Hafiz Rahhal v. Dave F. Clarke

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: July 20, 2022
• Docket: SX-21-RV-14
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS APPELLATE DIVISION

HAFIZ RAHHAL

Appellant/Defendant Case No SX 2021 RV 00014 v Originating Case No SX 2021 SM 00027

DAVE F CLARKE 2022 VI SUPER 67U Appeliee/Plaintiff

MEMORANDUM OPINION

‘1 1 THIS MATTER came on for a hearing via Zoom on June 21, 2022 on Appellant Hafiz Rahhal 3 Amended Notice of Appeal of the underlying civ1l case heard in the Small Claims D1visi0n(SX 2021 SM 00027) pursuant to Super Ct R 322(c)(1) Appellee Dave F Clarke did not respond in writing to the appeal, but appeared in person pro se at the June 21 2022 hearing The Court granted Appellant leave to file supplemental briefing related to the question whether Appellant qualified as a used car dealer under 12A V IC § 180(t) Appellant filed his supplemental brief June 27 2022 to which Appellee did not respond After careful consideration of the filings the Court determines that Judgment cannot stand as presently entered, for the reasons explained below The Court will vacate the Judgment entered in case SX 2021 SM 00027, and Judgment will enter as herein ordered

STATEMENT OF FACTS

‘I[ 2 This matter arises from Clarke 3 purchase of a vehicle from Rahhal on December 8 2020 April 27 2021 Hearing Tr 3 13 19 15 21 Complaint The vehicle in question was a 2012 Mercedes Benz with approximately 75 000 miles April 27 2021 Hearing Tr 13 20 21 24 23 25 48 3 4 Amended Notice of Appeal at 2 Prior to the vehicle purchase Clarke noticed a little vibration” when taking it for an initial test drive April 27 2021 Hearing Tr 7 15 18 Clarke brought the issue to Rahhal s attention Id at 7 20 21 8 8 11 16 25 17 7 8 However there was no vibration when Rahhal inspected the vehicle and Rahhal’s mechanic said that the vehicle wasn t throwing any error codes Id at 17 10 12 20 25 18 1 l9 8 10 Both Rahhal and Rahhal s mechanic told Clarke that the vehicle likely needed a tune up or an oil change Id at 9 3 6 Clarke did not seek asmstance of an independent mechanic to inspect the vehicle before purchase as he is familiar with cars Id at4 7 12 5 24 25 6 1 3 8 19 22 Clarke tried to get Rahhal to lower the purchase price of the vehicle which Rahhal refused Id at 18 2 9 Clarke took the vehicle for Rahhal v Clarke SX 2021 RV 00014 Memorandum Opinion Page 2 of 7 2022 VI SUPER 67U

another test drive and subsequently deeded to purchase it Id at 18 20 25 19 l 5 Clarke and Rahhal entered into a notarized ‘ Bill of Sale” agreement dated December 8 2020, for the purchase and sale of the vehicle for $ 13,500 00, which stated in part

I the undersigned buyer acknowledge receipt of this Bill of Sale and understand there is no guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied with respect to the above described property It is also understood that the above stated vehicle is sold in ‘as is condition Bill of Sale see also Apr1127 2021 Hearing Tr at 3 22 23 19 24 25 20 l 4

t][ 3 After the purchase, and after Clarke had the vehicle for a short period of time the vehicle stopped running on February 21 2021 Id at 9 14 16 11 24 25 12 l 5 35 3 Inspection of the vehicle showed that there was an issue with the timing chain which would require replacement of the vehicle s engine Id at 12 10 14 Clarke brought the Small Claims action asserting that Rahhal should be required to allow him to return the vehicle and get his money back Rahhal denied that he should have to return Clarke 8 money Id at 22 6 9 23 10 12 44 4 8

‘J[ 4 The matter came on for hearing in front of Magistrate Judge Miguel A Camacho on April 27 2021 and May 25 2021 During those hearings Clarke testified that his damages totaled almost $7 000 00 ” which would be the cost to get the engine repaired/replaced including both parts and labor Id at 13 6 7 Magistrate Judge Camacho 8 term concluded and Judgment was filed by Senior Sitting Judge Darryl Dean Donohue on October 6 2021 and entered October 8, 2021 The Judgment found for Clarke in the amount of $10 000 00 plus $100 00 in court costs but set forth no factual basis or legal analysis for the award Rahhal timely appealed the Judgment to the Appellate Divisxon of the Superior Court

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

‘J[ 5 The Superior Court has jurisdiction over this appeal per Super Ct R 322(a) ‘[f]inal orders from the Magistrate Division resolvmg completely the merits of cases which came before them pursuant to their original jurisdiction as provided by 4 V I C § 123(a), are immediately appealable to judges of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands Magistrate Division original jurisdiction includes civil cases where the amount in controversy does not exceed $75 000 See 4 V I C § 123(a)(7) Thus, the present action as one arising out of the Magistrate Division 5 original jurisdiction which resolved the case completely on the merits is immediately appealable to this Court Rahhal v Clarke SK 2021 RV 00014 Memorandum Opinion Page 3 of 7 2022 VI SUPER 67U

