USVI Public Records

Document text

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, CASE NO. ST-14-CV-133 Vv. VIRGIN ISLANDS BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's March 4, 2014, Emergency Petition for Stay.! For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Petition will be denied. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff, the Government of the Virgin Islands Department of Education, filed a Complaint on March 4, 2014, seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendant, the Virgin Islands Board df Education, has no jurisdiction or other authority to adjudicate “employee matters” under 17 V.I.C. § 23, and further seeking a “writ of review” to vacate a Fey 24, 2014, Order issued pursuant to Defendant’s purported authority under 17 V.I.C] § 23 and 17 V.I.C. § 127 in the matter of Juanita Boneque and Rosa White v. Virgin\Islands Department of Education. The February 24, 2014, Order instructed Plaintiff to reinstate two Department of Education employees and members of the St. Croix Educators Administrators’ Association Union, Juanita Bonequa and Rosa 1 Defendant responded on March 24, 2014 in the form of an “Answer.” Gov't of the V.I| Dept. of Edu. v. V.I. Board of Edu. Case No. ST-14+CV-133 Memorandum Opinion, June 23, 2014 White, who were suspended without pay and recommended for termination by the Insular Superintendent of the District of St. Croix, Gary Molloy. Plaintiff's Emergency Petition for Stay, also filed on March 4, 2014, seeks a “stay” of proceedings in the matter of Juanita Boneque and Rosa White v. Virgin Islands Department of Education pending resolution of this case. On Match 24, 2014, Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaim? seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that Defendant has the authority to intervene in “employee matters” pursuant to 17 V.LC. § 23 and 17 V.LC. § 127 despite the collective bargaining provisions enumerated in 24 V.I.C. §§ 361 et seq.; and (2) injunctive relief compelling Plaintiff to comply with its February 24, 2014, Order in the matter of Juanita Boneque and Rosa White v. Virgin Islands Department of Education. Plaintiff filed an Answer on April 22, 2014. STANDARDS IL Preliminary Injunction The underlying rationale of a preliminary injunction is to “prevent or minimize irreparable loss|of legal rights during the pendency of litigation.”? It is well established in the Virgin Islands that [Ho determine whether a litigant is entitled to a stay [or injunction] ending appeal, this Court considers: (1) whether the litigant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the litigant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of Let 2 It appears that an exact copy of the March 24, 2014, Answer and Counterclaim was filed for a second time on April 8, 2014. 3 John Leubsdorf, The Standard for Preliminary Injunctions, 91 Harv. L. Rev. 525 (1978) (discussing the evolution of preliminary injunctions). Gov’t of the V.I) Case No. ST-14| Memorandum The burden is preliminary inj II. While Education in ap the Superior Ca Dept. of Edu. v. V.I. Board of Edu. CV-133 pinion, June 23, 2014 the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings; and (4) where the public interest lies.* on the moving party to demonstrate it is entitled to the issuance of a uunction under the above factors.° Writ of Review 17 V.LC § 23 provides that “[a]ll decisions rendered by the Board of peal cases or on complaints shall be final, unless reviewed by the Governor,” urt may grant a Writ of Review pursuant to 5 V.I.C. §§ 1421 et seq., “where there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and where the officer, board, commission, au exceeded his or procedural requ by the petitiong further proceed Court.”” The Con Review of the F' for declaratory j thority, or tribunal in the exercise of his or its functions appears to have .. . its jurisdiction.”® If the Petition for a Writ of Review satisfies all necessary irements pursuant to Super. Ct. R. 15, “[t]he Court may, upon application r, include in the writ a clause requiring the . . . board . . . to desist from ings in the matter under review until the final determination thereof by the ANALYSIS nplaint creates confusion because it appears Plaintiff is seeking a Writ of ebruary 24, 2014, Order along with a Super. Ct. R. 15(d) “stay” and a claim udgment. The procedure for a Writ of Review is separate and distinct from 4 Gov't of the VL. v (citing In re Najaw| U.S. 770, 776 (198 5 Gov't of VI. v. V. showing” that they §5 VLC. § 1422. 