In Re: Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims III

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: February 16, 2021
• Docket: SX-21-MC-56
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX

: Master Case No sx 2021 MC 056 IN RE Asbestos, Silica and Catalyst \ (CompIex Litigation Division) Dust Claims "I Re SX 2021 CV 132 133 136 156 164 168 352 358

Cite as 2021 VI Super 13F

Appearances J Russel B Pate, Esq The Pate Law Firm St Thomas USVI 00804 For Plaintiffs

Korey A Nelson, Esq Burns Charest LLP New Orleans LA 70130 For Plaintiffs

Warren T Burns, Esq Burns Chares LLP Dallas Texas 75201 For Plaintiffs

Carl A Beckstedt Ill Esq Beckstedt & Kuczynski LLP St Croix USVI 008204 For Defendants Hess Corporation and Hess Oil New York Corporation

JosephT Hanlon, Esq and Carolyn F O’Connor, Esq Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP Florham Park NJ 07932 0668 For Defendants Hess Corporation and Hess Oil New York Corporation

Ryan Stutzman, Esq CSA Associates P A St Croix USVI 00820 For Defendant Virgin Islands Industrial Maintenance Corporation in Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims iii SX 21 CV 056 2021 Vi Super Memorandum Opinion Page 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION (Filed November 16 2021)

Andrews, Jr , Judge

iNTRODUCTlON

111 Plaintiffs all over 70 years of age bring this action for damages

against defendant oil refinery companies They allege their spouses transported

toxic substances home on their ciothing which Defendants negiigentiy exposed

them to during their employment Plaintiffs claim they inhaled the substances and

suffered injuries as a result Based upon their senior status Plaintiffs move to

expedite theirtrial date by invoking the provisions of a newly enacted Virgin Islands

law that is Act No 8468 Defendants assert that the new law violates the

separation of powers doctrine and should not be applied to complex cases For

the reasons mentioned below this Court concludes the preference requested by

Plaintiffs (a triai date beyond 180 days after filing) is not permissible by the Act

The Court will thus deny the motion

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

112 Plaintiffs Julianna Evans Virginia N St Rose Winifred President

Rosetta V Lawrence AudreyJ Gustave Claudette King Catherine Phiiiip and

Marie Auguste all over the age of 70 commenced the above referenced complex In Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims Ill SX 21 CV 056 2021 VI Super Memorandum Opinion Page 3

civil actions in March and April 2021 1 They seek damages for injuries allegedly

suffered as a result of their exposure to asbestos silica and catalyst dust

transported home by their spouses Defendants they allege negligently exposed

their spouses to these substances while employed at Hess Oil Refinery between

1968 and 2012 See Complaints (SX 2021 CV 132 Mar 3 2021) (SX 2021 CV

133 Mar 2 2021) (SX 2021 CV 136 Mar 4 2021) (SX 2021 CV 156 Mar 16

2021) (SX 2021 CV 164 Mar 18 2021) (SX 2021 CV 168 Mar 19 2021) (SX

2021 CV 352 Apr 9 2021) (SX 2021 CV 358 Apr 8 2021) On August 16

2021 the Governor of the Virgin Islands signed Bill No 34 0076 into Jaw which

later became Act No 8468 codified at 5 V I § 31(b) On September 17 2021

Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Expedited Trial Setting pursuant to the new

law Each of them assert they are over 70 years of age (73 74 77 and 79)

Motion for Expedited Trial p 1 On October 15 2021 Defendants filed an

opposition to Ptaintiffs motion On October 19 2021 Plaintiffs filed a reply to

Defendants opposition and attached a case management schedule containing

proposed deadlines OMS No 16

LEGAL ANALYSlS

1B Plaintiffs seek a preferential trial setting based on the senior status

Whaler the instant master case (ex 2021 MC 00057) A total of 29 similar cases are grouped thereunder a of which involve the instant plaintiffs In Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims ill SX 21 CV 056 2021 Vi Super Memorandum Opinion Page 4

provision of Act No 8468 They assert the Act mandates this Court to grant their

motion and to set a preferential trial date Defendants argue the statute is

procedurai in nature and violates the separation of powers doctrine Opp p 2

Plaintiffs reply Defendants constitutional challenge is void for failure to notify the

