SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX
CHARLES HUDDLESTON AND JESSIE ' Civil No SX 2022 CV 480 HUDDLESTON
PLAINTIFFS,
V JURY TRIAL DEMANDED M G C , INC , A U S VIRGIN ISLANDS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT CITE AS 2024 VI SUPER 22 M G C , INC , A U S VIRGIN ISLANDS CORPORATION,
THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF,
V
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT
Appearances
Douglas L Capdeville, Esq Nathan J Mirocha, Esq Law Office of Douglas L Capdeville, P C MirochaLaw, LLC St Croix U S Virgin Islands St Croix U S Virgin Islands For Defendant/Thzrd Party Plamtzfl For Plamttffls'
Christopher M Timmons, Esq , Esq DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE St Croix, U S Virgin Islands For Third Party Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WILLOCKS, Administrative Judge 1] l THIS MATTER came before the Court on Third Party Defendant Government of the Virgin Islands’ (hereinafter “GVI”) motion to dismiss, filed on April 3, 2023 In response, Third Party Plaintiff M G C , Inc (hereinafter “MGC ) filed an opposition and GVI filed a reply thereto
Huddleston t M G C Inc e! a]
SX 2022 CV 480
b
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER Page 2 of 20
BACKGROUND
1! 2 On October 19 2022 Plaintiff Charles Huddleston and Plaintiff Huddleston (collectively
hereinafter Plaintiffs ’) filed a complaint against MGC, a security company on St Croix, US
Virgin Islands, in connection with the Virgin Islands Police Department 3 (hereinafter ‘ VIPD )
response to MGC’s report that an alarm was triggered and a robbery was in progress at Plaintiffs
who were not MGC’s customers residence at 61 Estate Solitude, St Croix, U S Virgin Islands
on October 6, 2022 On December 1, 2022, MGC filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint On
February 8 2023 MGC filed a motion to file a third party complaint against GVI which the Court subsequently granted In its third party complaint, MGC alleged the following causes of action against GVI for the actions of VIPD contribution and indemnification ‘ On April 3, 2023, GVI filed this instant motion to dismiss the third party complaint DISCUSSION
1] 3 In its motion, GVI argued that the complaint should be dismissed for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure 1 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction 1] 4 In its motion GVI argued that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over MGC’s claims against GVI because MGC failed to comply with the pre filing requirements of the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act (hereinafter ‘ VITCA ), which are jurisdictional to wit GVI argued that
' Here MGC 3 third party complaint did not set forth counts in separate numbered paragraphs with separate
designation of the specific names of each count in the pleadings as required by the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter Rule 8 ) Thus the specific causes of action are deduced from the allegations in MGC 5 third
party complaint to wit In the event that Plaintiffs are allowed recovery on their claims from MGC, then MGC is
entitled to contribution and/or indemnity from GVI which is or may be liable to MGC for all or part of Plaintiffs damages should they prevail at trial (TPC )
Huddleston t M G C Inc et a] SX 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER 5 Page 3 of 20
“[the injuries] allegedly occurred on October 6, 2022, ’ which is when the contribution claim accrued,1 and the 90 day notice period under the VITCA has long expired (Motion ) I! 5 In its opposition, MGC did not dispute that the VITCA is applicable in this instance, but argued that for the purposes of the 90 day notice period under the VITCA the contribution claim accrued either from the [date of] entry ofjudgment against the defendant or the date of payment of more than the defendant’s pro rata share to the plaintiff ’3 (Opp 5 ) Alternatively, MGC argued that if the Coutt agrees with the accrual date argued by GVI, then ‘ the Court has discretion to grant MGC leave to file a late notice of intent ”4 (Id ) 1] 6 In its reply, GVI reiterated that the contribution claim accrued on the date of the injury 5 (Reply I 3 ) As to MGC s alternate argument, GVI pointed out that MGC ‘ did not file a motion, no affidavits are before the Court and no reasonable excuse has been given ’ so the Court should not grant MGC a discretionary extension for the compliance of the pre filing requirements of the VITCA (Id at 3 4 )
A Standard of Review
1] 7 A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure challenges the court’s authority to hear the case V I R CW P 12(b)(a) The applicable standard of review under Rule 12(b)(1) differs depending on whether the moving party has made a facial attack or a factual attack on the court's power to hear the case James St Jules v Thompson 2015 V I LEXIS 74 at *6 (VI Super Ct June 25 2015)
’ For its argument on the accrual date of the contribution claim, GVI did not cite to any authority 3 For its argument on the accrual date of the contribution claim, MGC relied on Dublin v V 1 Tel Corp , 15 V I 214 (VI Terr Ct June9 I978) 4 For its alternative argument, MGC relied on Title 33 V I C § 3409(c) 5 For its argument on the accrual date of the contribution claim, GVI relied on Martinez v Frazer, 23 V I 53 (V I Terr Ct October 23 [987)
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a! SX 2022 CV 480
g
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER Page 4 of 20 When the attack on subject matter jurisdiction is facial, it ‘ is an argument that considers a claim
