USVI Public Records

Document text

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST CROIX GLENDA AYALA PLAINTIFF, SX 20 CV 728 v ACTION FOR DAMAGES WORLD FRESH MARKET LLC D/B/A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PUEBLO SUPERMARKET CITED AS 2021 VI SUPER 15U DEFENDANT Appearances Lee J Rohn l 108 King Street Suite 3 ‘36 King Street Third Floor Christiansted St Croix, V100820 F0; Plaumfi‘ Michael L Sheesley, P C P O Box 307728 St Thomas V100803 For Defendant MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ‘1[ Willocks, Presiding Judge ‘][1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on World Fresh Market LLC d/b/a Pueblo Supermarket (hereinafter Defendant ) Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings filed on October 19 2020 Glenda Ayala (hereinafter Plaintiff )filed an Opposition Motion on October 29 2020 A Reply to Opposition motion was filed by Defendant on November 4 2020 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file Sur Reply and Exhibit on November 9 2020 A Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to file Sur Reply was filed on November 10 2020 by Defendant Plaintiff filed a Reply to Opposition on November 24 2020 2021 VI SUPER 15U Glenda A\(Il(l v World Fred? Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supelmarket SX 20 CV 728 Order ‘112 The Court will GRANT Defendant 5 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings for the reasons stated herein The Court will DENY Plaintiff 3 Motion to file a Sur Reply The Court will ORDER this matter is stayed until arbitration is complete I Jurisdiction ‘H3 The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has found that the FAA is applicable through the Commerce Clause a contract comes within the purview of the FAA if an interstate nexus is shown ' Whvte t Bockmo 69 V I 749 760 (V I 20]8)(Citing Hendm ks t Pmnac 1e Sen 1c es LLC 72 V I 630 (Super Ct 2020) Thus a party seeking to compel arbitration must not only show that an agreement exists but also show that the contract evidences an interstate nexus Id However the burden on the compelling party to show that a contract evidences an intetstate nexus is relatively low Id at 761 The contract need only affect interstate commerce and need not be in interstate commerce nor have a substantial effect on interstate commerce Id (K4 It is apparent then that the FAA applies to the Virgin Islands when an interstate nexus can be demonstrated In Hendricks t Pmmu [e Se: 1 a es LLC we found in reviewing a Motion for Summary Judgment that the parties should not have to file another brief regalding the interstate nature of the business due to further briefing being a waste of judicial resources Hendnc As 1 Pmnat [e Serums LLC 72 V I 630 (Super Ct 2020) We determined that the Oil Refinery had been engaged in interstate commerce because it makes oil shipments [(1 ‘][5 In Whyte L Bockmo the employment contract at issue was between Whyte :1 St Croix Resident and Pueblo a limited liability company organized and doing business under the laws of the United States Virgin Islands Whyte t Bockmo 69 VI 749 (VI 2018) The employment contract required that Whyte send any notices to Pueblo to an address that the company maintains in Chicago Illinois The Court held that this provision regulating an important aspect of the parties’ agreement is sufficient to establish an interstate nexus [d The Court further held that Whyte as an assistant store 2021 VI SUPER 15U Glenda Ayala t Wmld Fres}: Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supermarket SX 20 CV 728 Order Page 3 0f 6 manager and later a store manager for a business that receives its goods from interstate commerce had managerial control over products Pueblo imports which arrive to St Croix via container ship ’ Id Therefore the Court held that this employment contract affects interstate commerce’ as even the slightest nexus is sufficient Id at [0 Thus Pueblo sufficiently met its burden to establish an interstate nexus Id [1 Analysis ‘l[6 First and foremost the Court finds that a valid contract exists because Plaintiff and Defendant signed the employment contract on December 3 2018 and it is valid on its face (Defendant 5 Motion to Compel Arbitration Ex I ) The employment contract between Plaintiff and Defendant was for the purpose of Plaintiff performing employment as a grocery clerk for Pueblo Supermarket owned by World Fresh Market LLC (Id ) Accordingly Article V of the employment contract presents the Dispute Resolution provision (Id ) Defendant asserts that the plain language of the provision in the employment contract requiies arbitration of Plaintiff 8 claims against Defendant and covers alt disputes against Defendant as an employer (Defendant 3 Motion to Compel page 5) Therefore the Court agrees that this proxision was enteied into by both parties and was within its scope in terms of arbitration between Plaintiff and Defendant ‘fi7 Second the contract between the parties needs to affect interstate commerce Whvte t BO( kmo 69 V I 749 (VI 2018) There are characteristics that make this matter different than the interstate commerce issue in Winte v Bockmo For instance there is no provision in the contract that