Attorney General of the Virgin Islands of the challenge and Plaintiffs do not seek

a trial date within the strict limits of the new law but rather requests an expedited

scheduling order Omnibus Reply p 2 2 As explained beiow Plaintiffs use of the

Act is improper Hence the Court declines to apply it and need not reach the

constitutional issue raised by Defendants

1) The Provisions of Act 8468 are Mandatory

1M Plaintiffs motion is grounded on Act 8468 This new law provides in

pertinent part as follows

(b) Motion for preference elderly medical reasons time of triat

(1) A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age or older may petition the court for a preference which the court shall grant if it finds that the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole

(4) Upon the granting of a such a motion for preference for an elderly party the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 180 days from the date that the elderly party moves for preference There shall be no continuance beyond 180 days from granting the

2 The Court notes that Defendants have since filed the requisite notice to the Attorney General of the Virgin islands pursuantton R CiV P 51 OMS No 15 in Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims Ill SX 21 CV 056 2021 Vi Super Memorandum Opinion Page 5

motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or party 3 attorney or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record Any continuance shall be for no more than 30 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party

5 V l C §§ 31(b)(1) b(4) (emphasis supplied) Act No 8468 Aug 16 2021 In

analyzing the provisions of Act 8468 the Court reads words and phrases within

their context and construes them according to the common and approved usage

of the English language 1 V I C § 42 Statutory interpretation commences with

the plain language of the statute If the language is clear and unambiguous there

is no need to resort to any other rule or statutory construction Shoy v Peogle 55

VI 919 926 (VI 2011) Thus courts proceed under the assumption that the

legislature's intent is manifested through the ordinary meaning of the words

chosen Sonsonv Peogle 59V! 590 598 (V1 2013)

115 Here the statute in question provides that the court shalt grant the

motion upon a finding that the party has a substantial interest in the action as a

whole 5 V I C § 31(b)(1) It also provides that upon granting the motion the court

shall set the matter for trial not more than 180 days from the date that the elderly

party moves for preference 5 V | C § 31(b)(4) The language shall in the

context of the statute is clear and unambiguous Such term normally serves to

create an obligation impervious to judicial discretion Lexecon Inc v Milberg in Re Asbestos Sitica and Catalyst Dust Claims HI SX 21 CV 056 2021 VI Super Memorandum Opinion Page 6

Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach 523 U S 26 35 (1998) Cora! Mgmt Group, LLC

v Govtof the U SVI 66Vi 552 560 (VI 2017) quoting Shoyv Peogle 55

VI 919 927(VI 2011) The legislative intent here is quite manifest The Court

considers that the Legislature chose the contrasting auxiliary verb may in other

parts of the statute For example the statute also provides in part

In its discretion the court may also grant a motion for preference that is accompanied by clear and convincing medicai documentation that concludes that the movant who is a party suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial medical doubt of survival of that party beyond six months

5 V | C § 31(b)(3) (emphasis supplied) The Legislature placed this provision

(which grants a preference to the terminally ill) within the court 3 discretion by use

of the term may it is thus quite aware of the differing imports between the terms

shall and may Since the language chosen is plainly mandatory this Court is

bound to enforce it Hardtv Reliance Standard Life Ins Co 560 U S 242 252

130 S Ct 2149 (2010) (We must enforce plain and unambiguous statutory

language according to its terms )

116 Two jurisdictions with similar statutes have drawn the same

conclusion in Rice v Sugar Ct 136 Cal App 3d 81 (1982) the California

appeals court construed a statute which provided that

A civil case shalt be entitied to preference upon motion of any party to such action who has reached the age of 70 years unless the In Re Asbestos Silica and Catatyst Dust Claims Ill SX 21 CV 056 2021 VI Super Memorandum Opinion Page 7

court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole

Code Civ Proc § 36 subd (3) [pre 1990 Amendment] The statute required the

court to set triaI within 120 days of granting the motion The Rice court concluded

that the language of the statute was intended to be mandatory irrespective of the

circumstances leading to the motion for preference t_d at 84 It reasoned that the

word shall is ordinarily used to express what is mandatory g at 86 Similarly in

Cruz v Integrated Health Admin Serv . Inc 53 N Y 8 3d 497 498 (Sup Ct N Y

2017) the New York court interpreted the following statute which provided in

pertinent part

(a) Preferred Cases Civil cases shall be tried in the order in which notes of issue have been filed but the following shall be entitled to a preference