on its face and asserts that it is insufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court based on a Jurisdictional defect, ’ and “the court must only consider the allegations ofthe complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff James St Jules v Thompson 2015 V I LEXIS 74 at *6 7 (V I Super Ct June 25 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) In other words under a facial attack, the Court must ‘ apply the same standard of review it would use in considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) James St Jules, 2015 V I 74, at *7 On the other hand, when the attack on subject matterjurisdiction is factual, the defendant disputes the existence of certain jurisdictional facts alleged by plaintiffs” and the Court ‘ is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case ’James St Jules, 2015 V 1 74, at *7; see Martinez v Colombian Emeralds Inc 51 VI 174 189 (VI 2009) (Under Rule 12(b)(1) the court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case ”); see also Daley Jeflers v Graham 69 V I 931 939 n 8 (2018) ( When an attack on subject matter Jurisdiction is factual the Superior Court is free to evaluate the merits ofjurisdictional claims and may look beyond the face of the complaint to make this determination ”) In such a case, “no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff‘s allegations [and] the burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction lies with the plaintiff James St Jules, 2015 V I 74, at *7, see Franczs v Govtofthe VI No ST 13 CV 387 2014 VI LEXIS 43 at *2 3 (VI Super Ct July 10 2014) ( Once a defendant challenges a plaintiff‘s pleading on FED R ClV P 12(b)(l) grounds, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the Court has the authority to hear and decide the case ”)
Huddleston i M G C Inc et a! SX 2022 CV 480 $ Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER Page 5 of 20 B Analysis
18 While MGC did not dispute that the VITCA is applicable in this instance the Court must still perform its own analysis to determine that the VITCA is indeed applicable See Henry v Dennery 2013 V 1 Supreme LEXIS 4 at *6 (V I 2013) (the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed that parties cannot simply stipulate to the law )
i Whether the VITCA is Applicable ‘1 9 The Revised Organic Act grants sovereign immunity to the Government of the Virgin Islands for tort claims Sec Title 48 U S C § 1541(b) ( That no tort action shall be brought against the government of the Virgin Islands or against any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity without the consent of the legislature constituted by this Act [48 USCS § 1541 et seq ] ) “The VITCA provides the mechanism by which persons may sue the Government in tort in the courts ofthe Virgin Islands Fleming v Cruz 62 V I 702 718 (V I 2015) see Title 33 V I C § 3408(a)( Subject to the provisions of section 3416 of this chapter, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands hereby waives its immunity from liability and action and hereby assumes liability with respect to 111qu or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the Government of the United States Virgin Islands, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred The Government consents to have the liability determined in accordance with the same rule of law as applied to actions in the courts of the Virgin Islands against individuals or corporations, Provided That the claimant complies with the provisions of this chapter ) Here, MGC sued GVI for contribution and indemnification based on tort law by claiming that GVI is jointly and severally
Huddleston v M G C Inc et 01 SK 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER 5 Page 6 of 20
liable or wholly liable for Plaintiffs’ injury as the result the conduct of VIPD, which is an “executive department in the Government of the Virgin Islands,” Title 3 V I C § 251, and under VITCA, ‘Govemment of the Virgin Islands includes the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government of the Virgin Islands, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government of the Virgin Islands Title 33 V I C § 3401 As such the VITCA is applicable to the facts of this case
ii Whether MGC Complied with the Pre Filing Requirements of the VITCA
1] 10 The VITCA provides that “[n]0 Judgment shall be granted in favor of any claimant unless such claimant shall have complied with the provisions of this section [3409] Title 33 V I C § 3409 Title 33, section 3409 of the Virgin Islands Code provides
No judgment shall be granted in favor of any claimant unless such claimant shall have complied with the provisions of this section applicable to his claim
(a) a claim for the appropriation by the Government of lands or any right, title of interest in or to lands shall be filed within two years after the accrual of such claim,
(b) a claim by an executor or administrator of a decedent who lefi him or her surviving a husband, wife or next of kin, for damages for a wrongful act, neglect or default, on the pan of the Government by which the decedent's death was caused shall be filed within ninety days afier the appointment of such executor or administrator, unless the claimant shall within such time file a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor in which event the claim shall be filed within two years afier the death of the decedent In any event such claim shall be filed within two years after the death of the decedent;
(c) a claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injury caused by the tort of an officer or employee of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands while acting as such officer or employee, shall be filed within ninety days after the accrual of such claim unless the claimant shall within such time file a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed within two years after the accrual of such claim
A claimant who fails to file a claim or notice of intention, as provided in the foregoing subsections, within the time limited therein for filing the notice of intention, may, nevertheless, in the discretion ofthe court, be permitted to file such claim at any time within two years after the accrual thereof, or in the case of a claim for wrongful death within two
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a! SX 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER 07 Page 7 of 20
