 days after the entry of the ruling, unless the time is extended by the court 6 The court will only grant extensions for good cause shown 7 A motion to reconsider must be based on one of the following grounds (1) intervening change in controlling law (2) availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error of law; 01 (4) failure of the court to add1ess an issue specifically raised prior to the court’s inling 8 Parties moving f01 reconsideration must base their argument on one of the four grounds enumerated in Rule 6 4 01 they fail to meet their burden 9 Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy not to be sought reflexively 01 used as a substitute for appeal '0 Motions for reconsideration are not vehic1e[s] for registering disagreement with the court 5 initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not ’ ’” Thus, they are not a second bite of the apple, and they are intended to focus the parties on the original pleadings as the main event, and to prevent parties from filing a second motion with the hindsight of the court 5 analysis covering issues that should have been raised in the first set of motions ‘2 Motions for reconsideiation are not proper for presenting new facts raising new issues, or making new arguments ‘3

116 When analyzing a motion for reconsideration based on the need to correct clear error of law, Virgin Islands courts have determined that granting a motion on these grounds is appropriate

6 V I R CIV P 6 4(a) (providing the time to file a motion for reconsideration except as provided in Rules 59 and 60 relating to final orders and judgments) 7 VI R CIV P 6 4(a) see also Maglas v NationalIndustnal Sentces LLC 75 VI 11 17(VI Sup Ct 2021) (finding good cause for a delayed filing when counsel never received information due to an inadvertent oversight) 8 V I R CIV P 6 4(b) (noting that when ground (4) is relied upon a party must specifically point out in the motion for reconsideration wheie in the record of the proceedings the particular issue was actually raised before the court) see also Arwdson \ Buchm, 72 V I 50, 64 (V I Super Ct 2019) (concluding that motions for reconsideration must be based on one of the grounds delineated in Rule 6 4(b) )

9 See Magras v National Indus!) 1a] Sewzces LLC, 75 V I 11 15 16 (V I Super Ct 2021) (denying a motion for reconsideration when the parties did not base their argument on one of the four grounds enumerated in Rule 6 4 and therefore did not meet their burden) (citing Arvzdson 72 V I at 64) ‘0 Klallkl Osage STXHoldmgs LLC 74 V I l7 19 (VI Super Ct 2021) (quoting In re Infant Shaman 49 V I 452 458 (VI 2008)) ” Id (citing Worldwzde Flight Sermces v Gov tofrhe Vugm Islands 51 V I 105 110 (V I 2009)) (quoting Bostlc \ AT&Tofthe Vugm Islands 312 F Supp 2d 731 733 (D VI 2004)) ' Ghzrawoo v John Baptiste 74 V I 294 298 (V I Super Ct 2021) (quoting In re Infant Sherman 49 V I at 457) 13 People 0ftlze Vugm Islands v Hatchet 68 VI 367 376 (V I Super Ct 2018) Andlea Snzzth v The West Indzan Company Limited CaseNo ST 2018 CV 00138 Memorandum Opinion and Order July 11 2022 Page 4 of 7 2022 VI Super 64U

‘when the initial decision overlooked dispositive factual or legal matters presented to it ”’14 The court may grant the motion when its prior decision applied an incorrect legal precept or failed to conduct proper legal analysis using the correct legal precept ‘5 The moving party is expected to offer the specific legal authority it claims the Court failed to apply or incorrectly applied in its original decision 16

B Motion to Amend Complaint

117 Motions to amend a complaint in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands are governed by Rule 15 of the Virgin Islands of Civil Procedure 17 Rule 15 allows a party to amend its complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days of serving it 18 Once this time has expired, a party seeking to amend a complaint may amend only with the opposing party 5 written consent or with the court 3 leave ’ 19 However, Rule 15 also allows an amendment to pleading when the pioposed amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading Specifically Rule 15(c) provides

(1) An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when (A) the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back (B)the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out or attempted to be set out in the original pleading or (C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint the party to be biought in by amendment i 1eceived such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and ii knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for mistake concerning the party’s proper identity 20

118 While the Court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires, 2‘ amendments are within the Court s discretion and the court may deny a request to amend a complaint as long as it articulates a sound justification 22 Justifications for denying an amendment include undue delay bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the moving party, repeated failure