STANDARD OF REVIEW

(ll 6 The standard of review the Court applies when reviewing final orders of the Magistrate Division was described in Williams v Bellot No SX 17 RV 001 2019 WL 626177 at‘][ 11 (V I Super Feb 11 2019) as follows

In reviewing decisions from the Magisttate Division, the Appellate Division functions as an appelIate court leviewing the factual detetminations of the magistxate comt fox clear cum and its. legal findings statements of law and the application thereof undet a plenary standatd Wzld Orchzd F10ml & Event Deszgn v Banco Popular dc PR 62 VI 240 247 (Super Ct App Div 2015) (citing Supel Ct R 322 3(b) In re Estate omeall 57 VI 416 429 (2012)) Because cases in the Magistrate Division ale decided without a jury the magistlate comt hears the testimony and considem the evidence before finding the facts and applying the law And when the law is unsettled the magistrate court must detetmine what law should apply bef01e finding what facts are televant Carlos Warehouse v Thomas 64VI 173 180 (Super Ct App Div 2016) (citing Estate omeall 57 V I at 428 29 Wlld Orchid 62 V I at 252 53) The Appellate Division cannot ignoze these standards of ICVICW because it would tender the proceedings that occuned in the Magistlate Division 3 complete nu11ity and signal to the magistlatcs that the woxk they dedicated to constructing the recent! is a complete waste of time Henry 12 Dennery S Ct Civ N0 2012 0130 2013 WL 206128 *2 (V I Jan 11, 2013) Instead like an appe11ate court the Appellate Division can either affhm 01 ICVCI‘SC the magisttate court 01 remand whete appropliate Supet Ct R 322 3(c) Cf Dam] 1 People SX 15 RV 007 2016 V1 LEXIS 15 2016 WL 740066 27 29 (Supet Ct App Div Feb 22 20]6)(affi1ming conviction but reversing sentence and remanding f0] compliance with 14 V I C § 104) ‘

DISCUSSION

‘][ 7 The warranties required by law to accompany the sale of used cars are outlined in 12A V I C § 182 and state in relevant part

(b) No used can dealer shall sell a used motor vehicle to a consumer without giving the consume] a written wartanty which shah at a minimum confetm t0 the following terms 41 2» 4

‘ Effective December 1, 2018, Super Ct R 322 was amended in its entirety, and the former Rule 322 through Rule 322 14 were stricken See Promulgation Order No 2018 005 November 15, 2018, and Errata Order March 10 2020 Nonetheless review of [actual determinations tor clear mot and plenal y levitw of legal findings still set forth the apptopliatt. standards 101 Ievitw 0f the decision of a magistrate judge Rahhal v Clarke SX 2021 RV 00014 Memorandum Opinion Page 4 of 7 2022 VI SUPER 67U

(3) If the motor vehicle has more than 50,000 miles, no warranty shall apply to the sale of the vehicle 12A V I C § 182(b)(3) (emphasis added)

‘fi 8 A ‘ ‘Used car dealer means any person or busmess which sells or offers for sale on a continuing basis used motor vehicles,’ and has a pelmanent licensed place of business with pelsonnel sales meets service 3168s, and technical equipment appropriate to the need at ising fiom the [esponsibilities to the consume; 12A V I C § 180(t)

$9 Before bringing an action under the Motor Vehicle Trade Practices subchapter of the Consumer Protection Code, 12A V I C § 185, outlines pre filing requirements, specifically

(a) Depaitment of Licensing and Consumer Affairs (1) Before b1 inging a civil action on a matter subject to subchaptei V of this chaptei the consumer shall first submit his dispute to the Department of I icensing and Consumer Affairs for review If a formal administtative heating is 1equited the Commissioner or his designee shall heat the matter and may award the Iemedies under this chapter if the nonconfOImity, defeat, 01 condition substantially impaiis the use value, 01 safety of the motel vehicle and a leasonable numbel of attempts have been taken to c01rect the nonconfonnity detect 0] condition without correction of the problem A11 such awards shall be apploved by the Commissioner

(b) Appeai If the Commissioner rejects a dispute for hearing or if a dispute is heard and any party rejects the hearing decision, the party may bring an action in court to seek the temedies provided under this chapter A petition to the Sup61i01 Coutt without jury to appeal a decision shall be made within 30 calendat days of receipt of the Commissioner’s decision In any civil action 81 ising undei this chapter and telating to a matter consideied by the Commissioner any determination made to reject a dispute fox beaming or any decision tendeted by the Commissioner may be admissible evidence At the time the petition to appeal is filed, the appellant shall send by celtified mail a copy of such petition to the Commissionet 12A V I C § 185 (emphasis added)