years afier the decedent's death The application for such permission shall be made upon motion based upon affidavits showing a reasonable excuse for the failure to file the notice of intention and that the Virgin Islands or its appropriate department or agency had, prior to the expiration of the time limited for the filing of the notice of intention, actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim The claim proposed to be filed, containing all of the information set forth in section 3410 of this title, shall accompany such application No such application shall be granted if the court shall find that the Government of the United States Virgin Islands has been substantially prejudiced by the failure of the claimant to file such notice of intention within the time limited therefor But if the claimant shall be under legal disability, the claim may be presented within two years after such disability is removed
Title 33 V I C § 3409 The VITCA further provides the requirements concerning the claim or the notice of intention
The claim or notice of intention shall be filed in the Office of the Governor and a copy shall be served upon the Attorney General and a written receipt therefor shall be issued with the date of filing indicated thereon The claim shall state the time when and the place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and the total sum claimed The notice of intention to file a claim shall set forth the same matters except that the items of damage or injuries and the sum claimed need not be stated The claim and notice of intention to file a claim shall be verified
Title 33 V I C § 3410 1| 1] The Court recognizes that the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has not yet determined
whether the pre filing requirements of the VITCA are jurisdictional or claims processing rules See e g Alexander v Wilson, 73 V I 528, 1[ 13 (V I 2020) ( It remains an issue of first impression in the Virgin Islands whether the pertinent provisions of the VITCA are jurisdictional, or claims processing rules which may be waived ) Fleming v Cm 62 V I 702, 718 n 13 (V I 2015) (‘ In this case, we do no decide whether the VITCA 3 claim filing requirements are jurisdictional We leave a decision on whether the VITCA 3 claim filing mandates are jurisdictional for another day ’) However, in Richardson v Knud Handsen Mem [Hosp , 744 F 2d IOO7 1010 (3d Cir 1984), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in its capacity as the de facto court of last resort of the Virgin Islands, held that compliance with the pre filing requirements under the VITCA are
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a1 SK 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER 32 Page 8 of 20
jurisdictional, and Richardson remains binding on the Virgin Islands Superior Court See e g Yuxtang Peng v Williams 67 V I 482 485 n 2 (V I Super Ct July 24 2017) 6 Christopher v
6 In Yuxtang Peng, the Court addressed the issue of whether Richardson is still binding on Virgin Islands Superior Court In Richardson the Third Circuit Court ofAppeals exercising its power as the final arbiter of Virgin Islands local law held that the terms under which the Government of the Virgin Islands consented to waive its immunity from tort liability as embodied in the VITCA are Jurisdictional and ‘ It follows that the terms may not be waived 744 F 2d at 1010 The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has made it clear that decisions rendered by the Third Circuit while serving as the de facto court of last resort in the Virgin Islands “are binding upon the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands even if they would only represent persuasive authority when [the Supreme Court] considers an issue Najawzcz 1 People of the Virgin Islands, 58 V I 315, 327 28 (V l 2013) (intemal citation omitted); see also In re People of the Virgin Islands 51 V I 374 n 9 (V I 2009) Thus the Third Circuit 5 holding in Richardson remains binding on this Court The Court notes that, while the case in Richardson originated in the District Court of the Virgin Islands in 1980 the District Court was acting as a territorial court when it adjudicated Richardson 5 claim for wrongful death See Callwood l Enos 230 F 3d 627 43 V I 293 297 98 (3d Cir 2000) (The District Conn of the Virgin Islands used to have general original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under territorial law in which the amount in controversy was more than $500) see also Carty v Beech Aircraft Corp , 679 F 2d 1051 1057 19 V l 641 (3d Cir 1982) (characterizing jurisdiction of the District Court of the Virgin Islands under the Revised Organic Act prior to the 1984 amendments as “more like a state court of general jurisdiction than a United States district court ) For a detailed description of the development of the judiciary of the Virgin Islands see James St Jules t Thompson 2015 V l LEXIS 74 at *16 2O 67 V I 482 485 n 2 (V 1 Super Ct July 24 2017)
Furthermore, the Court notes that in this instance, the Court need not undertake a Banks analysis concerning the VITCA because it is an issue of statutory interpretation rather than a detennination of common law See In re L 0 F , 62 V I 655 661 n 6 (V 1 2015) (The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has established that a Banks analysis is not required for statutory interpretation ) see also Smith 1 Henley 67 V I 965 970 n 2 (V 1 2017) (‘A Banks analysis was unnecessary, however, because the issue here is purely a matter of statutory interpretation not common law ) Banks 1 Int] Rental & Leasmg Corp 55 V1 967 (VI 2011) Additionally the Court also notes that in Wallace v People ofthe V I , the Virgin Islands Supreme Court reaffinned that [i]t is true that prior decisions of the Appellate Division remain binding upon the Superiox Court unless overturned by this Court 71 V I 703, 738 n 5 (V I 2019) (citing Defoe i Phillip 56 V I 109 119 (V I 2012) ( This Court is not required to follow decisions of the District Court or the Third Circuit interpreting local Virgin Islands law In addition to previously