Melisia Hanley as Chair VI State Nurse' Association collective Bargaining Unit & Jacqueline Canton as Chair Registered Nurses' Leadership Union, Inc.

2021 VI Super 100P

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX

MELISIA HANLEY, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION COLLECTIV CW” N° sx 2021 CV "“644 BARGAINING UNIT AND JACQUELINE ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CANTON, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF THE REGISTERED NURSES LEADERSHIP TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER UNION INC PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PERMANENT INJUNCTION

PLAINTIFFS,

v CITE AS 2021 VI SUPER [5‘20

VIRGIN ISLANDS GOVERNMEN’I HOSPITAL FACILITIES CORPORATION JUAN F LUIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER AND SCHNEIDER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, DEFENDANTS

Appearances Earnesta L Taylor, Esq McChain Hamm & Associates Christiansted, St ClOiX For Plamtzfflv

Venetia H Velazquez, Esq Virgin Islands Department of Justice Kingshill, St Croix For Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WILLOCKS Presiding Judge

11 I THIS MAT! ER came before on Piaintiff Melisia Hanley, in her capacity as Chair of the Virgin Islands State Nurses’ Association Collective Bargaining Unit (hereinafter “HanIey”) and Plaintiff Jaqueline Canton in her capacity as Chair of the Registered Nurses’ Leadership Union inc 5 (hereinafter Canton” and together with Plaintiff Hanley, ‘ Plaintiffs”) amended emergency

Hanlext VIGHHFC e! a] SX 2021 CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER m Page 2 01 18

motion fox a temporaty restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent injunction whereby Plaintiffs moved the Court to issue a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant Virgin Islands Government Hospital and Health Facilities Corporation (hereinafter VIGHl-IFC ) Defendant Governor Juan F Luis Hospital Medical Center (hereinafter JFL ) and Defendant Schneider Regional Medical Center (hereinafter SRMC and together with Defendant VIGHHFC and Defendant JFL Defendants ) from enforcing the Territorial COVID 19 Mandatory Vaccination Policy filed on August 19 2021 In response Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint and amended emergency motion filed on August 20 2021 Subsequently Plaintiffs file an opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss and Defendants filed a reply thereto BACKGROUND

‘1[ 2 On or about August 4 2021 Defendant VIGHHFC approved the Territmial COVID 19 Mandatory Vaccination Policy which was in effect at the time of Plaintiffs filings (Aug 20 2021 Motion p 4 ) The Tetritorial COVID 19 Mandatory Vaccination Policy that was approved on or about August 4 2021 was subsequently revised on August 19 2021 which provided Inter aha that [21111 employees are required to provide proof of complete vaccination on or before October 1 2021 or within two (2) days of receiving the second shot and that any SRMC 01 [JFLl employee who works physically on site at SRMC or JFL facilities who has not provided proof of complete vaccination by October 1 2021 or (ii) [91c] does not have an apprOVed exemption/reasonable accommodation as provided in this policy will be suspended until compliance is proven or terminated (Aug 20 2021 Motion Ex I 2 ) (113 On August 16 2021 Plaintiff Hanley filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent injunction whereby Plaintiffs moved the

Hanleu VIGHHFC eta! SK 2021 CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER I (D Page 3 0! 18

Court to issue a temporary restraining order against to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Territorial COVID l9 Mandatory Vaccination Policy ‘fi 4 On August 19 2021 Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants According to the complaint (i) This is an action for a Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction Permanent Injunction Violation of Policies and Procedures and Breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement based on Defendants actions resulting in violations as it pertains to due plOCCSS violations possible wnongful termination of nurses covered by the parties collective bargaining agreement failure to negotiate tame and conditions of employment prior to implementation and the establishment of new rules policies and procedures all in violation of the parties collective bargaining agreement (Compl (II 2) (ii) the Virgin Islands State Nurses Association Collective Bargaining Unit (hereinafter VISNACBU ) and Defendants had entered into a collective bargaining agreement and and the Registered Nurses Leadership Union Inc (hereinafter RNLU ) and Defendants had entered into a collective bargaining agreement (each a CBA or collectively CBAS ) (Compl ‘lI‘ll 8 9) (iii) The CBAs were in full force and effect at the time of the occurrence of the Violations alleged in Plaintiffs Motion and supplemental pleadings (Compl ‘fi 10) (iv) Pursuant to the terms of the Parties CBAs the terms and conditions of employment must be negotiated prior to implementation of new policies and procedures that affect the conditions of employment of nurses (Compl ‘I[ 15) (v) Termination and disciplinary action by the Defendant employer are subject to due p1 ocess procedures under the Parties CBA which are materially affected as a result of the Defendant s new COVID Vaccine policy (Compl (ll 17) (Vi) Prior to implementation of employer policies and procedures the Parties CBAs require Defendants provide notice of the proposed policy and procedure (Compl ‘11 18) (vii) The Defendants made the [Territorial COVID 19 Mandatory Vaccination Policy]

