Court Opinion

ID: 9955029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 15:21:38.661197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:13.688592
License: Public Domain

For Publication

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

 CLEMENT XAVIER                                       )    S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
         Appellant/Defendant                          )    Re Super Ct NO 450 2009 (STX)
                                                      )
 V                                                    )
                                                      )
 TREASURE BAY V I CORP                                )
 d/b/a DIV! CARINA BAY CASINO                         )
        Appellee/Plaintiff                            )
                                                      )

                   On Appeal from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
                                   Division of St Croix
                       Superior Court Judge Hon Douglas A Brady

                                Considered November 17, 2020
                                     Filed March 25 2024

                                     Cite as 2024 V1 14

BEFORE        RHYS S HODGE ChiefJustice' MARIA M CABRET Associate Justice' and
              IVE ARLINGTON SWAN Associate Justice

ATTORNEYS

Thomas Alkon, Esq
Law Ofﬁce of Thomas Alkon, Esq , P C
St Croix U S VI
       A ttorneyfor Appellant

Carl A Beckstedt, Esq
Robert J Kuczyniski, Esq
Beckstedt & Kuczyniski LLP
St Croix U S V I
       Attorneys for Appellee
Xamer v Treasure Bay V1 C0;p d b a 0m Carma Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ N0 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 2 of IS

                               OPINION OF THE COURT

SWAN, Associate Justice

1|l    Appellant Clement Xavier (‘ Xavier”) appeals the Superior Court’s J anuary 27, 2020 order,

which denied his motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of Appellee Treasure Bay V I

Corp , d/b/a Divi Carina Bay Casino (“Treasure Bay”) Xavier asserts that the Magistrate Division

of the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case For the reason elucidated below, we

afﬁrm the Superior Court 3 order on different grounds, which obviate consideration of the issues

propounded by Xavier in this appeal

               I    BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

1|2    Xavier ﬁled an action in the Superior Court against Treasure Bay for negligence Xavier’s

September 28, 2009 amended complaint alleged that on or about July 29 2009 he sat on a chair

in Treasure Bay’s establishment, which suddenly toppled over, causing him to fall and injure

himself Xavier sought compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment

of life, permanent disability, medical expenses, and impaired earning capacity      all of which he

alleged resulted from him falling

1|3    Treasure Bay ﬁled its answer to the amended complaint on October 14, 2009, which denied

any liability, disputed all allegations in the amended complaint, and raised several afﬁrmative

defenses

1|4    Over the next several months, the parties participated in discovery, pursuant to the Superior

Court’s December 1, 2009 scheduling order, which established speciﬁc dates for the parties to

complete all discovery, depositions, Rule 26 discovery and expert disclosures, and dispositive

motions During discovery on March 1 l, 2010, Treasure Bay produced a membership agreement
Xai Ier v Treasure Bay V I Corp d b a Dim Carina Bay Casino
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 3 of 18

between the parties, pursuant to which Xavier had become a member of the “Beachcomber’s Gold

Club” rewards program, which permitted members playing games at the casino to earn “points”

that could be redeemed for discounts on lodging, food, drinks, and amenities at the casino and at

the nearby resort ' (J A 109 ) The membership agreement, dated August 8, 2005, contained an

arbitration clause, and exhibited Xavier’s signature Xavier does not dispute the authenticity of

the executed membership agreement The arbitration clause in the parties’ membership agreement

in relevant part stated “[t]he agreement governs when or how disputes between you and us will

be resolved by arbitration    that is, decided by one or more private persons in a private proceeding

and not by a court or jury in a trial ” (J A 47 ) ‘ Claim” is deﬁned therein as

                any dispute between you and us that arises from or relates in any
                way to the Facilities and/or services, including disputes concerning
                (1) the quality, or suitability of the Facilities and or Services, (2)
                advertisement, promotions, disclosures agreements or documents
                relating to Facilities and or Services; (3) this agreement’s
                applicability, scope, arbitrability, validity or enforceability      It
                includes disputes based on constitutional provisions, statutes,
                regulations, ordinances, contracts, and alleged wrongﬁal acts of
                every type (whether intentional, fraudulent reckless or negligent)
                It includes disputes that seek relief of any type, including damages
                or injunctive, equitable and/or declaratory relief

