VI Casino Control Commission v. Carpet Masters

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: December 4, 2020
• Docket: SX-16-RV-10/SX-15-SM-88
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST CROIX

VI CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION } ] SX 16 RV 10/ Petitioner/Defendant ) SX 15 SM 88 ) CARPET MASTERS ) PETITION FOR REVEIW } Respondent/ Plaintiff ] W4

Cite as 2020 VI Super 102U

Appearances

Bernard Cuffy, Pro Se Carpet Masters Bernard Cuffy #lA Old Hospital Ground Chnstiansted VI 00820

Marvin Pickering Chairman VI Casino Control Commission #3005 Orange Grove Christiansted VI 00820

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Meade, Judge

‘11 1 Petitioner VI Casino Control Comrmssion (hereinafter Petitioner or Casino Control Commission) appeals the denial of its request for continuance and the Default Judgment entered by the Magistrate Court on November 15 2016 in favor of Respondent Carpet Masters (hereinafter Respondent or Carpet Masters) Factual and Procedural Background 9[ 2 On April 22 2015 Carpet Masters filed an action in the Small Claims Division of the Superior Court alleging that the Casmo Control Commission failed to pay for services rendered by Carpet Masters Specifically the complaint alleged that the Casino Control Comrmssion failed to pay invoice number 24487 in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred CarpetMasters v VICasino Control Conumssion 2020 v1 Super 1021} Memorandum Opinion 8X16 RV 010/5): 15 SM 088

and Fifteen [$1 315 00) Dollars for an emergency water extraction after its Offices became flooded and further failed to pay for an invoice in the amount of One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty ($1 120 08) Dollars and eight cents pursuant to a contract for monthly janitorial services '11 3 The matter was scheduled for hearing on September 22 2O 15 By letter dated September 21 2015 the Casino Control Commission requested a continuance of the September 22 hearing The Magistrate granted the continuance and rescheduled the hearing for November 17 2015 By letter dated November 17 2015 the Petltioner requested a continuance of the November 17 2015 hearing The Court granted the continuance and rescheduled the hearing to December 1 2015 Subsequentiy the Court continued the December 1 hearing to January 26 2016 because the Petitioner was not served For reasons that are not evident in the record the Magistrate rescheduled the January 26 hearing from 9 30a m to 1 00p m In response to this change in the time of the hearing the Petitioner requested a continuance because its representative Ms Ann Golden had a previous engagement The Magistrate granted the continuance and scheduled the hearing for February 23 2016 The Magistrate continued the February 23 hearing because the Petitioner was not served and rescheduled the hearing for March 8 2016 At the March 8 hearing the Respondent requested a continuance to allow its witness to appear The Court granted the request and scheduled the hearing for March 22 2016 ‘11 4 At the March 22 2016 hearing the Petitioner failed to appear or request a continuance The Magistrate after taking testimony and other evidence entered judgment in favor of the Respondent in the amount of Two Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Five (82 435 08) Dollars and eight cents and costs of One Hundred ($100 00) Dollars The Court entered its judgment

by Order dated April 7 2016 ‘11 5 Thereafter Petitioner filed a motion to reopen dated July 15 2016 The Magistrate construed the motion to reopen as a motion for reconsideration or a motion to vacate the Judgment entered on April 7 2016 By order dated July 20 2016 the Magxstrate granted the motion vacated the

2 Carpet Masters 0 V1 Casino Control Commzssion 2020 v1 Super 102U Memorandum Opinion sx 16 RV 010/8X 15 SM 088

judgment and scheduled the matter for hearing on September 20 2016 At the September 20 hearing the parties agreed to continue the matter to November 1 5 2016 The Petitioner did not appear at the November 15 hearing but filed a request for continuance dated November 14 2016 The Court denied the request for continuance and reinstated the judgment entered on April 7 2016 Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on January 9 2017 Respondent filed its response to the Petition for Review on January 19 2017 Jurisdiction and Standard of Review ‘11 6 The Superior Court has jurisdiction to review the orders and Judgments issued by a Magistrate 4 VI C §125 On review the Superior Court adheres to the standards of an appellate court VI Super Ct R 322 303) Ordinarily a reviewing court examines a trial court 3 factual findings for clear error and exercises plenary review over the trial courts application of law Frett 1) People 58 V I 492 503W 1 2013) The standard of review for this Court 5 examination of the Magistrate 3 entry of default judgment is abuse of discretion Martinez v Columbian Emeralds 51 VI 174 188 (V I 2009} This Court reviews the Magistrate 5 denial of a motion for continuance for abuse of discretion Gore 1) Tilden 50 VI 233 237 {V I 2008) {citing Fontanav United Bonding Ins Co 468 F 2d 168 169 (31rd Cir 1972) Discussion A Denial of the Motion for Continuance ‘11 7 An abuse of discretion arises only when the decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of the law to the facts Stevens 0 People 55 VI 550 556 (V I 2011) At the hearing convened on September 20 2016 the parties agreed to a hearing date of November 15 2016 The Petitioner filed a request for continuance of the November 15 hearing on November 14 2016 ‘1! 8 A motion for continuance must be filed at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled hearing If the motion is filed and served less than five business days before the hearing it will only be considered upon a showing of exceptional circumstances VI Super Ct R 10 Md) (2013) ‘11 9 The Petitioner 3 request for a continuance of the November 15