holding that decisions of our predecessor court, the Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, are not binding on us, we have also recently held that this Court unlike the Superior Court is not compelled to treat the Third Circuit's interpretation of Virgin Islands law as binding precedent Although the establishment of this Court has changed the relationship between the local Virgin islands judiciary and the Third Circuit, this Court's creation did not erase pre existing case law, and thus precedent that was extant when the Court became operational continues unless and until this Court address the issues discussed there Accordingly, decisions rendered by the Third Circuit and the Appellate Division of the District Court are binding upon the Superior Court even if they would only represent persuasive authority when this court considers an issue ’” (quoting Judi’s ofSt Crozx Car Rental v Weston, 49 V I 396 403 n 7 (VI 2008)’ In re People of the V I 51 VI 374 389 n 9 (VI 2009))» The Court is nevertheless cognizant that, in flamed t flamed, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court held that “decisions of the Appellate Division and the Third Circuit addressing issues of Virgin Islands common law are no longer binding on the Superior Court, ’ 63 V l 529 535 (VI 2015) (citing Go» I o} the VI 1 Connor 60 V l 597 605 n 1 (VI 2014)) and that decisions issued by the Appellate Division after 2007, like decisions of the District Court or Third Circuit heard through diversity or supplementaljurisdiction are not binding on the Superior Court, 63 V I at 535 (citing Better Bldg Mamt o} the! I Inc 1 Lee 60VI 740 755 56 (VI 2014) Waltersv Walters 60V] 768 777 n 10(VI 2014) People v Simmonds 56 VI 84 90 (V1 Super Ct 2012) Edwardsv HOVE’VSA LLC 497 F 3d 355 359 61 (3d Cir 2007)) However Richardson did not concern common law and it was issued prior to 2007 As such until the Virgin Islands
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a1 SX 7072 CV 480 3 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER Page 9 of 20 Gov Juan F Luzs Hosp & Med Ctr 2016 165 *1! (V I Super Ct Oct 12 2016) ( despite any
contrary intimations from the Supreme Court, this Court is bound by the Third Circuit's precedent in chhardson and must consider challenges to the VITCA' s prefiling requirements as challenges to subject matterjurisdiction unless and until the Supreme Court ofthe Virgin Islands conclusively determines otherwise ’); Richardson v Schneider Medical Regional Cetner, 2017 V I LEXIS 168 (V I Super Ct Dec 4 2017)‘ Hansen v Gov Juan F Luzs Hosp & Med Ctr 2018 V I LEXIS 87 *9 (V 1 Super Ct June 22 2018) fl 12 Given that GVI s motion to dismiss alleged lack of jurisdiction based on MGC’s noncompliance with the prefiling requirements of the VITCA, it depends on a determination of facts such as whether MGC timely complied with the pre filing requirements of the VITCA by filing the claim or notice of intention with the Office of the Governor and serving a copy upon the Attorney General Thus, GVI made a factual attack on the Court 8 power to hear this instant case against GVI, which means that the Court is free to weigh the evidence and MGC has the burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction 1] 13 In this instance, the Court must determine the accrual date of MGC’s claims against GVI See Samuel v Gov t ofthe V I 44 V I 201 205 (V l Terr Ct March 1 2002)( Determining an accrual date is essential in assessing whether a claimant has complied with the pre filing procedures of VITCA, specifically the stringent 90 day notice period to file a claim or notice of intent ’) In summary, MGC relied on Dublin and GVI relied on Martina for the determination of the accrual date for MGC 5 contribution claim, and neither party made any attempt to cite or
Supreme Court explicitly declares that all decisions of the Appellate Division and the Third Circutt are no longer binding on the Virgin Islands Superior Court or definitively proclaims that the pre filing requirements of the VITCA are not jurisdictional, the Court continues to find Richardson binding
Huddleslon 1 M G C Inc eta] SX 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER 6 Page 10 of 20
distinguish any authority against their position7 In any event, the cases cited by MGC and 6V] Dublin and Martinez are not binding on this Court because the decision of a Territorial Court judge is not binding upon a Superior Court judge 3 See Farris v Nurse 76 V I 492, 498 n 8 (V I 2022) (“It is well established that a prior decision of one Superior Court judge in one case does not constitute controlling authority in any subsequent proceeding ’ )(quoting Ednei v Edney, 64 VI 661 665 n2 (V1 2016)) see also In the Matter on0 60 VI 654 661 n 8 (VI 2014) ( [T]he decision of a single Superior Court judge is not binding precedent on other Superior Court judges ) (citing Threadgzll v Armstrong World Indus 928 F 2d 1366 1371 & n 7 (3d Cir 1991)) Furthermore while the VITCA was patterned after the New York equivalent the New York Court of Claims Act (hereinafier ‘ NYCCA ), the notice provisions therein are in fact different See Gan ale. v Stevens N0 82 191 1983 U S Dist LEXIS 20508 at *4 5 n 2 (D VI Mar 22, 1983) (‘ Although the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act was ‘primarily drawn from’ the New York Court of Claims Act N Y Judiciary Law §§8 12 (McKinney 1981) the filing requirements contained in the two statutes differ in one dramatic respect The New York act