1“ sztlz v Lmt Offices omemA Bentz PC No ST 17 CV 116 2018 WL 671389 *9 (V1 Super Ct Jan 29 2018)(citing 0 Neal\ PMST LLC No ST 12 CV 388 2012VI LEXIS 62 at *1 (VI Super Ct Dec 3 2012)) (quoting Castillo v Kmart Corp No 2001 CV 0133 2007 U S Dist LEXIS 96544 *2 (D V I July 6 2007)) ‘5 Czp/ 1am \ Czpmzm 74 VI 3 13 (VI Super Ct 2021) (citing Arvzdson 72 VI at 64) 16 See 1d 17 VI R CIV P 15 ”W1 R Cw P 15(a)(1) l"VI R CIV P 15(a)(2) 0VI R Cw P 15(c) ‘ VI R CIV P 15(a)(2)' see also Dams v UHP PIOjects Inc 74 VI 525 536 (VI 2021) Baszc Seivzces Inc v Gm toftlze Vzrgm Islands 71 V I 652, 666 (V I 2019) (citing Reynolds v Rohn, 70 V I 887 889 (VI 2019)) Andrea Snuth v The West Ilzdzan Company Limited Case No ST 2018 CV 00138 Memorandum Opinion and Order July 11 2022 Page 5 of 7 2022 VI Super 64U

to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, and futility of the amendment 23 The passage of time alone is not undue delay and does not require a motion to amend a complaint be denied 24 However, delay becomes undue when it places an unwarranted burden on the court25 or places an unfair burden on the opposing party and exposes them to potential prejudice 26 The question of undue delay 1equires the court to focus on the movant 3 reasons for not amending sooner 27 Additionally, liberality in pleading does not bestow on a litigant the privilege of neglecting her case for a long peiiod of time 28

III ANALYSIS

A The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration because Plaintiff failed to identify a “clear error of law” that the Court needs to correct

119 Plaintiff s motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the 14 day period allowed by Rule 6 4 However, Plaintiffcontends that Plaintiff’s counsel did not become aware of the Couit s Order from which reconsideration is sought until February 2 2022, almost five months after the order was issued, because they did not receive the Order through the C track system Finding good cause for the delayed filing 79 the Court will accept the delayed motion

1110 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration fails to identify a clear error of law for the Court to conect In a motion for ieconsideration, the moving party is expected to offer the specific legal authority it claims the Cou1t failed to apply or incorrectly applied in its 01 iginal decision 30 Hele Plaintiff a1 gues that the court committed clear error when applying the legal standard for g1anting a motion to amend 3‘ Plaintiff argues that the Court failed to assess whethe1 granting leave to amend would place an unwarranted burden on the Court if the amendment was not allowed This assertion is incorrect the Court determined that ‘ an amendment at this stage would cause unnecessary delay for both the opposing party and the Court,’ and thus place an unwarranted burden on the Court 32 The Court did not need to explicitly state that an unwarranted burden would be placed on the Court if the amendment was not allowed because the Court determined that allowing an amendment would burden the Court Plaintiff’s argument does not adequately identify

-3 Id at 666 67 ’4 Toussamt v Stewmt, 67 V1 931, 946 (V I 2017), see also Dams, 74 V I at 537 5 See Toussamt 67 V1 at 946 (quoting Adams \ Gould Inc 739 F 2d 858 868 (3d Cir 1984)) 6 See Slnadel Cooke: Govt ofthe Vugm Islamic No SX 16 CV 655 2019 VI SUPER 116U at *7 (VI Super Ct Aug 26 2019) ”7 See Id at *8 (finding that delay becomes undue when a movant fails to take advantage of previous opportunities to amend a complaint without adequate explanation) ”8 Powell v FAMProteCttve Sen Ices Inc 72 V I 1029 1043 (V I 2020) (quoting Daves v Payless Cashways Inc 661 F 2d 1022 1025 (5th Cir 1981)) ”9 See Magras v National Industrzal Servzces LLC, 75 V1 11, 17 (VI Sup Ct 2021) 30 See C1przam v Czprtam 74 V1 3 13 (V1 Super Ct 2021) 31Pl sMot Recons 3 3 Sept 27 2022VI Sup Ct Order7 Alzdlea SmIth v The West Indian Companv anted Case No ST 2018 CV 00138 Memorandum Opinion and Order July 11 2022 Page 6 of 7 2022 VI Super 64U

how the court incorrectly applied the standard for granting a motion to amend and is therefore unpersuasive