3 Carpet Masters v V1 Casino Control Commussion 2020 v1 Super 102v Memorandum Opinion sx 16 RV 010/sx 15 SM 088

2016 hearing was filed one day before the date of the hearing The reason given for the request was that the Petitioner s representative Ms Violet Ann Golden was attending a forum in Miami However the representative 5 attendance of a forum resulting in the Petitioners failure to appear at the hearing does not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting a continuance The Petitioner through its representative was aware of the scheduled hearing date of November 15 as early as September 20 2016 when the parties agreed to that hearing date The Petitioner had ample time to file its motion for continuance in a timely manner Moreover based on other incidents arising during the pendency of this action the Petitioner was well aware of the possibllity of Ms Goldens unavailability for the hearing For instance Petitioner failed to appear at the March 22 2016 hearing where the Magistrate entered his judgment in favor of the Respondent The Petitioner filed a motion to set aside that judgment stating as its reason that Ms Golden was out of the territory at the time of the hearing and Ms Debra Audain the employee who was familiar with the case could not be reached to attend the hearing as the Petitioners representative The Petitioner requested a continuance of the hearing scheduled for November 17 2015 because Ms Golden was scheduled to appear before the Senate Finance Committee The Petitioner requested a continuance for a hearing rescheduled from 9 30am to 1 00pm on J anuary 26 2016 because its representative Ms Golden had a previous engagement that would conflict with the hearing at 1 00p m In addition the Petitioner filed a motion for a continuance of the September 22 2015 hearing because Ms Golden was on jury duty In that same motion the Petitioner also requested that the Court not schedule the hearing on a date that would conflict With Ms Goldens attendance at a gaming conference in Lima Peru in October 2015 and her attendance at a forum in Miami in November of 2015 ‘11 10 It is evident that Ms Golden would have been aware of her schedule long before November 14 20 16 Therefore not only did the Petitioner have the opportunity to file a timely motion for continuance of the November 15 2016 hearing but Petitioner had sufficient time to prepare another

4 CarpetMasters 0 v1 Casino Control Commtssion 2020 VI Super 102v Memorandum Opinion SX 16 RV 010/sx 15 SM 088

employee to act as the Petitioner s representative since the potential for Ms Golden s unavailability became obvious This Court sees no exceptional circumstances in Ms Golden s failure to attend the November 15 2016 hearing to warrant consideration of the untimely filed motion for continuance Superior Court Rule 10 1(d) expressly states that untimely filed motions for continuance will only be given consideration upon a showing of exceptional circumstances Accordingly the Magistrate 3 denial of the motion for continuance is not an improper application of the law that would constitute an abuse of dlscretion B Entry of Default Judgment ‘11 1 1 Upon denial of the motion for continuance of the November 15 2016 hearing the Magistrate reinstated the previously vacated default Judgment that was initlally entered at the hearing on March 22 2O 16 Virgin Islands law requires the court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the measure of damages before entering a default judgment ng v Appleton 61 VI 339 347 [V I 2014) A Court may not rubber stamp a non defaulting partys damages calculation but must determine the basis for the damages sought Appleton v Harrigan 61 V I 262 272 (V I 2014) CH 12 The Petitioner did not attend the hearing on March 22 2016 and neither requested a continuance nor informed the Court of the reasons for its failure to attend Since the Magistrate mereiy reinstated the judgment at the November 15 2016 hearing the issue for this Court 3 determination is whether the Magistrate s entry ofjudgment after the March 22 2016 hearing was in error At the March 22 2016 hearing the Magistrate accepted testimony and other evidence and entered judgment in favor of the Respondent in the absence of the Petitioner However the Magistrate did not memorialize the findings of fact and conclusions of law in its written order of judgment While this deficiency may impose limitations on review it is not fatai to this Court 8 review at this time In its role as an Appellate Court the Superior Court may nevertheless determine the appeal Without further elaboration by the trial judge if the record sufficiently informs it of the trial court s decision on the material issues in the case Spencer 1) Navarro 2009

5 Carpet Masters 0 v1 Casino Control Commission 2020 v1 Super 1020 Memorandum Opinion 8X 16 RV 010/SX 15 SM 088

VI Supreme LEXIS 25 The appellate court may decide the appeal without further findings if it feels it is in a position to do so Defrattes Bergin 0 Bd Of Dirs OfBumett Towers Condo Assoc 2008 V I Supreme LEXIS 22

6 Carpet Masters v VI Casino Control Comrmssion 2020 VI Super 102U Memorandum Opinion SX16RV010/SX 15 SM 088

discretion in entering Judgment at the March 22 2016 hearing or reinstating that Judgment at the November 15 2016 hearing CONCLUSION ‘II 15 The Magistrate Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance or reinstating the default judgment The judgment of the Magistrate is therefore AFFIRMED /( \ DONE AND SO ORDERED this g day of December 2020

éNORABLE JOMO MEADE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

A '1‘ T E S T

TAMARA C_I;IA_RLES Clerk of the Court

- h V I I a:afi .. ‘ 1!,

@2095 em or