(J A 48 ) Further, the membership agreement stated that the determination made in an arbitration

award “will be ﬁnal and binding, except for an appeal right under the F[ederal] A[rbitration]

A[ct]   9 U S C § 1 et seq (FAA)

115     On April 9, 2010, Treasure Bay ﬁled a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the Superior

Court’s proceedings     In its motion, Treasure Bay argued that Xavier’s lawsuit is subject to the

1The Beachcomber’s Gold Club membership agreement speciﬁes that it covers facilities and
services “offered or provided by, at or in connection with the      Resort and Casino,” including
“lodging, food, beverage[s], refreshment[s], beachfront, water, gambling, [and] recreational and/or
other facilities and’or services ” (J A 48 )
Xawel v Treasure Bay V I Corp db (1 DIV! Ca) ma Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 4 of 18

parties’ executed membership agreement with an arbitration clause         Shortly after Treasure Bay

submitted the membership agreement to the court, the Superior Court transferred the matter to the

Magistrate Division of the Superior Court on April 21, 2010 and designated a magistrate judge to

hear and determine whether to grant the motion to arbitrate and to stay the proceedings, pursuant

to title 4 sections 123(b)(1) and (2) of the Virgin Islands Code

1|6     Xavier ﬁled his opposition to Treasure Bay’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the

proceedings on June 2, 201 1    In his motion papers, Xavier contended that Treasure Bay waived

its rights to enforce the arbitration agreement because more than six months had elapsed between

the initial ﬁling of the complaint and ﬁling the motion to compel arbitration, especially considering

that since 2005 Treasure Bay was in possession of the membership agreement containing the

arbitration provision Xavier ﬁthher contended that Treasure Bay 3 protracted delay in producing

the agreement impeded his preparation efforts for trial in accordance with the Superior Court’s

order scheduling the matter for a jury trial, in response to the parties’ request

117     Treasure Bay replied to Xavier’s opposition on July 15, 2011         Treasure Bay countered

Xavier’s arguments, asserting that Treasure Bay had provided the agreement to the court soon after

it was found and had ﬁled the motion to arbitrate and to stay the proceedings approximately one

month later

118     In deciding the motion to compel arbitration, the magistratejudge concluded that there was

little progress made in resolving the case over the prior two and one half years (i e , minimal

discovery, no evidence of depositions, expert reports or other expensive pretrial procedures) and

noted that although Treasure Bay ﬁled its motion to compel arbitration more than six months aﬁer

the initial complaint, Xavier had opposed the motion fourteen months later, and that there was no

prejudice to Xavier because he contributed to the delay Because there was no dispute between
Xawer v Treasure Bay V I Corp d b a DIV! Cauna Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 5 of 18

the parties on the issues of arbitrability or the validity of the membership agreement, the magistrate

judge granted Treasure Bay’s motion to arbitrate, ordered the parties to participate in arbitration,

and stayed the Superior Court proceedings in an order dated June 1 1, 2012

119     On July 12, 2012, Xavier ﬁled a motion for reconsideration in response to the magistrate

judge’s June I l, 2012 order compelling arbitration and staying the Superior Court proceedings In

his motion papers, Xavier informed the court that he was disabled and has not been able to return

to work since July 29, 2009; he contended that, therefore, he could not afford the cost ofarbitration

To further substantiate his motion, Xavier argued that the arbitration clause in the membership

agreement supported Treasure Bay paying the cost of the arbitration because of his ﬁnancial

hardship Nevertheless, upon negotiation with Treasure Bay and consummation of an agreement

on the issue of the cost of arbitration, Xavier withdrew his motion for reconsideration on July 19,

2012, and the parties subsequently proceeded to arbitration        The parties’ agreement directed

