USVI Public Records

Document text

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX CANDANCE SNEBERGER I i PLAINTIFF, Civil No SX 19 CV 380 v. ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT DAMAGES ’ PROPERTY DAMAGE 9 AND M F FSA A OLIE LLC DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE DEFENDANTS i CITED AS 2020 v1 SUPER 91 U 1 Appearances Nathan J Mirocha, Esq Mirocha Law LLC Christiansted USVI For Plamtlfl Michall J LaRochelle, Esq Law Offices of Richard H Dollison P C St Thomas USVI For Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER WILLOCKS Presiding Judge 1H THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant 5 Motion to Dismiss filed on September 26 2019 Plaintiff filed an Opposition on June 19 2020 Defendant filed a Motion to Disregard Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition [0 Defendant 5 Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative Defendant 5 Reply on July 2 2020 The Complaint was filed on August 2 2019 The Court will GRANT Defendant 5 Motion to Disregard Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition and DENY Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for the reasons stated below SNEBERGER v FSA MAFOLIE LLC SX 19 CV 380 OPINION 8: ORDER 2020 VI SUPER 91 U I Motion to Disregard Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition 112 The Court will grant Defendant 5 Motion to Disregard Plaintiff‘s Response in Opposition due to it 5 significant untimeliness Defendant correctly states that Plaintiff has up to 20 days to file a response after service of a motion upon the party ' Here the Motion to Dismiss was filed by Defendant on September 26 20l9 and the Opposition was filed on June 19 2020 Therefore the Plaintiff’s significant delay warrants the Court to disregard their response Thus the Court will grant Defendant 5 Motion to Disregard Plaintiff 5 Response in Opposition II Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted 113 The federal plausibility pleading standard outlined in Iqbal and Twombly is not applicable to the Virgin Islands This Court has repeatedly upheld a much less stringent notice pleading standard See V I R Civ P 8(a) (indicating that the Virgin Islands is a notice pleading jurisdiction) Mills WIIIlflmSl Mapp 67 VI 574 (V I 20l7) (finding thatacomplaint is sufficient as long as a defendant is put on notice of the claims against it) Oxle) v Sugar Bay Club & Resort Corp 2018 V I LEXIS 81 (V I Super Ct 2018) (explaining that acomplaint need not plead facts to support each element of a claim but must provide enough facts to assist a defendant in determining which transaction or occurrence gave rise to the claim) The fact that the Plaintiff may not have pleaded facts that directly support his claims is not grounds for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted ' See v I R CIV P 6 1 (m2) Rule 12 Motions A party shall file a response Within 20 days after service ofa motion under Rule 12 upon the party SNEBERGER v FSA MAFOLIE LLC SX 19 CV 380 OPINION & ORDER 2020 VI SUPER 91 U ‘|[4 The Court will deny the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the Complaint alleged enough facts for Defendant to be put on notice for the Breach of Contract Property Damage and Detrimental Reliance Claims [11 Forum Selection Clause ‘l[5 The Defendant further contends that Paragraph 6 of the Agreement specifies that the parties submit to the jurisdiction and venue of the Division of St Thomas/St John 7 Therefore, the Defendant contends that the Division of St Croix is the wrong forum for resolution of this dispute However the Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges this was an oral agreement Under Virgin Islands law a motion to dismiss based on a forum selection clause is treated either as a motion to dismiss for lack of proper venue or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 1 In deciding these motions, the Court may consider ‘ documents incorporated by reference into the pleadings and documents attached to the pleadings as part of the pleadings 4 The Court must accept all well pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them in light most favorable to the Plaintiff in considering whether the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ‘ ‘l[6 Here the agreement that Defendant relies on was attached as a photocopy to their Motion to Disregard Plaintiff‘s Opposition as Exhibit A This wasn t referenced in the Complaint filed 2 See Motion to Disregard Plaintilf 5 Response in Opposition to Detendant 5 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative Defendant 5 Reply Exhibit A 3 Diamondrock Hospitalit) C0 1 Certain Underu mers at LI\0d 3 of London Subscubmg r0 P0110 Numbers PRPNAI700847 and PRPNAI702387 2019 V I LEXIS 56 (Super Ct 2019) 4Id (citing William“ Seabome Vllglll Islands Inc 20|0VI LEXIS 74 (VI Super Ct Nov 3 2010)) ‘ Id (citing In 1e Tutu Wale: Wells Contamination Ling 32 F Supp 2d 800 40 VI 279 288 (1998)) SNEBERGER v FSA MAFOLIE LLC SX I9 CV 380 OPINION & ORDER 2020 VI SUPER 91 U on August 2, 20l9 and the Plaintiff did not attach the original lease agreement to their Complaint Ergo the Court will deny the motion to dismiss based on a forum selection clause IV Failure to Comply with Mediation ‘][7 Defendant contends that the parties agreed to submit to mediation in good faith and the mediation clause should be enforced Since this Court is denying the Motion to Dismiss and ordering a Scheduling Order mediation will be necessary as this matter moves forward 6 Thus, the Court will deny this contention as moot V Failure to Name an Indispensable Party ‘I[8 Defendant also contends that Mr Sisneros a party mentioned in the Complaint by Plaintiff was not joined to the action (See Complaint‘][ [1) ’ Defendant further contends that Mr Sisneros was an independent contractor who had no authority to enter into a contract on Defendant s behalf Defendant alleges that absent his inclusion to this action Defendant would be subject to a substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations due to Mr Sisneros having allegedly entered into a lease agreement with Plaintiff The Defendant is basically asking the Court to decide on the pleadings alone whether or not the conversation between Mr Sisneros and Plaintiff formed an enforceable contract ‘]|9 The Court shall not rule on that question based on the pleadings and allegations alone However the Defendant has failed to show that Mr Sisneros is a necessary party to this 6 See V I R CIV P Rule 90 (c) Referral for Mediation 7 See Rule 12(b)(7) If the Court determines a party is necessary, it must then determine whether or not that party is indispensable pursuant to Rule l9(b) Ultimately the burden is on the moving party to show that a party is both necessary and indispensable See VI Tel Corp i MlllS 2018 V I LEXIS 65 (Super Ct 2018) SNEBERGER v FSA MAFOLIE LLC SX [9 CV 380 OPINION 8: ORDER 2020 VI SUPER 91 U Page 5 of S litigation See VI Tel Corp v MINA 2018 V l LEXIS 65 (holding that the Government does not elaborate on how or In what wa) their ability would be impacted) The same is true here The only possible explanation Defendant gives is that they may incur inconsistent obligations but this explanation in no way gives the Court the specificity that is necessary to warrant a dismissal Thus the Court will deny the motion ORDERED that Defendant 5 Motion to Disregard Plaintiff’s Response is GRANTED it is further ORDERED that Defendant 5 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, it is further ORDERED that the parties submit a Scheduling Order within 14 days of the filing of this Order DONE and so ORDERED this 0 day of November 2020 7%W ‘ x ATTEST W Tamara Charles HAROLD W L WILLOCKS Clerk of the Court Presiding Judge of the Superior Court By ! g V E :7 COE Sew SuperVisor Dated 1 91¢ #995