7 The Court reminds the parties that they have a duty to cite authority for and against the positions being advocated, and not just authority that supports its position See V l R Cw P ll(b)(5) ( By presenting to the court a pleading written motion or other paper whether by signing filing submitting or later advocating it an attorney or self represented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances that the applicable Virgin Islands law has been cited, including authority for and against the positions being advocated by the party ) (emphasis added) The Court must note that interestingly CV! and MGC only made arguments as to the accrual of MGC 5 contribution claim and not as to MGC s indemnification claim This is an example of why it is important for a litigant to comply with Rule 8, which mandates that the pleading should set forth counts in separate numbered paragraphs with separate designation of the specific names of each count in the pleadings V 1 R ClV P 8 It is for the benefit of everyone involved the plaintiff the defendant the Court to have the claims clearly identified See Arno v Hess Corp , 71 V1 463,499 (V1 Super Ct Oct 17 2019)( the law favors clarity and precision especially in pleadings ) In the interest of efficiency, the Court will nevertheless address the accrual of both claims herein in the event that MGC intended to proceed with both claims against GVI 8 The Territorial Court is the predecessor of the Superior Court Manda i Govt ofthe VI , 56 V I 194 201 n 3 (V I 2012) (observing that the name of the Territorial Court was changed to the Superior Court on October 29 2004), and thus the Territorial Court and the modern Superior Court are treated as equivalents see Farms, 76 V I at 498 n 8 (treating the Territorial Court as the direct equivalent of the modem Superior Court) (citing Hodge v Bluebeard's Castle Inc 62 V I 671 676 & n 2 (V I 2015)
Huddleston v M G C Inc 6! a! SK 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER 6 Page 1] of 20
provides that the filing of a ‘claim actually triggers the commencement of a lawsuit in the abate Court of Claims By contrast, neither the ‘notice of intention nor the claim’ described in our act amounts to a civil complaint In Bye i New York State, 90 Misc 2d 265 394 N Y S 2d 381 383 (Ct (I 1977) the Court of Claims acknowledged that a document which is not the vehicle for commencing a lawsuit cannot properly be made ‘the subject ofattack as substantively insufficient because there [is] nothing to dismiss ”’) (citation omitted), see also Ashley v Am Airlines Inc , No 85 CW 0614 (PKL) 1988 U S Dist LEXIS 11612 at *15 I6 18 (S DN Y Oct 21 1988) ( ‘Upon examination, however the Court finds that the VITCA differs from the NYCCA (in both its earlier and current versions) in several significant respects Finally and most importantly in the present case, the New York Court of Appeals has taken a different view than a Virgin Islands court in deciding a key question under each act namely, when a claim for indemnification or contribution against the government accmes for purposes of the Act's notice requirements While both acts raise the gate which had barred plaintiffs from bringing suit against the government at common law, the NYCCA offers plaintiffs a relatively unobstructed avenue to recovery, while the VITCA provides a much narrower crawlspace ) As such, the Court will not resort to New York judicial decisions in this area for guidance 1] 14 Here, by alleging a contribution claim against GVl, MGC is alleging that GVI also played a role in causing injury to Plaintiffs and thus seeking contribution from GVI in the event that MGC is found liable to Plaintiffs; by alleging an indemnification claim against GVl, MGC is alleging that GVl was solely responsible in causing injury to Plaintiffs and thus seeking to shift the entire liability from itself to GVl in the event that MGC is found liable to Plaintiffs See Willie v Amerada Hess Corp 66 V I 23 87 (V I Super Ct Feb 28 2017) ( Indemnification and contribution differ in the extent to which a tortfeasor is able to rid himself of liability Where
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a! 8X 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER 6 Page 12 of 20 Indus Inc 502 F 2d 259 11 VI 220 241 n 17 (3d Cir 1974) (emphasis added» Given that
neither party has identified a statute or a binding decision from an authoritative court that addresses the issue of whether the accrual of contribution claim and indemnification claim is the same as the underlying predicate tort a Banks analysis is necessary 9 See Banks v International Rental & Leasmg Corp 55 V I 967 977 78 (V I 2011) see also Gov t ofthe Virgin Islands v Connor 60 V I 597 (V I 2014) (‘ Thus, the Superior Court, when considering a question not foreclosed by prior precedent from this Court must perform a three part analysis as set forth in Banks ”) In Robbins v Port ofSale Inc , the court performed a Banks analysis as to the issue of whether the limitations of actions for indemnity and contribution are the same as the predicate tort's, which also addressed the accrual date of such claims 62 V I 151 154 (V I Super Ct March 6 2015) The Robbins court concluded that the soundest rule of law for the Virgin Islands is that “that the statute of limitations for contribution and indemnity in the Virgin Islands is not coterminous with the statute of limitations for the predicate tort; the causes of action for contribution and indemnity do not accrue at the time of the tort, but only when liability is discharged ” Id , 62 V I at 158 59 Having reviewed the Banks analysis conducted in Robbins, this Court agrees with its reasoning and conclusion and adopts its Banks analysis and conclusion as though the same was set forth herein Based on this conclusion, the Court finds that the 90 day notice period has not expired However, this raises the issue of whether a claimant can comply with the VITCA’s pre filing requirements prior to the accrual of a contribution claim/indemnification claim The language of
9 “A Banks analysis calls for the balancing of three non dispositive factors that include “( 1) whether any Virgin Islands courts have previously adopted a particular rule; (2) the position taken by a majority of courts from other jurisdictions, and (3) most importantly, which approach represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands " Reynolds v Ro/m 70 VI 887 893 (VI 2019) (quoting Simon v Joseph 59 VI 611 623 (VI 2013)) Although only the Superior Court is required to conduct Banks analyses Connor 60 V I at 603 (citing Banks, 55 V I 967) the parties are again reminded of their duties under Rule 1 l of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure See supra footnote 7