Treasure Bay to pay the entire cost of arbitration

1|10    The arbitrator presided over the panties evidentiary hearing in St Croix U S Virgin

Islands two years later, on October 8 10, 2014 The parties, who were present and represented by

counsel, presented extensive oral and documentary evidence, including numerous fact witnesses

The arbitrator gave each party a full opportunity to present the claims and defenses in each party’s

case in chief and rebuttal, including an opportunity for direct and cross examination, re direct and

re cross examination After hearing and considering all the evidence presented, the arbitrator ruled

in favor of Treasure Bay and against Xavier          The arbitrator subsequently memorialized his

decision in an award dated November 18, 2014

ﬁll |   After the arbitrator issued the award in favor of Treasure Bay, Xavier ﬁled a petition with

the Superior Court on December 3, 2014, seeking review of the arbitrator’s decision            In his
Xavlel v Treasule Bay VI Corp d b a 0m Cwma Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 6 of 18

petition, Xavier, for the ﬁrst time, challenged the magistrate judge’s June 1 1, 2012 order which

referred the parties to arbitration, 0n the basis that it was “contrary to existing law regarding the

issue of waiver ” (.1 A 84 85 ) In response, on December 16, 2014, Treasure Bay moved to strike

the petition for review because it was untimely     Xavier initially responded by ﬁling a motion to

vacate the arbitration award on December 19, 2014, wherein he expounded on his waiver

argument Additionally, on December 19, 2014, Xavier ﬁled a motion in opposition to Treasure

Bay’s motion to strike, arguing that policy favors appealing decisions on compelling arbitration

only after the arbitration is completed and that the magistrate judge lacked juri sdiction to determine

Treasure Bay’s original motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings              Finally, on

February 23, 2015, Xavier ﬁled an additional response to Treasure Bay’s motion seeking to stn'ke

his petition for review, in which Xavier reasserted the arguments made in his December 3, 2014

petition for review and in his December 19, 2014 initial response to Treasure Bay’s motion to

strike   On March 6, 2015, Treasure Bay responded to Xavier’s arguments by ﬁling a reply in

support of its motion to strike and seeking dismissal of his petition for review      That same day,

Treasure Bay ﬁled a motion seeking to conﬁrm and to enter judgment on the arbitration award

All the ﬁlings, except Xavier’s initial petition for review and Treasure Bay’s motion to strike that

petition, were made after the Clerk 3 Ofﬁce of the Superior Court had transferred the case to the

Superior Court’s Appellate Division on December 18, 2014          On March 10, 2015, the Superior

Court Clerk’s Ofﬁce sent Xavier’s counsel a brieﬁng letter that acknowledged receipt of counsel 3

petition for review and infomed him of the assignment of the case to Judge Harold W L Willocks

in the Appellate Division and infomed him of the brieﬁng requirements associated with review in

the Appellate Division     Despite this infomation, neither of the litigants requested that their

previously ﬁled motions be construed as briefs in the Appellate Division, nor did they ﬁle formal
Xavier v Treasure Bay V1 C0;p d b (I But Cauna Bay Casino
S Ct Civ N0 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 7 of 18

briefs in response to the brieﬁng letter     The matter remained on the docket of the Appellate

Division with only minimal ﬁlings by the parties for the remainder of 2015 and all of 2016

Ultimately, in an order dated February 23, 2017, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court

dismissed Xavier’s petition for review and remanded the case to the Trial Division of the Superior

Court, where the case remained on the docket for the remainder of 2017 and for the entire years

2018 and 2019 Finally, on January 27, 2020, the Trial Division of the Superior Court entered an

order denying Xavier’s December 3, 2014 motion challenging the magistrate judge’s June 11,

2012 order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Trial Division of the Superior

Court    The order likewise stated that all of the issues remanded by the Appellate Division’s

February 23, 2017 order had been resolved and closed that case After the case was remanded, the