‘11 10 When a statute sets out pre filing requirements the Court must determine whether the pre filing requirements are jurisdictional requirements or claims processing rules ” Brady v Cmtron, 55 V I 802 815 (V I 2011) The distinction between these two categories is important because ‘[w]hile claims processing rules can be equitably toiled or even waived courts have no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements and litigants cannot by Rahhal v Clarke SX 2021 RV 00014 Memorandum Opinion Page 5 of 7 2022 VI SUPER 67U

waiver or forfeiture confer jurisdiction where it is otherwise lacking Id (quoting Menominee Indian Tribe of Wu v Unzted States 614 F 3d 519 524 (D C Cir 2010)) Notably some claims processing rules can be inflexible and non walvable when the Rule implicates judicial interests beyond those of the parties Ottley v Estate of Bell 61 V I 480 492 495 (V1 2014) (quoting Mustafa v Camacho 59 V I 566 571 n 2 (V I 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted)

‘1 11 A statute 8 requirements “should only be held to be jurisdictional 1f there IS a clear indication that the legislature intended the statutory provision to operate as a limitation on the court’s adjudicatory capacity the jurisdictional intent must be clear ” Wzllts v People, 2019 V125, ‘11 61 71 V I 789 832 (VI 2019) (Swan J concurring) see also Brooks v Gov tof the VI 58 VI 417 424 (VI 2013) ( We begin by recognizing that before we may conclude that the Leglslature intended to make a particular statutory requirement jurisdictional, we must find that that Legisiature’s intent to do so is clear )(citing Henderson v Shmsekt, 526 U S 428, 131 S Ct 1197 1202 03 (2011)) When there is no clear label, then the courts con51der the structure of the statute and whether long standing judicial precedent compels the conclusion that the statute 1mposes a jurisdictional limit ’ Willis, 71 V I at 832 (Swan J concurring) (citing Brady 55 V I at 815) Even a mandatory requirement is not necessarily jurisdictional See Brooks 58 V I at 424

‘11 12 As a preliminary matter the Court must determine that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case By 12A V I C § 185 there are pre filing requirements for cases brought under the Motor Vehicles Trade Practices Act namely that a plaintiff must first seek redress through an administrative process with the Department of Licensing and Consume: Affaiis p1 ior to filing with the court In this case it appears that these pre filing tequiiements weie not met See Amended Notice of Appeal at 2, 3 Therefore the Court must detelmine if this statutory tequitement is jun isdictional 01 a claims processing iule See Brady, 55 V I at 815 If they are a claims processing rule, the Court can create equitable exceptions and such deficienCIes can be waived if not properly challenged See Gov tof the VI v Crooke 54 V I 237 254 55 (V I 2010)

<11 13 As 12A V I C § 185 does not contain a clear label that its pre filing reqmrements are meant to be jurisdictional the Court must consider the structure of the statute and long standing precedent See thlts 71 VI at 832 (Swan J concurring) The structure of 12A V I C § 185 provides no clear indication that the legislature intended its pre filing requirements to be jurisdictional Compare 12A V I C § 185 wzth 27 V I C § 166i (jurisdictional) and 15 V 1C 606 (non jurisdictional) Further, no long standing precedent has been presented, nor is the Court aware of any, to suggest that the pre filing requirements of section 185 are to be treated as jurisdictional Rahhal v Clarke SK 2021 RV 00014 Memorandum Opinion Page 6 of 7 2022 VI SUPER 67U

‘l[ 14 Therefore the Court finds that pre filing the requirements of 12A V I C § 185 are claims processing in nature Since Rahhal failed to raise the lssue of Clarke’s lack of compliance w1th 12A V IC § 185 at trial he cannot raise it for the first time on appeal See Moore v Walters, 61 V I 502 509 10 (V I 2014) (Appellant s arguments of judicial b1as were raised for the first time on appeal were erroneously considered by the Appeilate Division) Denme 12 People, 66 V I 143 (V 1 Super 2017) Therefore the Court finds that Rahhal waived the right to object to adjudication of the parties dispute by the Superior Court and the Court w111 dealde the appeal on the merits

‘l[ 15 As noted the Smail Claims Judgment contained no findings of fact or legal conclusions However on appeal the Court cons1ders the applicable law under a plenary revzew standard The plain language of 12A V IC § 182(b)(3) establishes that no warranty applies to used vehicles sold by a used car dealer with more than 50,000 miles The parties agree that the subject vehicle had more than 50 000 miles when sold Rahhal sold it to Clarke See April 27 2021 Hearing Tr 13 20 21 24 23 25 48 3 4 Amended Notice of Appeal at 2 Clarke has presented nothing to challenge Rahha} s assertion that he is a used car dealer within the meaning of the statute See 12A V I C § 180(t) 2