Hanlex l VIGHHFC eta! SX ”ON CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER m Page 4 0t 18

effective in violation of the terms of the Parties CBA (Compl (fl l9)'I and (viii) Plaintiffs and their affected members should be protected from the devastating impact of violations of the CBAs (Compl ‘I[ 20 )7 The complaint did not set forth any counts designating specific causes of action ‘1[ 5 On the same date August 19 2021 Plaintiffs also filed an amended emergency motion for a temporary restraining Oldel preliminary injunction and permanent injunction whereby Plaintiffs moved the Court to issue a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants ftom enforcing the Territorial COVID l9 Mandatory Vaccination Policy ‘}l 6 On August 20 2021 Assistant Attorney General Venetia H Velazquez Esq filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Defendants On the same date Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint and amended emergency motion Thereafter Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants motion to diemiss Defendants file a reply thereto DISCUSSION

(ll 7 In their amended emergency motion Plaintiffs requested the Court to enter a temporary restraining order to stop Defendants from wrongfully enforcing {the Tenitorial COVID l9 Mandatory Vaccination Policy] requiring all employees including employees who are members of [VISNACBU] and RNLU and who are covered under the Parties CBAs to take the COVID 19 vaccine or face termination of employment (Aug 19 2021 Motion p 4 )Plaintiffs made the following assertions in supp01t of their tequest (i) The Territorial Covid l9 Mandatory Vaccination Policy was issued without prior notice to Employees and Plaintiffs and in violation

' The paragraph following paragraph l8 should be paragraph 19 but it was inadvertently numbered 15 again 7 The paraaraph following paragraph 19 should be paragraph 20 but it was inadVerthtly numbered 16 again

Hanlett VIGHHFC eta! SK 2021 CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER L994” Pace 5 0f 18

0f the terms of the CBA (Id at pp 3 4) (ii) {T}he actions of Defendants are in violations of Virgin Islands Unfair Labor Practice laws under Title 24 V I C § 378 and more specifically in violation of subsection (5) subsection (7) and subsection (8) (Id at pp 5 11) (iii) Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if the Defendants are not enjoined from enforcing [the Territorial Covid 19 Mandatory Vaccination Policy] to wit Employees stand to lose theirjobs at the only two hospitals in the Tertitory wages benefits and the bargained for consideration under the parties CBAs and Employees are under threat of discipline employment termination and t0 temain employed are being forced to take a substance into theil body that the long telm effects of which are unknown (Id at p 6 see aim Id at pp l3 14) (iv) The balance of hardships weighs in the favor of granting the injunctive relief to wit [i]f the injunction is entered and the Defendants abide by the terms of the CBA and the applicable statute Plaintiffs and Defendants would be able to address the immediate concern of p! otecting against the sptead of COVID l9 implementation of reasonable policieg and procedures agreeable to the Parties and [t]he Parties have histoxically entered into stipulations to modify the portions of the CBAs that are affected by the proposed employer policy (Id at pp 6 7 see also Id at p 15) (v) Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the melits to wit [the Defendants have failed to honor the ptovisione 0f the CBA and Virgin Islands Code and Defendants actions constitute tortuous interference with the Plaintiff 9 rights under the CBA and are a breach of the Partiet contract (Id at p 7' see also Id at p 13) and (vi) Granting the injunction will serve the public interest to wit [t]he public has an interest in a reliable system and supply of health care services [t]he potential loss of over 50% of the nutsing staff because of enforcement of [the Territorial Covid l9 Mandatory Vaccination Policy] can be avoided and [t]he very institutions responsible for ensuring the

