Chelsea Regis v. Coral World (VI) Inc., and TRUDIE PRIOR

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: ST-2022-CV-00127
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

CHELSEA M. REGIS ) CASE NO. ST-2022-CV-00127 ) Plaintiff, ) ACTION FOR DAMAGES ) vs. ) ) CORAL WORLD (VI), INC., and TRUDIE ) PRIOR ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. ) )

2025 VI Super 41U

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

¶1 THIS MATTER is before the court on the following:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to V.I. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), filed June 30,

2022 (“Motion”);

2. Plaintiff Chelsea M. Regis’ (“Regis”) Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, filed August

23, 2022;

3. Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed

September 22, 2022; and

4. Defendants’ Memorandum Regarding Additional Legal Authority, filed April 6, 2023.

For the reasons outlined below, Defendants’ Motion is granted as to Count III and denied as to

Count I.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Regis’ claims against Defendants Coral World (VI) Inc. and Trudie Prior (collectively,

“Coral World”) arose from Regis’ termination of employment with Coral World. On April 18,

2022, Regis filed a three-count complaint in which Regis alleges that Coral World wrongfully Regis v. Coral World (VI), Inc. Case No. ST-2022-CV-00127 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 2 of 2 2025 VI Super 41U

discharged Regis in violation of the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act, V.I. CODE ANN. tit.

24, § 76 (the “WDA”);1 discrimination;2 and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.3 In her

complaint, Regis alleges she began working at Coral World around 2016 and was considered an

employee of Coral World to meet their local employee requirements with the Economic

Development Commission.4 Regis further alleges she was appointed manager of a department

around 2019 but was denied the same treatment as her counterparts who were white.5 Moreover,

the complaint alleges that while a contracting company, Wildlife Trading, “was contracted to do

supervision, [Regis] was jointly supervised by” Coral World and paid by Coral World. 6 Around

2021, Wildlife ceased contracting with Coral World, and Coral World assumed complete

supervision of Regis.7

¶3 On June 30, 2022, Coral World filed the Motion, arguing, first, that “Plaintiff was a

supervisor employed by Coral World as the manager of her own department, with authority to hire,

fire, purchase inventory, and direct employees of her department, as to, inter alia, schedule, daily

duties, and work assignments.” 8 Second, Coral World argues that Plaintiff does not allege the

existence of a contract … absent the existence of a contract, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for breach

of good faith and fair dealing.” Therefore, Coral World argues that Counts I and III should be

dismissed.

1 See V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 24, §§ 61-79. 2 In the Motion, the claim for discrimination was not challenged by Coral World. 3 While the complaint labels the claim for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing as Count II, the court notes this is a scrivener’s error because there already is a Count II (discrimination). As such, the court will consider the breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing as Count III throughout this memorandum. 4 Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7. 5 Id. at ¶ 11. 6 Id. at ¶ 6. 7 Id. at ¶ 8. 8 Mot. to Dismiss 1. Regis v. Coral World (VI), Inc. Case No. ST-2022-CV-00127 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 3 of 3 2025 VI Super 41U

¶4 Coral World seeks to dismiss Counts I and III of the complaint, pursuant to Virgin Islands

Rule of Civil Procedure 12, arguing those claims fail to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. First, Coral World contends Count I fails because the complaint’s allegations allude to

Regis being a manager and not an employee. Specifically, Coral World states that, as the manager

of her own department, Regis had “authority to hire, fire, purchase inventory, and direct employees

of her department as to, inter alia, schedule daily duties, and work assignments.”9 As a manager,

Coral World argues Regis cannot bring claims under the “WDA”. Second, Coral World contends

Count III fails to state a claim because the complaint does not allege the existence of a contract

and, without a contract, Coral World argues Regis cannot have a claim for breach of duty of good

faith and fair dealing.

¶5 Regis opposes the motion to dismiss and counters that the complaint puts Coral World on

notice of her claims of a violation of the WDA and a breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.