‘fi 16 Although never so presented the nature of Clarke’s claim against Rahhal is for breach of the parties’ contract “The elements of a breach of contract claim are (1) an agreement, (2) a duty created by that agreement (3) a breach of that duty, and (4) damages Baszc Servs Inc v Gov t of the Vzrgm Islands 71 VI 652 663 2019 VI 21 ‘11 19 (V I 2019) (quoting Phllllp v Marsh Monsanto 66 V I 612 621 (VI 2017))

i 17 Clarke has shown the existence of an agreement between the parties However to the extent that he claims that the duty on Rahhal created by that agreement involved more than delivery of the subject vehicle in ‘as is condition ’ his claim fails By the plain language of the Bill of Sale, the parties agreed that the vehicle was sold without warranty in ‘ as is” condition, such that Rahhal performed his duty under the agreement by delivery of the vehicle to Clarke By the Bill of Saie, the parties specifically disclaimed any duty on Rahhal to warrant the vehicle or its future performance Accordingly by the plain language of the parties agreement, Clarke has shown no breach of any contractual duty by Rahhal that would permit Clarke to rescind the agreement if he encountered problems with the car after the sale was concluded and he took possession Therefore

2 In his Supplemental Briefing, Rahhal refers to multiple record references to establish that he fits the statutory definition of a used car dealer The assertion of Rahhal’s status is unchallenged and a review of all the indicia in the record supporting that status need not be set out here Suffice it to say that Rahhal maintains a physical place of business offering used motor vehicles for sale on a continuing basis with personnel, sales area service area and technical equipment See Appellant’s Supplemental Briefing at l 6 Rahhal v Clarke SK 2021 RV 00014 Memorandum Opmion Page 7 of 7 2022 VI SUPER 67U

Clarke has presented no set of facts giving rise to a legal duty breached by Rahhal and he has stated no legal basis to entitle him to damages or other relief against Rahhal Accordingly the Judgment of the Magistrate Div1sion awardmg damages to Clarke must be reversed

CONCLUSION

% 18 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the final order of the Magistrate Division resolving completely the merits of the Small Claims case between the parties The prefiling requirements of 12A V I C § 185 are claims processing rules that were waived when not asserted by Rahhal before the Maglstrate Division and therefore do not deprive the Superlor Court of jurisdiction Under the terms of the parties’ Bil} of Sale and under Virgin Islands law (12A V I C § 182(b)(3)) the vehicle in issue with over 50,000 miles, was sold by Rahhal to Clarke without any warranty in ‘as is” condltion Accordingly, Rahhal breached no contractual duty owed to Clarke by refusing to permit Clarke to rescind the sale, and there is no legai basis to award Clarke damages

In light of the foregoing it is hereby

ORDERED that the October 6, 2021 Judgment of the Magistrate Division in Case No SX 2021 SM 0027 is REVERSED and VACATED It is further

ORDERED that the Judgment accompanying this Order remands the matter to the Small Claims Division with instruction to enter Judgment in Case No SX 2021 SM 00027 in favor of Defendant Hafiz Rahhal

DATED July 20 2022

DOUGLAS A BR Y JUDGE ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court

By g. Co Clerk 11 7/22/2022: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS APPELLATE DIVISION

Appellant/Defendant Case No SK 2021 RV 00014 v Originating Case No SK 2021 SM 00027 DAVE F CLARKE Appellee/Plaintiff

JUDGMENT

Consistent with the Memorandum Opinion of even date, it is hereby

ORDERED that the October 6 2021 Judgment of the Magistrate Division in SX 2021 SM 00027 entered by the Clerk October 8 2021 is REVERSED and VACATED and the matter is remanded for entry ofjudgment 1n favor of Defendant Haffiz Rahhal It is further

ORDERED that a copy of this Judgment and the Memorandum Opinion entered herein shall be served upon Appellant/Defendant Haffiz Rahhal, in care of Kye Walker, Esq and upon Appellee/Plaintlff Dave F Clarke personally

DOUGLAS A BRA JUDGE ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the Court

By éué fl Co Cler II *7 / ,1}. 2,0 2; IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS District of St Croix M

HAFIZ A RAHHAL Case Number SX 2021 RV 00014 Appellant/Defendant, Action Magistrate Appeal v Originating Case No 8X 2021 SM 00027 DAVE F CLARKE Appellee/Plainuff

NOTICE of ENTRY of GMENT ORDER

To Hon Yolan Brow Ross, Magistrate Judge Kye Walker, Esq Dave F Clarke

Please take notice that on July 22 2022 a(n) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT dated July 20, 2022 was/were entered by the Clerk in the above titled matter

Dated July 22 2022 Tamara Charles Clerk of the Court BY

Cheryl Parris Court Clerk III