Hcmlen VIGHHFC er a] 9X 2021 CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER I 0 O Page 6 01 18

Territory has a system of health care to setve the people in the Territory are jeopardizing the health care delivery system in the Territory (Id see also Id at p 17 ) ‘l[ 8 In their motion to dismiss Defendantsx argued that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs amended emergency motion Defendants made the foliowing assertions in support of their argument (1) Plaintiffs complaint and amended emergency motion shou1d be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because (a) [i]n implementing the mandatory vaccination policy governing hospital employees the VIGHHFC acted well within its statut01y authoxity to take appropriate action during an emergency 4 and (b) [t]his Court further has no jurisdiction to issue a temporary 01 permanent injunction in cases regarding a labor dispute except under the five enumerated distinct factual circumstances which are not relevant heie 3 (Aug 20 2021 Motion pp 1 6 10 11) (emphasis omitted) (ii) The Court lacks jurisdiction to iseue a temporary restraining order without a hearing and further lacks jurisdiction to enter a preliminary or permanent injunction under the facts of this case under Title 24 V IC § 345 (Id at pp 9 1 1) (iii) P1aintiffs[ amended emergency motion] failed to comply with the strictures of V I R Civ P 65(b) which further prevent the Court from granting a TRO in Plaintiffs fat or without giving VIGHHFC the requisite opportunity to be heard to wit Plaintiffs have failed to set forth by affidavit or verified Complaint specific facts to clearly establish that they will suffer immediate and irreparable injury or damage before the defendants can be heard in opposition and Plaintiffs

‘ Detendants noted that [n]eithtr [JFL] nor [SMRC] alt. entities with the legal capacity to sue or be sued (Aug 20 2021 Motion p 1 n 1 ) ‘ Defendants referenced Tide 24 V I C § 174(b){6)

‘ Defendants refelented Title 24 V I C § ”445(a) (e) (stating facts from the Verified Complaint which must be supported by testimony and found by the court listino factors in the conjunctive) Gallowm t People ofthe V I 57 V I 69% 702 (2012) (noting that both common sense and the traditional ru1es 0t English grammar dictate that in the context where the word and is used all three items in the list must apply) (citations omitted)

Hanlen VIGHHFC er a! SX 2021 CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER I 0Q Page 7 of IS

failed to post security 6 (Id at pp 2 l l 13) (emphasis omitted) and (iv) Plaintiffs Complaint and/or Motion additionally fails to state a claim for which relief is available in that it fails to state any facts to support the mandatory factors in the statute which are required to support any finding for relief 7 (Id at p 10 ) Thus Defendants requested the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint and amended emergency motion but ‘to the extent the Court determines otherwise order that Plaintiffs post bonds in the amount of $100 000 (Id at p 14 ) (119 In their opposition Plaintiffs argued that the Court has jurisdiction over this matter Plaintiffs made inter (Illa the following assertions in support of their argument (i) [I]n addition to V I R Civ P 65 and 4 V I C 76 undei Article [sic] 5 V I C l 142 which permits a suit against Defendant The Virgin Islands Government Hospital and Health Facilities Board a public corpoxation 8 (Opp p 3) (ii) The issues before this Court include claims based on infringement of disability rights which are separate and apart from the terms of the collective bargaining agreement of the parties the genesis which rests with the decision of the hospitals to 1equire all employees needing an accommodation to submit an exemption form (Id at pp 3 4) (iii) This Court has jurisdiction over issues that are ancillary to matters involving a labor dispute (Id at p 4) and (iv) An action arising under a statute indirectly related to a labor dispute is properly before

" Defendants reltrcnced VI R CIV P Rule 65(c) ( The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only it the mmant Gives security in an amount that the court considers proper (0 pat) the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wronOlully enjoined or restrained The Gmemmenl 0f the Virgin Islands its officers and its agencies are not required to give security ) Yusuft Harriet] 59 VI 84] 860 (2013) (citing Spun! Comma 115 C0 L P 1 CAT Commc m [ml Inc 335 F 2d 215 240 (”4d Cir 2003)) ( The purpose of this security is to guarantee that the enjoined party will be compensated tor the expenses of complying with an erroneously issued injunction as well as placing th mm ing party on notice 01 the maximum amount Ofcompensation it could be forced to pay ) Defendants referenced Title 24 V I C § 345 8 Plaintiffs relerenced Title 5 V I C § I |42(b)

Hanleil VIGHHFC eta!

:filizigitlinSfiilifipinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER 1 ( 2Q Page 8 0f 18

this Court for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order 9 (Id ) Plaintiffs also argued that the Territorial Covid l9 Mandatory Vaccination Policy is not narrowly tailored and that Covid 19 is no longer an emergency (Id atpp 7 11 ) ‘1[ 10 In their rep1y Defendants pointed out Inter aim the following in support of their argument for dismissal (i) Plaintiffs Complaint challenged the Defendants vaccination policy based solely on their arguments that the policy 5 adoption and implementation alleged violated their collective bargaining agreements (Reply p 1)“ (ii) [T]hi9 case involves or grows out of a labor dispute concerning the terms and conditions of theii employment (Id atp 3) (iii) The Virgin Islands is under a deflated state of emergency (Id at p 5)‘ (iv) While Plaintiffs speculate[d] as to some possible American with Disabilities Act violation[ ] [t]hese hypothetical arguments were nevei raised by the Plaintiffs in their Complaint (Id at p 6) (v) This matter is not proper1y before this Couit as a matter of law given the mandates of 24 V I C § 345 349 and 374(b)(6) (Id at p 8) and (vi) No amount of hypothesizing speculating and circular reasoning can excuse the statutory requirements and the Plaintiffs inability and failure to meet them in this case (Id )

l Plaintiffs’ Amended Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction, Filed on August 19, 2021

‘11 1 1 Chapter 13 Title 24 of the Virgin Islands Code governs injunctions in labor disputes Title 24 V IC § 341 provides that [n10 court of the Virgin Islands shall hawejurisdiction to isgue any restraining order or temporaiy or permanent injunction in a case invohing or growing out of a labor dispute except in strict accordance with the provisions of this chapter Here Plaintiffs moved the Court to issue a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent

9 Plaintiffs referenced St Thomas“ & St John Police Benet Ass 11 i Gmernmenr oflhe VI er al 27 V I 141 (1992)

Haiziei 1 VIGHHFC e! a! SK 2021 CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER i 0 G Page 9 of 18

injunction Thus if the Court ctetermines that this a case involving 01 growing out of a labor dispute then Chaptei 13 Titie 24 of the Virgin Islands Code is applicable ‘5 12 Title 24 V I C § 349 provides illustrations of when a case shail be held to involve or to giow to of a labor dispute and provides the definition of the term labor dispute '0 Here this case involves persons ‘who are engaged in the same industry to wit the meéical inéustry and persons who are empioyees of the same employer’ and ‘who are members of the same (or) of an affiliated organization of employees’ to wit the members of VISNACBU and RNLU are employed by Defendant VIGHHFC Furthermore the dispute is between one or more employers and one or more associations of employees to wit, Plaintiffs, acting in their capacities as chairs of their [espective organizations of employees VISNACBU and RNLU, commenced this lawsuit against then members empioye: Defendant VIGHHFC, and the dispute includes controversy concerning teims or conditions of employment or concerning the association 01 representation of persons in negotiating, fixing maintaining changing or seeking to arrange

1:) Tide 24 VIC § 349 prmidLS When 115m in this chapter and for the purposes hermit (a) A tax. shall ht. held to involve or to "row out of a labor dispute when the Last inmlus persons who are engaged in the same industry trade Ll‘flfi. or occupation or have direct or indirect interest thcrein or who are employees oi the same employer or who are members of the same (or) of an aftiiiated orqanization oi emptoyers or empioyus whether such dispute is (1) between one or more employers or associations of empioyels and one or more employees or associations of employees (2) betwun one or more employers or assoLiations 0t employels and one or more empioyu‘s or assotiations of employers or (3) between one or more employees or associations of employees and 0m. or more empioyees or associations of employees or when the Leis; invohes any LonfEiLting or wmpeting interests in a Faber dispute 0t persons participating or interested therein (b) A person or association shall bx. held to ht. a person participating or interested in a labor dispute it reEicf is sought against said person or assm.iation or if any of them is engaged in [ht same industry trade craft or opration in which sum dispute occurs. or has 3 dirth or indium interest therein or is a member officer or agent of an) association composed in whole or in part of employers or employees engaged in such industry trade craft or occupation (L) The term labor dispute includes any nontrmersy conterning terms or conditions 0t employment or concerning the association or representation oi persons in negotiating fixino maintaining changing or seekinu to arrange terms or conéitions oi emphiymenl regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate reiation oi empioyer and emphiyee