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a1 SX 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER ’5 Page 13 of 20
However, this raises the issue of whether a claimant can comply with the VITCA’s pre filing requirements prior to the accrual of a contribution claim/indemnification claim The language of Title 33 V I C § 3409(c) is ambiguous as to this issue since the statute s ‘silence could be interpreted as either permitting or not permitting compliance prior to the accrual of the claim See One St Peter LLC v 3d of Land Use Appeals 67 VI 920 924 (2017) ( Statutory language is ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one interpretation ”) Thus, the Conn will now ‘ proceed to examine the legislative history ofthe statute and its purpose to ascertain if [a pr0posed] interpretation was within the legislature's intent ’ One St Peter LLC v Bd ofLand Use Appeals, 67 V I 920 926 (V I 2017) (quoting Sonson v People 59 V I 590 598 (V I 2013)) [C]ourts must assume that the legislature intends for the entirety of the statutory language, as well as the whole statutory scheme, to be effective, unless to do so would lead to unjust or absurd results or would otherwise undermine the legislative intent Willis v People of the V I 71 V I 789, 825 (V 1 2019) In Brunn v Dowdye, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court identified that the intent of the pre filing notice requirements under the VITCA is to afford the Government an opportunity to make an investigation in order to determine if the claims should be settled without suit 59 V I 899 911 (V I 2013) see thllzps v Govt ofthe VI No 617 1983 1984 V I LEXIS 38 at *3 (V I Terr Ct Aug 14 1984) ( The purpose behind the ninety day notice provision of the Tort Claims Act is to prevent the presentation of stale claims so that the Government has an adequate opportunity to investigate and to explore the merits of a claim and to pursue a settlement while the evidence remains fresh in the memory of witnesses ’) To interpret Title 33 V I C § 3409(c) to not permit compliance prior to the accrual of a contribution claim/indemniflcation claim would undermine the legislative intent to afford the Government an opportunity to investigate More specifically, since Plaintiffs are suing MGC for the underlying predicate tort and MGC is seeking
Huddleston » M G c Inc et a! SX 2022 CV 480 % Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER Page 14 of 20 contribution/indemnification from GVI, it aligns with legislative intent to notify GVI sooner while
Plaintiffs’ suit against MGC is still ongoing rather than later afier Plaintiffs suit against MGC have concluded Accordingly, the Court finds that Title 33 V I C § 3409(c) permits compliance ofthe VITCA’s pre filing requirements prior to the accrual of a contribution claim/indemnification claim Thus the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter so long as MGC complies with the VITCA’s pre filing requirements The Court finds that, by serving the Attorney General with a copy of its third party complaint, MGC has complied with VITCA 3 pre filing requirement of serving a copy of its claims upon the Attorney General Title 33 V I C § 3410 However, MGC still needs to file its claims with the Office of the Governor since notifying the Attorney General is not the same as notifying the Office of the Governor, which the VITCA clearly required Title 33 V I C § 3410 ( The claim or notice of intention shall be filed in the Office of the Governor and a copy shall be served upon the Attorney General ) As such, the Court will order MGC to file a copy of its third party complaint at the Office of the Governor and upon MGC filing a notice of compliance, GVI s motion to dismiss for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be deemed denied See James St Jules 2015 V l 74, at *7 (noting that when an attack on subject matter jurisdiction is factual, “no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff‘s allegations [and] the burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction lies with the plaintiff )
2 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted 1] [5 In its motion, GVI argued that MGC s third party complaint fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because in the context of the facts alleged, [GVI] owes no individualized duty to members of the public, and thus the actions of the VIPD in responding to [MGC’s] false alarm cannot be the basis for a negligence claim ’ (Motion 10 ll ) GVI stated that “[w]hether law enforcement owes a particularized or individualized duty has not been determined
Huddleston 1 M G C Inc e! a] SX 2022 CV 480 6 Memorandum OPIIIIOII and Order 2024 VI SUPER Page 15 of 20 by Virgin Islands’ Courts” and thus, after conducting 21 Banks analysis, concluded that the soundest
rule for the Virgin Islands is to hold that the Law Enforcement owes no Individualized Duty Absent a Special Relationship (Id , at 13) (emphasis omitted ) 1| 16 In its opposition, MGC argued that the Court should deny GVI’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because “(1) MGC has made sufficient claims putting the GVI on notice for negligent acts and omissions ’ of the VIPD officers as contemplated by V I R Civ P 8 and the VITCA and (2) at this juncture procedurally the Court does not need to decide the motion to dismiss on the merits (Opp 7 ) 11 17 In its reply, GVI reiterated that ‘ law enforcement owes no general duty to the public ’ and ‘ nowhere in the VITCA does the statute create duties that do not otherwise exist (Reply )
A Standard of Review
