USVI Public Records

Document text

Not For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) ) ) ) ) S. Ct. Civ. No. 2008-080 Re: Super. Ct. ML No. 003/2008 IN RE: RODNEY E. MILLER, SR., Petitioner. ) On Petition for Writ of Mandamus Considered and Filed: November 17, 2008 BEFORE: RHYS S. HODGE, Chief Justice; MARIA M. CABRET, Associate Justice; and IVE ARLINGTON SWAN, Associate Justice. ATTORNEYS: Adriane J. Dudley, Esq. Dudley, Clark & Chan St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Attorney for Petitioner Denise George-Counts, Esq. Assistant Attorney General St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Attorney for Respondent Government of the Virgin Islands ORDER OF THE COURT PER CURIAM. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Rodney E. Miller, Sr.’s (hereafter “Petitioner”) Petition For Writ of Mandamus filed with this Court on October 17, 2008. Petitioner primarily argues that the Superior Court exceeded the lawful exercise of its subject matter jurisdiction when it issued an August 5, 2008 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) pursuant to title 14, section 606(h) of the Virgin Islands Code. The TRO restrained activity on several enumerated stateside and Virgin Islands bank accounts and real properties owned by Petitioner, among In re: Rodney E. Miller, Sr. S. Ct. Civ. No. 2008-080 Order of the Court others. Petitioner requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus “to confine the lower court to its lawful exercise of jurisdiction within the territory of the Virgin Islands.” (Petition at 31.) In our Opinion and Order entered on September 26, 2008, when this Court denied Petitioner’s earlier request for a writ of mandamus on mootness grounds, we wrote that “[a] writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy which should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.” In re: Rodney E. Miller, Sr., Civ. No. 2008-074, slip op. at 3 (V.I. Sept. 26, 2008). We further stated that “[a] petitioner must establish that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief requested and that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable.” Id. (citing Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34, 101 S.Ct. 188, 190, 66 L.E.2d 193 (1980)). Notably, we held that “we may not issue a writ of mandamus if Petitioner can obtain the relief sought by bringing an appeal in this Court.” Id. (citing In re: Le Blanc, Civ. No. 2007-079, 2008 WL 2625225, at *3 (V.I. June 26, 2008)). We concluded by informing Petitioner that if he “[sought] to challenge the merits of the TRO, he may do so only by following the normal appellate process.” Id. In this case, Petitioner requests a writ of mandamus on the grounds that the Superior Court purportedly lacks subject matter jurisdiction over property located outside of the Virgin Islands. Because one may appeal, as of right, a Superior Court order “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions,” an interlocutory appeal—not a writ of mandamus—is the appropriate vehicle for the relief Petitioner seeks.1 See V.I.S.CT.R. 5(a)(2); 4 V.I.C. § 33(b)(1). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. It is further 1 As a general rule, temporary restraining orders are not appealable interlocutory orders. See Vuitton v. White, 945 F.2d 569, 573 (3d Cir. 1991). However, temporary restraining orders that are continued, without the consent of the parties, for a substantial length of time past the period typically permitted by statute or court rule become, in effect, appealable preliminary injunctions. See Connell v. Dulien Steel Products, Inc., 240 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1957). Here, although 14 V.I.C. § 606(h) states that a temporary restraining order shall expire within sixty days absent an extension for good cause, the Superior Court has extended the August 5, 2008 TRO beyond the typical sixty day period. Accordingly, the TRO has effectively become an appealable preliminary injunction. In re: Rodney E. Miller, Sr. S. Ct. Civ. No. 2008-080 Order of the Court ORDERED that copies of this Order be served on the parties’ counsel. SO ORDERED this 17th day of November, 2008. ATTEST: VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ. Clerk of the Court