Hamlet 1 VIGHHFC er a! 9X 20’] CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER I 00 Pa e 10 0t l8

teims or conditions of employment Plaintiffs complaint alleged mrer aha that [p]ursuant to the terms of the Parties [collective bargaining agreements] the terms and conditions of employment must be negotiated prior to implementation of new policies and procedures that affect the conditions of employment of nurses (Compl ‘][ 15 ) In other words this matter is a lawsuit between a government employer and the unions lepresenting the employees regarding changes made to the [61 ms and conditions of employment by the implementation of the Territorial COVID l9 Mandatory Vaccination Policy mandating that 211} employees ate required to provide proof of complete vaccination by a certain date or be suspended until compliance is proven or terminated As such the Court finds that this is a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute ‘11 13 Given the Court s finding that this is a case involving 01 growing out of a 1ab01 dispute and that Plaintiffs moved the Court to issue a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent injunction the Court must act in strict accordance with the provisions of this chapter [13] Title 24 V IC § 341 Undei Title 24 V IC § 346 [n]0 restraining order or injunctive relief shall be granted to any complainant who has failed to comply with any obligation fixed by the laws involved in the labor dispute in question or who has failed to make every effort to settle such dispute either by negotiation or with the aid of the Department of Labor and voluntary arbitration Title 24 V I C § 346 Thus Plaintiffs were statutorily required to comply with all the obligation fixed by the laws involved in the labor dispute in question and make every effort to settle such dispute either by negotiation or with the aid of the Department of Labor and voluntary arbitration bef01e moving the Court for a temporary restraining order or injunctive relief See e g McBean i Gm t of the VI 32 VI 120 l26 (VI Terr Ct 1995) ( The statutory scheme under Chapter 13 of Title 24 V I C provides for expeditious consistent and expert settlement of labor disputes which must be utilized and exhausted before the jurisdiction of this court is exercised in

Hanlet t VIGHHFC er a! 9X 2{}2l CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER ! 0C) Pace [1 01‘ t8

labor disputes involving a claim for injunctive relief ), see also St Thomas & St John P()ll(e BenetolentAss n t VI P01166061) t 2016VI LEXIS 132 (VI Super Ct Aug 31 2M6) Here there is no evidence and Plaintiffs’ amended emergency motion is devoid of any aliegations to suggest that Plaintiffs have complied with all the obligation ‘ fixed by the laws invoived in the labor dispute in question or that Plaintiffs have made every effort to settle such dispute either by negotiation or with the aid of the Department of Lather and voiuntary arbitration’ as required by Title 24 V I C § 346 ” As such “in strict accordance with the provisions of [Chapter 13, Title 24