4 in any action upon the application of a party who has reached the age of seventy years

NY CLS CPLR R 3403 In finding the provisions of the statute mandatory the

New York court stated given that the legislature's use of the imperative shalt is

mandatory not permissive this court may not decide to grant or deny a trial

preference by exercising its discretion Cruz 53 N Y 8 3d at 498 These cases

serve as guidance in interpreting the similarly enacted Virgin Islands statute M

v Est of Bell 61 VI 480 494 n 10 (V! 2014) (stating when statutes from other

jurisdictions are substantially similar to a Virgin Islands statute this Court may look In Re Asbestos Silica and Cataiyst Dust Claims ill SX 21 CV 056 2021 VI Super Memorandum Opinion Page 8

for guidance at how thatjurisdiction s courts have interpreted the similar statute )

Accordingly this Court finds that the provisions of Act 8468 are mandatory

2) Plaintiff’s Use of Act No 8468 is Improper

117 Plaintiffs would be the soie beneficiaries of any money damages

awarded pursuant to their complaint See Complaints p 14 They thus have a

substantial interest in the outcome of the action Such interest coupled with their

age would require the setting of a trial date under the Act of no later than 180

days from the filing of Plaintiffs motion That deadline would be March 16 2022

See 5 V I C § 31 (b)(4) Plaintiffs however do not seek this statutory trial deadline

118 In support of their motion for expedited trial setting Plaintiffs

referenced Act No 8468 and highlighted certain provisions therein They

emphasized language that 1) mandates the grant of a trial preference upon a

finding that a party is over 70 years of age and has a substantial interest in the

action as a whole and 2) mandates the setting of a trial not more than 180 days

from the date the motion for trial preference is flied Mot for Expedited Trial p 1

However in their reply Plaintiffs clarified that they

did not ask for nor met the ridged time restrictions of the new law All plaintiffs are asking for is that this Court enter the proposed scheduiing orders which expedite plaintiffs over the age of 70 and/or in mental and physical decline as lead plaintiffs

Reply p 2 (emphasis supplied) in fact Plaintiffs requested a scheduling deadline in Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims ill SX 21 CV 056 2021 Vi Super Memorandum Opinion Page 9

of July 22 2022 to file dispositive motions See Reply Ex A 1} 10 As a practical

matter that proposed deadline would yield a trial date no earlier than September

2022 some six months beyond the March 16 2022 deadline mandated by the

Act Nothing in the Act permits the court to set a trial date beyond the 180 day

deadline or its 30 day continuance provision (i e April 16 2022) Thus Plaintiffs

use of the Act to achieve such a result is improper

119 In sum Plaintiffs seek appiication of the trial preference provision of

the Act but not the mandatory 180 day trial setting provision Despite their

concession that the provisions of the Act are mandatory they seek to elude the

Acts 180 day trial deadline See Motion for Expedited Trial Setting (stating the

word shall is mandatory It does not afford this Court discretion ) They urge this

Court to ignore the mandatory statutory triai deadline and set a scheduling order

in accordance with their preference Piaintiffs seek a preferential trial date which

they clearly can pursue without the new law The Act however is not a vehicle

to transport Plaintiffs to their desired trial date Such use thereof constitutes an

attempt to restrict and/or undermine this Courts discretion in determining case

management orders in complex cases See V I R Civ P 93(0) This Court will

not condone such improper use of the Act

CONCLUSION

1110 This Court concludes that the relief sought by Plaintiffs pursuant to In Re Asbestos Silica and Catalyst Dust Claims Ill 8X 21 CV 056 2021 Vl Super Memorandum Opinion Page 10

Act 8468 ie a trial date beyond that authorized by the Act is illegal and

tantamount to re writing the Act Accordingly the Court will deny their motion

without prejudice for them to either seek a preferential trial date in compliance with

the Act or on alternative grounds should they so desire An order consistent

herewith will be entered contemporaneously

ALPHONSOG ANDREWS JR Superior Court Judge ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk of the curt // BY / 7—.— C rt Clerk III