require notices to Pueblo at an address in Chicago Illinois Further Defendant held employment as a grocery clerk versus a managerial position like in Whtte nevertheless the Court finds this to be quite similar to it’s ruling in Whvte v Bockmo ‘][8 Working at Pueblo (owned and Operated by World Fresh Market LLC) affects interstate commerce because the goods received are imported to the Virgin Islands like the Court found in White 2021 VI SUPER ISU Glenda Amla v World Fresh Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supermarket SX 20 CV 728 Order (See Defendant’s Motion to Compel) The reason the Court will find similarly to Whvte even with some distinguishable characteristics is because employment at Pueblo is very different than employment at a local grocery store only situated in the Virgin Islands ‘][9 The burden on the compelling party is relatively low and the Defendant has met their burden to show that the Pueblo grocery stores affect interstate commerce because their produce has to travel by plane and boat from all ovei the United States and from international destinations (See Defendant 3 Motion to Compel p 7) The Defendant further contends that Plaintiff 5 position required her to stock and handle grocery items that were not produced or manufactured in the Virgin Islands and are shipped in interstate commerce to the Virgin Islands (Id ) Thus the Court finds that Defendant has met their burden to prove the contract between the parties affected interstate commerce (Ill!) Plaintiff s main argument is that the arbitration provision was presented on a take it or leave it basis and Plaintiff had no choice but to sign it (See Plaintiff 5 Opposition to Motion to Compel p 3) The Court is also aware of Plaintiff s argument that the validity of arbitration clauses for unconscionability is Allen v Hatensa Allen t Hmensa LLC 59 V I 430 436 (V I 2013) (fill These arguments can be quickly done away with The Court in Allen t Hownsa held that the dispute resolution provision was not unconscionable Id The mere fact that a contract is adhesive does not without more render it unconscionable Id (citing Nmo L Jewelry Exchange Inc 609 F 3d 191 201 53 V I 901 (3d Ciro 2010)) A party challenging a contract on unconscionability grounds must also show that the contract is substantively unconscionable by demonstrating that the contract contains terms unreasonably favorable to the stronger party Id at l l ‘fl12 In Plaintiff 3 Opposition Plaintiff discusses that there was no choice but to sign the defendant 5 arbitration provision However like Defendant 5 pointed out the Plaintiff’s Opposition contains no factual allegations of fraud in the formation of the arbitration agreement (See Plaintiff’s Opposition 2021 VI SUPER lSU Glenda Ayala 1 World Fres/z Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supermarket 8X 20 CV 728 Order l 2) There was also no present evidence that Plaintiff was forced to take the job at Pueblo (See Defendant 5 Reply p 17) ‘][13 The Court agrees with Defendant that there was no evidence presented Plaintiff was forced to work at Pueblo or had no other options Further Plaintiff alleged that as a grocery clerk the arbitration would be expensive Again Defendant 5 point out that there is no evidence that the costs would be prohibitively expensive pursuant to the standard that was set out in Allen Therefore the Court cannot evaluate Plaintiff’s arguments thoroughly without any evidence that what they present in their opposition is true III Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur Reply $14 As with surrespomes and surreplies which are generally disfavored because parties are expected to fully and expeditiously address all matters raised in the original motion in their responses courts do not grant leave to further respond or reply when it will aid the court by addressing relevant issues including issues that might otherwise be waived if not timely raised Augustin t Hess 01/ Vugm Ivlandc Corp 67 VI 488 (Super Ct 2017) (citing De; Wee! 1 Hess 011V] Corp 64 VI at 122)) (Ills The Court finds that because Plaintiff filed their sur reply without first obtaining leave to file the filing is technically in violation for V I R Civ P 6 He) and this Court has the authority to strike the document from the record United States VI Econ Dew Auth V Hypolzte 2019 VI LEXIS 10 (Super Ct 2019) Therefore the Court will disregard Plaintiff s filing because it was not properly before the Court pursuant to the rules The Court at this time will not sanction the Plaintiff however the Court will strictly adhere to the Virgin Ielands Civil Procedure Rules and expects all counsel to do the same Thus Plaintiff‘s Motion for Leave to File Sur Reply is DENIED 2021 VI SUPER 15U Glenda Ayala v World Flesh Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supermmlxet SX 20 CV 728 Order Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED ORDERED Plaintiff 5 Motion to file a Sur Reply is DENIED ORDERED arbitration of all claims contained in the Complaint and stay proceedings in their entirety pending the outcome of arbitration 3x DONE and so ORDERED this 50 day of 3 aim n :5» 913021 HAROLD W L WILLOCKS ; Presiding Judge of the Superior Court