'1 The first step when interpreting a statute is to determine whether the ianguage at issue has a ptain and unambiguous meanina Miller 1 People affine VI 67 V I 827 844 (20H) It is weii settled that when the language ofa statute is piain and unambiguous no [Uttth‘ interpretation is required See Thomas I People offlte VI 69 V I 913 925 (V I 2018) (noting that because the statutory language {01 14 V IC § 2101(a)] is plain and unambiguous no turthcr interpretation is requiILd ) we also Cmhmgron t People of the V I 57 V I I76 185 (20I2) (' Actordingly when the language 0t a statute is pIain and unambiguous aeourtdocs not took beyond the ianguage oi the statute in interpreting the statutes meaning ) The Virgin [stands Legislature has insttuued that Ewimds and phrases shall he read with their LDHILXI and Shall be construed accordino to the common and apprmed usage oi the Enviish language Title 1 V IC § 42 Millet 67 V I at 844 Title 24 VIC § 346 provides that En]0 restraining order or injunLtiVe reliLt shall be granttd to any eomptainant who has failed to comply with arty obligation fiXLd by the laws intoiyed in the labor dispute in question or who has failed to make Lth‘)’ eftort to settie such dispute eithet by negotiation or with the aid oi the Department of Label and wiuntar) arbitration Title 24 VIC § 346 This tanguagt is not ambiguous The word shall imposes a dear requirement tor the complainant to comply with alt the obligation fixed by the laws intolud in the tahor dispute in question and to make uery etfort to settle sueh dispute either by negotiation or with the aid at the Department of Labor and yotuntary arbitration before the Court can grant a restraining elder 0r injunctiw. reliet Some Virgin Isiands Lourts haw. referred to the requirement under Tith. 24 VIC § 146 as an exhaustion 0t administrative rtmtdits requirement and have held that then. an. three basic exceptions to sueh a requirement See 6 g M( Bean 32 V I at E26 27 ( The statutory scheme under Chapter 13 0t Title 24 V I C provides tor expeditious consistent and expert settlement of labor disputes whiLh must be utilized and exhausted before the jurisdiction of this court is exercised in labor disputes involving a claim for injunctite whet Thus in such eases exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory There are three basic. eXLeptions t0 the exhaustion doetrint. (I) when the Lhaiienged agency action presents a stem and unambiguous violation oi statutory or ettnstitntionai riohts (2) when resort to administrative procedure is shown to be inadequate to pretent irreparable injury or {3) when exhaustion is futile ) Aft Local 1825; Cat tofrhe VI 32 Vi 44 47 (VI Terr Ct 1995) Pam Gm tofthe VI 62 VI 271 288 (VI §uper Ct April [7 205) (noting that plaintiffs suing government agenda; may be statutorily tequired such as under Title 24 VIC § 346 to first exhaust any at aiiable administt alIH. remedies bum seekinu thIiL§§s thmuUh the (mm and that the mutations to the LKhdUSEitm tequhemutt 0t ti) [utility t3) tiniatitm 0t 5t mutiny m ennstitutional riuht.» and t 7%) inadequate to thenl IITLPJidhiL harm apply um in instances “that. a 31mm“) SLE‘JLI‘HL explititiy pmtides tn: administtatite tLHtLdiL) } While the Coutt tan LtI'l‘dinI) understtnd why ether watts haw Mum} tn the quUtlth’an! UHLILE Title 24 VIC § 346 simply as an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement the Court does not agree to the. exceptions There is nothing in the statute to suggest that the Leaislature intended to grant the Court the authority to mettle exeeptions or the discretion to disregard the requirement If the drafters of the statute intended to give the Court authority to create exception or the discretion to disregard the requirement they clearly couid ha“. done so by including the exeeptions or using permissive language As such the Court will give

Hanlet \ VIGHHFC er a1

xigiglmfipmion and Order 2021 VI SUPER m Pam. I2 01 18

of the Virgin Islands Code] Title 24 V I C § 341 the Court will deny Plaintiffs amended emergency motion and deny as moot Defendants motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs amended eme1 gency motion

2 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Amended Emergency Motion, Filed on August 20, 2021

(]1 14 In light of the Court 9 ruIing above regarding Plaintiffs amended emergency motion the Court will address Defendantg motion to dismiss only as to their at gument for dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint A Defendant JFL and Defendant SRMC ‘II 15 Defendants noted in their motion that neither Defendant JFL nor Defendant SRMC are entities with the legal capacity to sue or be sued (Aug 20 2021 Motion p l n 1 ) In Juan F Ltus Hosp & Med Ct) & Gm 't 0ftth VI ex tel Goternor Juan F Lu” Hosp & Med Ctr 1 Titan Med Grp LLC the Virgin Islands Supreme Court held that [Governor Juan F Luis Hospital] is not a separate entity subject to suit and must be dismissed fiom this case 69 V I 873 886 (V I 2018) The Virgin Islands Supreme Court explained that [t}he Legislature by largely referring to IFL Hospital as a mere facility and declining to recognize it as opposed to the VIHHFC as a public corponation with authority to sue and be sued did not evidence an intent to subject JFL Hospital to suit Id 69 V I at 885 Thus the Virgin Islands Supreme Court concluded that [b]ecause JFL Hospital is not a separate legal entity empowered to sue and be sued the Superior Court erred by entering its July 14 2015 judgment order awarding summary judgment against it and {t]heref0re we vacate in part the Superior Courts July 14 2015

effect to the plain words of the statute and hold that the tequiument under Title 2-1 VIC § 346 is applicable here without any exeeplions

Hanlm I VIGHHFC er a!