First, Regis asserts that the information in the complaint sufficiently alleges she was employed at

Coral World and was terminated;10 and, second, the complaint sufficiently alleges that Coral World

denied Regis the benefits of an employment agreement.11

II. LEGAL STANDARD

¶6 Pursuant to V.I. R. CIV. P. 12, a complaint will be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted.12 As a notice-pleading jurisdiction, under V.I. R. CIV. P. 8, a claim

in the Virgin Islands is properly pled if it contains “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

9 Id. at 1. 10 Pl.’s Opp’n 5. 11 Id. at 20. 12 V.I. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Regis v. Coral World (VI), Inc. Case No. ST-2022-CV-00127 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 4 of 4 2025 VI Super 41U

that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .”13 The notice-pleading standard is a more liberal approach

than the plausible claim standard where a complaint may still sufficiently put a defendant on notice

even if it is “vague, inartfully drafted, a bare-bones outline, or not a model of specificity.”14 To

survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the pleading party “need only provide sufficient notice to the

opposing party of the claims being asserted.”15 Accordingly, given that the court is not considering

the merits or strength of claims asserted in the complaint in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the scope of

its analysis is, generally, limited to the matters presented through the pleading(s).16

III. ANALYSIS

¶7 The issues before the court are whether the complaint asserts sufficient allegations to put

Coral World on notice of Regis’ claims of violation of the WDA and of breach of duty of good

A. The complaint sufficiently alleges that Regis was employed then wrongfully discharged by Coral World, putting Coral World on notice of her claim of a violation of the WDA.

¶8 Pursuant to the WDA, an employee is considered to have been wrongfully discharged when

the employee is discharged for reasons other than those stated in 24 V.I.C. § 76(a). As such, to

state a claim under Section 76, a plaintiff is only required to plead that their employer wrongfully

discharged them.17 However, the definition of an “employee” for purposes of the WDA “does not

13 V.I. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). 14 Compare Basic Servs., Inc. v. Gov’t of V.I., 2019 VI 21, ¶¶ 10, 12 (applying the notice-pleading standard) (citing Casaday v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 UT App 82, ¶ 16) (cleaned up), with Joseph v. Bureau of Corrections, 54 V.I. 644, 649 (V.I. 2011) (applying the plausibility standard) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). 15 Clark v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, 2025 VI 15, ¶ 17. 16 Clark, ¶ 18; Nigg v. Marriot Hotel Management Company (Virgin Islands), 2025 VI Super 5, ¶ 6. 17 Rennie v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 62 V.I. 529, 544 (V.I. 2015). Regis v. Coral World (VI), Inc. Case No. ST-2022-CV-00127 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 5 of 5 2025 VI Super 41U

include . . . any individual employed in a bona fide position in an executive or professional capacity

. . . .”18 In short, a bona fide executive is not afforded the protection of the WDA.19

¶9 Here, Coral World argues that Count I must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted; namely, Coral World contends the complaint alleges that Regis

was a manager of a department at Coral World and, thus, Regis does not qualify for the protections

under the WDA.20 Moreover, Coral World argues that Regis is excluded from the WDA because

she was acting in an executive capacity at Coral World. Coral World relies on the definition of

“supervisor” under the National Labor Relations Act to argue that Regis meets the definition and

is not entitled to the safeguards under the WDA. Regis counters that the complaint alleges

adequate facts to state a claim for relief under the WDA, pleading that she was an employee of

Coral World and that she was wrongfully fired. Further, Regis asserts there are insufficient facts

established to find that Regis acted in an executive capacity.

¶10 A matter that is in the Rule 12(b)(6) stage is in the early phases of the proceeding because

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must be made before a responsive pleading is filed.21 While there are

allegations in the complaint that allude to Regis being made manager, there are other allegations

asserting she was not regarded or authorized to act as one. Moreover, Regis’ salary, duties, and

extent of her authority are unknown.22 It is unclear – based on the complaint’s allegations,

considered as true assertions – whether Regis acted or had the authority to act in an executive or

professional capacity. Accordingly, given the lack of evidence at this stage, whether Regis is an

18 24 V.I.C. § 62. 19 Bryan v. Wenhaven, Inc., 2023 VI Super 77U, ¶ 31. 20 Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 4-7. 21 See V.I. R. CIV. P. 12(b). 22 See Bryan v. Wenhaven, Inc., 2020 VI Super 85U, ¶ 15. Regis v. Coral World (VI), Inc. Case No. ST-2022-CV-00127 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 6 of 6 2025 VI Super 41U

employee or a supervisor is a factual inquiry that is not suited for a motion to dismiss for failure

to state a claim.23 Therefore, at this juncture, the court finds that Regis has successfully put Coral

World on notice of her claim of a violation of the WDA.