1] 18 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter Rule 12(b)(6) ) allows a party to assert the defense of “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ’ by motion and move for dismissal The Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the complaint Rule 8 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “Rule 8”) requires, Inter aha, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief because this is a notice pleading jurisdiction and the pleading shall be set forth in separate numbered paragraphs as provided in Rule 10(b), with separate designation of counts and defenses for each claim identified in the pleading VI R Clv P 8(a)(2) As a notice pleading jurisdiction, ‘ [a] complaint is sufficient ‘so long as it adequately alleges facts that put an accused party on notice of claims brought against it 0xley 2018 VI LEXIS at *3 (quoting M1113 Williams 67 V I 574 585 (V I 2017)); accord Arno, 71 V I at 501 (“‘Plead the who, what, where, when, and how sufficient information to put a defendant on notice of the conduct and actions the plaintiff
Huddleston v M G C Inc et (1! SX 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER 6 Page 16 of 20
complains of (brackets and citation omitted» “[A] complaint need not plead facts to support each element of a claim in order to adequately allege facts that put an accused party on notice or to show[] the pleader is entitled to relief under V I R CIV P 8(a)(2)[] [b]ut a complaint should provide factual allegations sufficient to advise the responding party of the transaction or occurrence on which the claim is based and identify the claim, reciting its elements, so as to enable the defendant to respond intelligently and to enable the Court to determine on a motion to dismiss under VI R Civ P 12(b)(6) whether the claim is adequately pled Oxley 2018 VI LEXIS at *10 '0 see Mills Williams 67 VI at 585 (citing VI R Civ P 8 Reporters Note) (“Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 8 expressly states that the Virgin Islands “is a notice pleading jurisdiction, V I R Civ P 8(a) and the Reporter's Note eliminates any doubt that this language is calculated to apply[] an approach that declines to enter dismissals of cases based on failure to allege specific facts which, if established plausibly entitle the pleader to relief ’ ) (emphasis in original); see also Brathwatte v H D V 1 Holding Co , 2017 V I LEXIS 76, at *3 (V I Super Ct May 24 2017) (acknowledging that Virgin Islands Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2) eliminates the plausibility standard and instead will permit a complaint so long as it adequately alleges facts that put an accused party on notice of claims brought against it )) 1] 19 ‘ When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court does not address the merits Oliver v Termmzx Int] Co 73 V I 210 214 (V I Super Ct April 26 2020) accord Arno, 71 V I at 494 Instead, courts assume all reasonable factual allegations in the complaint as
'0 The Oxley court noted that ‘considering the policy of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands requiring the Superior Court to conduct a Banks analysis to determine the applicable common law when confronted with an issue of common law that has not yet been adopted by the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands in order to enable the Superior Court to recognize a potential Banks issue and order the parties to brief it this Court underscores that a complaint should recite the elements of a common law claim so as to make clear the legal theory presented, given that elements among common law claims of the same name may vary 2018 V I LEXIS *10 11 This Court agrees
Huddleston i M G C Inc et a! SX 2022 CV 480 ,5 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER Page [7 of 20 true and draw all fair inferences from such allegations ’ ’ Arno, 71 V I at 494 (quoting In re Kelvin
Manbodh Asbestos thlg Sezers 47 V I 375 380 (V I Super Ct March 3 2006)) However “[a]llegations will not be reasonable, nor will inferences in favor of the plaintiffbe fair, where they contradict facts either contained in the public record or Judicially noticed by the Court In re Kelvm Manbodh Asbestos thlg Serzes 47 V I at 380 B Analysis
11 20 As noted above, MGC failed to comply with Rule 8 when its third party complaint failed to set forth counts in separate numbered paragraphs with separate designation of the specific names of each count, but the Court nevertheless deduced that MGC alleged a contribution claim and an indemnification claim against GVI for the actions of VIPD '1 The Court finds unpersuasive GVI’s argument that GVI cannot be held liable for VIPD s actions because VIPD does not owe a general duty to the public and thereby, VIPD s actions in responding to [MGC 5] false alarm cannot be the basis for a negligence claim (Motion ) The plain language of the VITCA is unambiguous that the VITCA is applicable whenever an injury or loss of property or personal injury or death (collectively, hereinafter loss”) is caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any person acting on behalf of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government “while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the Government of the United States Virgin Islands, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred, ’ and that the Government is to, after a claimant’s compliance with the VITCA’s pre filing requirements waive its immunity from liability and action, and assume liability with respect to such Loss with no exception made as to the Loss caused by the negligent or wrongfiil act or omission of VIPD Title
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a! SK 2022 CV 480 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER 1 2 2 Page 18 of 20
33 V I C §§ 3401, 3408(a) 1° ‘ The first step when interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning Miller v People ofthe V I , 67 V I 827, 844 (2017) It is well settled that when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, no further interpretation is required See Thomas v People ofthe V I 69 V I 913 925 (V I 2018) (noting that because ‘the statutory language [of 14 V 1 C § 2101(a)] is plain and unambiguous, no further interpretation is required” ); see also Codrmgton v People ofthe V I , 56 V I 176, 185 (V 1 2012) ( Accordingly when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, a court does not look beyond the language of the statute in interpreting the statute's meaning ’) “The Virgin Islands Legislature has instructed that [w]ords and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the English language ’ Title 1 V 1 C § 42 Miller 67 V I at 844 There is nothing in the VITCA to suggest that the Virgin Islands Legislature intended to carve out an exception for Loss caused by the negligent or wrongful act or