:iigI'ancjlxtg43pinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER [12¢ Page 1% 0t 18

judgment order and remand for further proceedings with directions that the Superior Court dismiss [Governor Juan F Luis Hospital] from this case Id 69 V I at 886 The Court finds that the Virgin Islands Supreme Court 5 holding in Juan F Luz? Hosp & Med Ctr should similarly be extended to Roy L Schneider Hospital (also known as Schneider Regional Medical Center) since it is also recognized as a facility and thus similarly not subject to suit See Title 19 V IC § 248 (defining [h]ealth care facility as the Roy L Schneider Hospital Juan F Luis Hospital the Myrah Keating Smith Community Health Center and clinics owned operated or managed by the Department of Health )‘ see also Title 19 V I C § 241(g) (defining [h]ealth care facilities and health facilities as the hospitals and clinics under the jurisdiction of the corporation ) As such consistent with the Viigin Islands. Supreme Court 5 holding in Juan F Ll!” Hosp & Med Ctr the Court will dismiss the case against Defendant JFL and Defendant SRMC B Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction ‘ll 16 Defendants essentially argued that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter due to Title 24 V I C §§ 345 349 and 374(b)(6) The Court disagrees In fact under Title 24 V I C § 345 the Court has jurisdiction to grant or deny a request for a temporary or petmanent injunction after certain procedures are followed As to the latter two sections it is unclear how they would deprive the Court ofjurisdiction to wit Title 24 V IC § 349 merely provides the definitions to be used in that chapter and Title 24 V I C § 374(b)(6) addresses the scope and limitations of the negotiations between a public employer and an exclusive representative The fact that Defendants conclusively stated in their motion that Defendant VIGHHFC acted within its statutory authority to take appropriate action during an emergency pursuant to Title 24 V IC § 374(b)(6) and that the five factors listed under Title 24 V I C § 345 are not relevant here does not in and of itself

Hanlexx VIGHHFC eta] SK 2021 CV 64-1 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 v1 SUPER 1 00 Page 14 of IS deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction As such the Court will not dismiss Plaintiffs

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction C Failure to State a Claim ‘1[ 17 As noted above Plaintiffs did not set forth any counts designating specific causes of action in their complaint Nevertheless the Court finds that the complaint alluded to a ciaim for injunctive relief and a claim for breach of contract when Plaintiffs alleged that [t]his is an action for a Temporary Restraining Order Pre1iminary Injunction Pelmanent Injunction Violation of Policies and Procedules and Breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement based on Defendants actions (Compl ‘11 2) ‘11 18 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civi1 Plocedure (hereinafter Rule 12(b)(6) ) a110ws a patty 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 ) [equires Inter aha a short and p1ain 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 sepalate numbered paragraphs as provided in Rule 10(b) with separate designation of counts and defenses for each claim identified in the pleading V I R CIV 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 OxIet L Sugar Ba} Club & Retort Corp 2108 VI LEXIS 81 *3 (VI Super Ct May 14 2018) (quoting M1119 Wzllmms 67 VI at 585 accordAmo, 71 VI at 501 ( Plead the who what where when and how sufficient information to putadefendant on notice of the conduct and actions the p1aintiff complains of (brackets and citation omitted» When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim the court does not address the

Hamlet 1 VIGHHFC er a1

ililizigf'LnEZhfifipinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER I ( 20 Page 15 01 18

merits 01116! t Termzmx Int] C0 73 V I 210 214 (V I Supet Ct April 26 2020) accord Arno 71 VI at 494 Instead cou1ts assume all reasonable factual allegations in the complaint as true and d1 aw all fair inferences from such allegations Arno 71 V I at 494 (quoting In re Kc!» m Manbodh Asbevros ng Sezeis 47 V I 375 380 (V 1 Super Ct March 3 2006)) However [a]llegations will not be reasonable nor will inferences in fav01 of the plaintiff be fair where they contradict facts either contained in the public record or judicially noticed by the Court In re Kelvm Manbodh Asbestos ng Series 47 V I at 380 a Claim for Injuncttve Reltef ‘11 19 Based on the Count 5 finding above the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which injunctive relief can be granted based on Plaintiffs failure to comply with Title 24 V IC § 346 H0weve1 Defendants did not argue in their motion for the dismissal Plaintiffs claim f01 injunctive relief based on Plaintiffs failure to comply with Title 24 V I C § 346 instead Defendants argued for the dismissal of Plaintiffs Claim for injunctive relief based on Plaintiffs failure to comply with Title 24 V I C § 345 As such the Court will deny Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint as to Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief but ma sponte" dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief ”