1111 Plaintiff also argues that the Court committed clear error when it failed to consider the seven month stay in the proceedings when the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend The proceedings in this matter were stayed on August 23 2018 while the Plaintiff‘s appeal to the Third Circuit (No 17 2777) in a nearly identical matter to the present case pended resolution The stay was lifted on Maich 21, 2019 after the Third Circuit affiimed the District Court 5 decision to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment Plaintiff did not move to amend her complaint until May 10 2021 two years after the stay was lifted Not only did the Court consider the stay when outlining the procedural history of this case the Court also considered that the Plaintiff waited another two years to move to amend her complaint after the stay was lifted without articulating any peisuasive reasons f01 the delay Plaintiff also claims that the Court did not acknowledge the lengthy delays caused by the COVID l9 pandemic Howevei Plaintiff failed to move to amend her complaint f01 an entire year before the COVID l9 pandemic took effect with no explanation Additionally the matter continued to proceed remotely throughout the entirety of the pandemic

1112 Plaintiff is correct that passage of time alone does not amount to undue delay and does not warrant denial of a motion to amend a complaint 33 However this leniency in pleading does not give a litigant the piivilege to neglect her case for a long period of time 34 The question of undue delay requires the Court to examine the masons for the movant s delay and why they did not take advantages of opportunities to move to amend sooner 35 The Cou1talready found that Plaintiff did not adequately justify the delay in moving to amend hei complaint Therefore, no clear eri01 of law has been identified in Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

B Plaintiff raises new reasons for failing to amend her complaint sooner which is inappropriate in a motion for reconsideration

1113 Motions for reconsideration are not proper for presenting new facts, raising new issues or making new a1 guments *6 Here, Plaintiff offers new justifications fox not amending hei complaint sooner by indicating that mediation is one of the reasons Plaintiff delayed filing hel Motion to Amend The Court finds this hard to believe considering this case is the third iteration of her suit that was first brought ove1 eight years ago, and the claims and parties she seeks to add are the same or similar to previous iterations of her current suit Despite her assertion that the Defendant knew or should have known of the claims and parties that Plaintiff sought to add with her amendment based on the extensive procedural history of this case, Plamtzfj’should have known to include these claims and panties in her original pleading But more importantly Plaintiff was required to provide

33 Toussamti Stewart 67 V I 931 946 (V I 2017) see also Dams v UHF Proyects Inc 74 V I 525 536 (V I 2021 34 See) Powell \ FAM Protective Set wees Inc 72 V I 1029 1043 (V I 2020) 35 See See Shrader Cooke v Govt 0fthe Virgin Islands No SX 16 CV 655 2019 VI SUPER 116U at *7 (VI Super Ct Aug 26 2019) 3" People 0ft/ze Vugm Islands v Hatclzel 68 V I 367 376 (V I Super Ct 2018) Andrea Smtth v The West Indian Company Lumted Case No ST 2018 CV 00138 Memorandum Opinion and Order July 1 l 2022 Page 7 of 7 2022 VI Super 64U

those reasons in her Motion to Amend Complaint Because she did not, it would be inappropriate for the Court to consider them in her Motion for Reconsideration

IV CONCLUSION

1114 Reconsidelation is a drastic remedy that can only be granted based on one of the four grounds enumerated in Rule 6 4 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedule (1) intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error of law; or (4) failure of the court to address an issue specifically raised prior to the court’s ruling 37 Motions for reconsideration are not a second bite at the apple’ 38 and are not proper for making new arguments 39 A motion for reconsideration based on the need to correct clear error of law requires the movant to identify the specific legal authority it claims the Court failed to apply or incorrectly applied in its original decision 40

1115 Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its orde1 denying her Motion to Amend Complaint based on the need to correct a clear error of law While Plaintiff identifies a legal authority by asserting that the Court improperly applied the standard for amending a complaint, Plaintifffails to identify how the Court improperly applied the rule Additionally, Plaintiffattempts to raise new reasons for delaying moving to amend her complaint which is inapplopriate in a motion for reconsideration Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Plaintiff 3 Motion to Amend Complaint filed February 15 2022 is DENIED

ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be directed to counsel of record

DATED July 1 1 2022 H ID M TEJO udge of th Superior Court of the Virgin Islands ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES

By $or LATOYA COMACHO Court Clerk Supewisor 07 / 1 0,1 / 0706307.,

37 V I R CW P 6 4(b) see also Arwdson v Buchat 72 V I 50 64 (VI Super Ct 2019) (concluding that motions for reconsideration must be based on one of the grounds delineated in Rule 6 4(b) ) see also Kralzk v Osage STX Holdmgs LLC 74V] 17 19 (VI Super Ct 2021) 38 Ghuawoo v John Baptiste 74 VI 294 298 (VI Super Ct 2021) 9 People 0fthe Vugm Islands v Hatcher 68 VI 367 376 (VI Super Ct 2018) 40 See 1d