USVI Public Records

Document text

DIVISION OF ST CROIX RECOVERY FINANCE LIMITED ’ Plaintiff, v Case No SX 202l-CV 00360 VIRGIN ISLANDS GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS AND HEALTH FACILITIES CORPORATION AND GOVERNOR 2022 VI SUPER 51 JUAN F LUIS HOSPITAL and MEDICAL CENTER Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER 1 1 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Virgin Islands Government Hospital and Health Facilities Corporation‘s (“VIGHHFC”) Motion Requiring Jomder ofan Indlspensable Party, filed March 29, 2022 Plaintiffdid not file a response The arguments considered, the Court will grant the Motion BACKGROUND 1 2 The Court will limit its recitation of background facts to those relevant to the disposition of this pending Motion On or about December 30 2019 the Governor Juan F Luis Hospital (“JFL”) and/or VIGHHFC, and Navigation Construction, LLC (“Navigation”) entered into a Construction Contract (“Contract”) for the post hurricane reconstruction at JPL See Complaint at 1 5 and Exhibit 1 Motion at 1 ' On or about February 7, 2020, Navigation (as “Borrower”) and Plaintiff Recovery Finance Limited (as “Lender”) (“Recovery”) pursuant to a Loan Agreement between them, provided VIGHI-IFC and/or JFL with a Notice of Assignment and Acknowledgement (“Assignment”) that required VIGHHFC and/or JFL to submit all payments due Navigation under the Contract to be wired to Recovery Complaint at 1 7 and Exhibit 2 By its Complaint, Plaintiff claims that VIGHl-IFC and/or JFL agreed to make all payments due Navigatxon to Recovery and that payments made thereafier to Navigation were improper in violation ofthe Assigmnent in favor ofRecovery Complaint at 11 8 10 ' The Contract describes the work as remediation ofmold from the Intensive Care Unit and Operatin Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER $1 1 3 However, Defenth argues that the Assignment was not properly executed, and that Navigation told VIGHHFC and/or JFL that the paperwork had not been finalized and directed VIGHHFC and/or JFL to make payments to Navigation See Motion at 1 2, see also Answer & Afinnative Defenses at 111] 7, 10 LEGAL STANDARD 1 4 Virgin Islands Rule ofCivil Procedure 19 addresses required joinder ofparties and states in the relevant portion (a) Persons Required to Be Joined ifFeasible (1) Required Party A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if (A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete reliefamong existing parties, or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing ofthe action in the person's absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest, or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of meaning double. multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest (2) Joinder by Court Order Ifa person has not beenjoined as required, the court must order that person be made a party A person who refused to join as a plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff 2 3 5 In practice, “[t]he determination ofwhether a party must be joined to a lawsuit under Rule 19 hinges on whether one of three tests outlined in Rule 19 (a)(1)(A) (a)(1)(B)(i) or (a)(1)(B)(ii) can be met Arwdson v Buchar No ST 16 CV 410 2018 WL 10613032 at ‘14 (V I Super June 6, 2018) ‘Only one ofthe three tests must be fulfilled for a party to be deemed required ” Id “Once one ofthe grounds for joinder under Rule 19(8) has been established, the proper remedy is to orderjoinder ” Callwood v Superlor Court ofthe VJ No ST 09 CV-499, 2014 WL 7186900 at 1"2 (V 1 Super Nov 5 2014) (citing George v George 59 V1 1092 1099 (D V I 2013) Fed R Civ P 19(a)(2)) see also Marsh Monsanto v Clarenbach, 66 V I 366 387, 390 (V I 2017) (Swan, .1 , dissenttng), Cenm v Estate Chocolate Hole Landowners Ass’n Inc , No ST 15 CV 383 2016 WL 3981434 at *6 (V1 Super July 18 2016) sze Oak Banking Co v Princess M!” Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 51 Props LLC Civil Acuon No 2016 0070 2021 WL 3889412 at ‘11 (D V1 Aug 30 2021) (ordered joinder when necessary party was absent) “1f the absent party is found to be a required party the Court then determines whether it has personal jurisdiction over the party proposed to bejoined Arwdson 2018 WL 10613032 at ’15 1 6 As one court opined on the application of required joinder By its very nature Rule 19 (it) calls for determinations that are heavily influenced by the facts and circumstances of individual cases There is no precise formula for determining whether a particular non party is [required for] an action A determination ofwho is an indispensable party involves many considerations, and the decision must rest upon the facts ofeach particular case, the nature ofthe relief sought, and the nature and extent of a person’s interest in the controversy The pressing question for Rule 19 (a) assessments must be whether success in the litigation can afford the plaintiffs relief for which they have prayed