7 SUPER. CT. R. 15( Top Top Constr. Corp., 2014 WL 571905, at *1 (V.1. Feb 14, 2014) (unpublished) Icz, 2009 WL 321342, at *3 (V.I. Jan. 8, 2009) (unpublished); Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 7)). I. Paving, Inc., 19 V.I. 177 (D.V.I. 1982) (noting the moving party must make a “clear pre entitled to injunctive relief”). dl). Gov’t of the V.I| Case No. ST-14 Memorandum G a civil action, ¥ fact, in Tip Top even where no! and adequate r writ of review Plaintiff has pr as Plaintiff see the Court shal Preliminary Inj Plaintifi R. Civ. P.7.1(c Dept. of Edu. v. VI. Board of Edu. +CV-133 pinion, June 23, 2014 which is commenced by filing a Complaint pursuant to Super. Ct. R. 22. In Construction v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands the Superior Court has held that other avenue of administrative appeal exists, if some “other plain, speedy emedy”® exists — such as a declaratory judgment — then “the issuance of a s not warranted and must be denied.”® Thus, by seeking declaratory relief, ecluded itself from also seeking relief pursuant to a Writ of Review. Insofar ks relief under a Writ of Review, the Petition shall be denied. As a result, construe Plaintiff's “Emergency Petition for Stay” as a Motion for a unction.!° has failed to provide a brief with a citation of authorities pursuant to Loc. and 11.1 supporting Plaintiff’ s contention that it is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to Super. Ct. R. 7, in the absence of Superior Court rules to the contrary, “the practice and procedure in the Superior Court shall be governed by . . . the Rules of the Di 7.1(c) provides which shall con Loc. R. Civ. P. brief, an attorn trict Court, [and] the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”!! Loc. R. Civ. P. that all “[mJotions, responses and replies shall be accompanied by a brief tain a concise statement of reasons and citation of authorities.”!?_ Further, 11.1 provides that “by signing a motion or supporting memorandum or py certifies ... that . . . the applicable law in this jurisdiction has been 85 VLC. § 1422. ° Tip Top Constr. V 10 Consistent with 4 4, 2014, filing shou 1 SUPER. CT. R. 7. 2 Loc. R. Civ. P. 7 . Gov't of the V.I., 41 V.I. 72, 78 (Terr. Ct. 1999). he Court’s finding, the parties have proceeded on the assumption that Plaintiff's March Id be treated as a Complaint by filing Answers and Counterclaims. .1(c). Gov't of the V.I| Case No. ST-14 Memorandum cited.”!? More preliminary in presents no ar determination. prejudice. Dept. of Edu. v. VI. Board of Edu. -CV-133 pinion, June 23, 2014 over, considering Plaintiff carries the burden of showing it is entitled to a junction, while Plaintiff has made several factual allegations, Plaintiff puments addressing the factors the Court must consider when making its * As a result, Plaintiff's Emergency Petition for Stay is denied without Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the Court had considered Plaintiff's Complaint as 4 would have be further procee accompanied b statutes whose or authority to when reviewing The Co injunction. Counterclaim, supported by ah of these rules is has an opportun Writ of Review, the result regarding this “Emergency Petition for Stay” len the same. A petitioner’s application asking a tribunal to desist from dings must also be supported by some underlying reasoning and be ty a citation to relevant authority.!° While Plaintiff cited profusely to the application is in dispute in this matter, Plaintiff does not cite any standard lbe employed in determining which legal standard the Court should apply b its “Emergency Petition for Stay.” urt will also briefly address Defendant’s “Counterclaim” for a preliminary While Defendant asserted facts and cited some relevant authority in its a request for a preliminary injunction must be raised by a motion and rief consistent with the requirements of Loc. R. Civ. P. 7.1(c). The purpose to ensure that the adverse party has fair notice!® of the motion, and thereby ity to adequately respond. 3 Loc. R. Civ. P. J violating any Rule Supra n. 4. '5 The Court makes pursuant to Super. '6 See also FED. R. 1.1. See also Loc. R. Civ. P. 11.2 (noting the Court may sanction any party for overning the form of pleadings and other papers filed with the Court). no determination on what standard should apply when reviewing an application Ct. R. 15(d). Cv. P. 65. Gov't of the V.I. Case No. ST-14+! Memorandum For the’ is denied with| Review, the Pe Dated: June. ATYEST: Estre Actihg CJerk o: by: MW Dept. of Edu. v. VI. Board of Edu. CV-133 pinion, June 23, 2014 foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's March 4, 2014, Emergency Petition for Stay but prejudice, and insofar as Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to a Writ of tition is denied. An Order consistent with this Opinion shall follow. a HON. MICHAEL C. DUNSTON lla H. George JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT et > lSval OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 2, 2014 Donna D. Donov: Court Clerk Su va le AR. 20I4-