B. The complaint does not allege sufficient facts concerning Coral World’s conduct being inconsistent with Regis’ contracted expectations to put Coral World on notice of Regis’ claim of breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.

¶11 The duty of good faith and fair dealing limits a party’s “ability to act unreasonably in

contravention of the other party's reasonable expectations.” Chapman v. Cornwall, 58 V.I. 431,

441 (V.I. 2013). The duty is, generally, an implied covenant within a contract, which requires the

existence of a contract. Gardiner v. St. Croix Dist. Governing Bd. of Dirs., 2019 VI Super 59U, ¶

20. As such, to state a proper claim for breach of duty good faith and fair dealing “a party must

allege that, in the performance or enforcement of an existing contract between two parties, the

opposing party engaged in conduct that was fraudulent, deceitful, or otherwise inconsistent with

the purpose of the agreement or the reasonable expectations of the parties.”24

¶12 On the one hand, Coral World argues the complaint is devoid of allegations regarding the

existence of a contract, and, without a contract, there cannot be a claim for a breach of duty of

good faith and fair dealing.25 On the other hand, Regis contends that she pled she worked at Coral

World for five years, went on maternity leave around October 2021, and was terminated by Coral

World during her maternity leave. In essence, Regis asserts the complaint’s allegations describe

23 Id. (finding that defendant’s “argument with respect to the [plaintiff] being an executive and, therefore, exempt from the WDA is more appropriate for a Motion for Summary Judgment after the discovery process has occurred.”). 24 Agueda v. Marcano, 2024 VI 22, ¶ 38; see Chapman, 58 V.I. at 441 (stating that a breach of the duty “requires proof of acts amounting to fraud or deceit on the part of the employer”). 25 Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 8. Regis v. Coral World (VI), Inc. Case No. ST-2022-CV-00127 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 7 of 7 2025 VI Super 41U

a claim for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and support the claim that Defendants

denied Regis the benefit of their employment agreement and the maternity leave she earned.26

¶13 The court finds the complaint does not state a claim for breach of duty of good faith and

fair dealing upon which Regis can be granted relief. The complaint does not allege that Regis and

Coral World entered into a contractual agreement; indeed, the complaint only states that, around

September 2021, Wildlife Trading ceased contracting with Coral World and Coral World then had

sole supervision over Regis.27 Crucially, the complaint does not allege any terms of a contract,

imposing a duty on Coral World, that would contravene Regis’ “reasonable expectations.” The

complaint fails to state a claim of breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing because it does not

put Coral World on notice of the expectations Regis “originally bargain[ed]”28 and of Coral

World’s contravening actions against those expectations.

IV. CONCLUSION

¶14 The complaint pleads, inter alia, claims against Coral World for violation of the WDA and

breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Coral World seeks to dismiss those claims for failure

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted to Regis. Specifically, Coral World argues that

Regis is not, by definition, an employee and thus, is not protected by the WDA; and that there

cannot be a breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing without the existence of a contract, which

Coral World denies there is.

¶15 The court finds the complaint sufficiently states a claim for violation of the WDA; Regis

provides allegations demonstrating that she was employed by Coral World and was discharged.

26 Pl.’s Opp’n 19-20. 27 Compl. ¶ 8. 28 See Agueda, ¶ 38 (“The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing is limited by the original bargain . . . .”). Regis v. Coral World (VI), Inc. Case No. ST-2022-CV-00127 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 8 of 8 2025 VI Super 41U

The court also finds the complaint lacks allegations to state a claim for breach of duty of good faith

and fair dealing; the complaint’s allegations do not put Coral World on notice of the terms Regis

reasonably expected to be afforded and how Coral World contravened those expectations.

Therefore, the court will deny the motion to dismiss as to Count I and will grant the motion to

dismiss as to Count III. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED,

in part; it is further

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Count III, and

DENIED as to Count I; and it is further

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

DATE: November 25, 2025 _____________________________________ HONORABLE SIGRID M. TEJO Superior Court of the Virgin Islands ATTEST:

TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court

BY: __________________________________ for LATOYA CAMACHO 11 26 2025 Court Clerk Supervisor ____/____/_____