Accordingly, the “completeness” of relief must be analyzed within the relevant level of generality the four comers ofthe complaint Id (internal citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) 11 7 Relevant to this matter, when considering ifa non party to the litigation is a required party under V I R Civ P l9(a)(1)(B)(ii), the Court “balances the plaintiffI’s] choice of forum against the policies ofjudicial economy and the fairness to other parties " Id (quoting Smdm Expedition Inc v Wreck & Abandoned Vessel known as The Smdia 895 F 2d 116, 122 (3d Cir 1990)) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) DISCUSSION 18 In its Motion, Defendant VlGHHFC argues that Navigation is an indispensable party because in its absence ‘ VlGHHFC would have a substantial risk of incurring double obligations” in light of the fact that “Navigation could demand payment afier VlGHHFC has paid Recovery, because it could claim that there is no valid Assignment ” Motion at 2 While Plaintiff dld not oppose this Motion, the Court will still consider whether the proffered arguments meet the standard ofV I R Civ P 19 to requirejoinder 3 3 With respect to an unopposed motion to dismiss, ‘a motion is not automatically granted simply because it is unopposed Leev Thomas No ST 17 CV 321 2018 WL 5255322 at ’1 (V I Super Oct 19 20l8) (quoting Ayala v LockheedMartin Corp , 67 V I 290, 303 (V I Super 2017)) “In other words, even though a motion is unopposed, courts must still determine whether to grant it, especially when the decision is within the court's dis Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 5] 1 9 The Conn considers persuasive the case ofCWLC LLC v Mount HawIey Ins Co , 2022 U S Dist Lexis 48580 (D La Mar 17, 2022) [hereinafier “Mount flawley’], which arose out of a first party insurance dispute In Mount Hawley, CWLC filed suit against its insurer, Mount HaWIey for failure to adequately pay on its casualty insurance claim for hurricane damage it had incurred Id at ‘1 2 During the pendency of the case, CWLC hired Target Solutions to do mitigation work pursuant to a service agreement that required all insurance proceeds be paid directly to Target Solutions [d at *2 CWLC’s service agreement with Target Solutions included a forum selection clause upon which Target Solutions relied to initiate litigation against Mount Hawley and CWLC in Texas state court Id Mount Hewley argued that Target Solutions was a necessary party to CWLC’s insurance claim litigation by virtue of the assignment of proceeds provision, seeking dismissal due to its absence as a party Id at 3 The Mount HawIey court held that “Target Solutions, as alleged assignee of plaintiff‘s coverage for mitigation work, is a necessary party to this breach ofinsurance contract case” in that “Mount Hawley is exposed to a risk ofconflicting or inconsistent obligations if litigation is allowed to proceed in both forums ” Id at *6 7 The court ordered the plaintiffto amend its complaint, limiting its claims to insurance coverage issues but not to include claims arising from CWLC’s mitigation work contracted under the service agreement with Target Solutions Id at *9 1] 10 In the present case, Defendant VIGHHFC seeks an order requiring that Recovery join Navigation as a necessary pany, arguing that the Court cannot accord complete reliefbetween the existing parties in Navigation‘s absence Similar to Mount]; Hawley, in the absence ofNavigation, Defendant VIGHHFC is potentially exposed to duplicative obligations This possibility of duplicative obligations might arise in that, afier the conclusion of the case, Navigation could present its demand on the original Contact with VIGHHFC asserting Its claim to payment on account based upon the invalidity ofthe Assignment In this setting, the Court finds Navigation to be a required party as contemplated under V I R Civ P 19(a)(l)(B)(ii) and therefore must be joined perVI R Civ P l9(a)(2) See Callwood 2014 WL 7186900 at *2 3 1| 1] The Court further notes that it has personal jurisdiction over Navigation The Court takes judicial nonce that Navigatlon is a U S Virgin Islands limited liability company Search for Registered Entities, www corporationsandtrademarks vi gov, (follow “Corporation Search” hyperlink, then search “Item Name or Number” for “Navigation Construction”) (last visited April 28 2022) S V I C §§ 4901-4902 Memorandum Opinion and Order Page 5 of S 2022 VI SUPER SI In light ofthe foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Virgin Islands Government Hospital and Health Facilities Corporation’s Motion Requiring Joinder ofan Indispensable Party is GRANTED It is further ORDERED that within 30 days, PlaintlffRecovery Finance Limited shall, iffeasible, join Navigatlon Construcuon, LLC as a party to the action DATED May 6 2022 DOUGLAS A BRADY IU B ATTEST TAMARA CHARLES Clerk 0 e urt B . - Court Clerk Supemsor .22 Distribution List Alex M Moskowitz, Esq Julie A Beberman, Esq , AAG