p Title 33 section 3401 of the Virgin Islands Code provides As used in this chapter the term Government of the Virgin Islands includes the executive legislative, and judicial branches of the Govemment of the Virgin Islands, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government of the Virgin Islands and Governing Boards and Commissions of the Government of the Virgin Islands, including but not limited to the Virgin Islands Government Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation, but does not include any contractor with the Government of the Virgin Islands Employee of the Government includes elected or appointed officials, employees, members of Governing Boards and Commissions and other persons acting on behalf of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands Title 33 V I C 9' 3408 Title 33 section 3408(a) of the Virgin Islands Code provides Subject to the provisions of section 3416 of this chapter, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands hereby waives its immunity from liability and action and hereby assumes liability with respect to injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the Govemment of the United States Virgin Islands while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the Government of the United States Virgin Islands if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred The Government consents to have the liability determined in accordance with the same rule of law as applied to actions in the courts of the Virgin Islands against individuals or corporations; Provided That the claimant complies with the provisions of this chapter Title 33 V [C § 3408(a)
Huddleston t M G C Inc et a] filianfl‘tfiiigpinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER i Page 19 of 20 omission of a VIPD officer acting on behalf of VIPD, an executive branch of the Government,
while acting within the scope of his office or employment under circumstances where the Government, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred, so that the Government would not to waive its immunity from liability and action, and would not assume liability with respect to such Loss [f the drafters intended to make such an exception as to VIPD officers then the drafiers clearly could have done so by explicitly including the exception in the VITCA As such, the Court will give effect to the plain and unambiguous language of the VITCA and hold that the Government will after a claimant’s compliance with the VITCA’s pre filing requirements, waive its immunity from liability and action, and assume liability with respect to the Loss caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of Government employees including VIPD employees while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the Government, if a private person would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred As such, the Court rejects GVl’s argument that GVl cannot be held liable for VlPD’s actions because VIPD does not owe a general duty to the public, and in viewing all the factual allegations in the third party complaint as true and construing it liberally in the light most favorable to MGC the Court finds that the third party complaint adequately allege facts that put an accused party on notice of claims brought against it Mills Williams, 67 V I at 585 Accordingly, the Court will deny GVI s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted CONCLUSION
1] 21 For the reason stated above the Court will order MGC to file a copy of its third party complaint at the Office of the Governor and file a notice of compliance thereafter, and deny GVI’s
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a] 5x 2027 cv 480 6 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2024 VI SUPER Page 20 of 20
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted At this juncture the Court will order this matter stayed pending MGC filing a notice of compliance to prove the existence of subject matter jurisdiction Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, MGC shall FILE a copy of its third party complaint at the Office of the Governor and FILE 3 notice with the Court to advise compliance thereof, and upon MGC s filing its notice of compliance, CW 3 motion to dismiss for the lack of subject matter Jurisdiction will be DEEMED DENIED without any fithher action from the Court It is further ORDERED that GVI s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is DENIED And it is further ORDERED that this matter is STAYED pending MGC filing a notice of compliance and upon MGC s filing its notice of compliance, the stay will be LIFTED without any further action
from the Court “A
DONE and so ORDERED this g day of January 2024
ATTEST Tamara Charles MiM2
HAROLD W L WILLOCK
Clerk of the Court Administrative J udge of the Superior Court
By \ 1% 2M ourt Clerk Supervisorz:
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS District of St. Croix
Charles W. Huddleston et al, Case Number: SX-2022-CV-00480 Plaintiff Action: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional v. Distress
M.G.C. Inc., Defendant.
NOTICE of ENTRY
of
Memorandum Opinion and Order To Nathan Mirocha, Esq. Douglas L. Capdeville, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmons, Esq.
Please take notice that on January 23, 2024 a(n) Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 22, 2024 was/were entered by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.
Dated January 23, 2024 Tamara Charles Clerk of the Court
By:
Janeen Maranda
Court Clerk II