V The Court has the authority to amend Plaintiffs pleading and eliminate a trimlous claim See e g V I R CIV P 15 2 t The court may amend any process or pleadino tor any omission or defect therein or tor any variance between the complaint and the evidence adduced at the trial ) V I R CIV P 16(c)(2)(A) (B) ( At any pretrial conference the LOU” may consider and take appropriate action on the following matters (A)tormu1ating and simplifying the issues and eliminating trimlous claims or defenses (B) amending the pleadings it necessary or desirable ) ” Plaintilts may move to amend their pleading and add a claim tor injunctive relief upon Lomphame with Title 24 VIC§ q.46

Hanlei \ VIGHHFC eta! 9X 2021 CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER LQLIL Page 16 0t 18

b Clamz for Breach of Contract ‘11 20 Defendants motion to dismiss did not directly address nor make any arguments for the dismissal of Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract However to be fair to be Defendants Plaintiffs complaint was not compliant with the general rules of pleading under Rule 8 to wit Plaintiffs complaint did not set forth counts in separate numbered paragraphs with separate designation of the specific names of each count in the pleadings See V I R Cw P 8(a)(2) A9 such the Couit will deny without prejudice Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint as to Plaintiffs claim for breach of contiact but order Plaintiffs to file a proposed first amended complaint in compliance with Rule 8 CONCLUSION

‘11 21 Based on the foregoing the Court will (i) deny Plaintiffs amended emergency motion (ii) deny as moot Defendants motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs amended emergency motion (iii) deny Defendants motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief (iv) dismiss without prejudice Plaintiffs claim for injunctive Ielief (v) deny without piejudice Defendants motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract and (vi) dismiss the case against Defendant JFL and Defendant SRMC Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs amended emelgency motion for a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent injunction against Defendants filed on August 19 2021 is DENIED It is further ORDERED that Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint and amended emergency motion filed on August 20 2021 is DENIED AS MOOT as to Plaintiffs amended emergency motion It is further

HanleH VIGHHFC eta!

iiifliLnCdZfiépinim and Order 2021 VI SUPER LQQ, Page 17 01 18

ORDERED that Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint and amended emergency motion filed on August 20 2021 is DENIED as to Piaintiffs claim for injunctive relief It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs claim f01 injunctive relief shall be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE It is further ORDERED that Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint and amended emergency motion filed on August 20 2021 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract ORDERED that the case against Defendant J FL and Defendant SMRC is DISMISSED It is further ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order Plaintiffs shall file a proposed first amended complaint CONSISTENT w ith this Memorandum Opinion and Order and IN COMPI IANCE with the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure including but not limited to setting forth counts in separate numbered paragraphs with separate designation of the specific names of each count in the pleadings as required under Rule 8 It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file (i) a rediine copy of the new proposed first amended complaint reflecting the changes made to the initial complaint and (ii) a clean copy of the new proposed first amended complaint in compliant with Rule 15 l of Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure which requires [a] party moving to amend a pleading [to] attach a complete and properly signed—copy of the proposed amended pleading to the motion papers and must reproduce the entire pleading as amended specifically delineating the changes or additions and may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference And it is further

Hanle\ l VIGHHFC er a] SK 2021 CV 644 Memorandum Opinion and Order 2021 VI SUPER I Ofl 2 Page 18 0t IS

ORDERED that Plaintiff is notified that failure to comply with this order may result in the

dismissal of thifi case without prejudice 5%

DONE and so ORDERED this day of October 2021

ATTEST M a . Xi W Tamara Charles HAROLD W L WILLOCKS Clerk of the Court Presiding Judge of the Superior Court

Q. m'4 ’/ @ SupeIVlsor

Dated /0 j r 02’/