Superior Court closed the matter on January 24, 2020 by denying Xavier s motion seeking a

declaration that the June 1 1, 2012 magistrate order compelling arbitration was void Xavier ﬁled

a timely notice of appeal on February 21 2020 and this appeal ensued

                       [I   JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

1112    “The Supreme Court [has] jurisdiction over all appeals arising from ﬁnal judgments, ﬁnal

decrees, or ﬁnal orders of the Superior Court      4 V I C § 32(a) see also 48 U S C § 16l3a(d)

The Superior Court’s January 27, 2020judgment was a ﬁnal order because it ‘ end{ed] the litigation

on the merits, leaving nothing else for the court to do except execute the judgment ” Pub Emps

Relation Bd v Umted Indus Workers Seafarers Int'l Unton 56 V 1 429 433 (V l 2012)

Therefore, we exercise Jurisdiction over this appeal        Tremcorp Holdmgs Inc v Hams, 65 V I

364, 367 (V l 2016) (the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award constitutes an appealable

ﬁnal judgment (citing Gov I ofthe V I v United Indus Serv Trans Prof & Gov t Workers ofN

Am 64 V1312 319 20 (V l 2016)))
Xawer v Twasme Bay V1 C0:p d b a 0m Cm ma Bay Casino
8 Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 8 of 18

1|13       We exercise plenary review over the Superior Court’s legal conclusions and review its

factual ﬁndings for clear error      Tremcorp Holdmgs Inc v Hams, 67 V l 601, 605 (V I 2017)

(quoting Coastal Tramp v Royer 64 V I 645 651 (V I 2016)) See also Bash": v Tutu Park

Ltd 66 V I 604 608 (V I 2017)

                                          III    DISCUSSION

1114       Xavier raises two issues on appeal First, Xavier argues that the ‘ [m]agistrate [judge] lacks

jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine a motion to compel arbitration and stay

proceeding[s] in a case ﬁled in the Jury Trial Division of the Superior Court ’ (Appellant’s Br 6 )

Secondly, Xavier argues that Treasure Bay waived its right to arbitration by actively litigating and

delaying the case prior to moving the Superior Court to compel arbitration and stay the

proceedings The Court will address the issues serzatzm

       A      Because a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration is a non dispositive motion,
              the Magistrate’s Division did not err when it granted Treasure Bay’s motion to
              compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings

1115       Xavier argues that a magistrate judge lacks Jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine

a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in a case ﬁled in the Jury Trial Division of the

Superior Court Speciﬁcally, Xavier argues that an order to compel arbitration and remove the

dispute from the jury division of the Superior Court to a private forum is akin to and ﬁmctionally

equivalent to a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure        Xavier contends that such a motion “should be

treated as [one] of the seven enumerated but not exclusive motions withheld from the authority of

the magistrate [judge] by the legislature in section 123(b)( l) ofTitle 4 of the Virgin Islands Code ”

(Appellant 5 Br 8 10 )
Xawel v Demure Bay V I Cmp (1 ha DIV! Cmma Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 9 of 18

1|16    In opposition, Treasure Bay argues that the magistrate judge s ruling on the motion to

compel arbitration is irrelevant, because Xavier withdrew his sole objection to arbitration and

voluntarily submitted the matter to the arbitrator when Treasure Bay agreed to pay the ﬁll! cost of

arbitration; therefore, Xavier s entire appeal is meritless         Treasure Bay also argues in the

alternative that 4 V I C § 123 does not bar the magistrate Judge from considering Treasure Bay’s

motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings and that Xavier waived this argument when

he submitted his claim to arbitration and agreed to the stay of court proceedings after Treasure Bay

decided to pay the associated full cost of arbitration

1|l7    Xavier ﬁled a reply brief in opposition to Treasure Bay’s response arguing that Treasure

Bay 3 contention regarding waiver is misplaced because he never withdrew his opposition based

on the doctrine of waiver, that he ﬁrst raised his objection to arbitration in the June 2, 2011

opposition to Treasure Bay’s motion, and that he renewed his opposition to arbitration based on

the doctrine of waiver in his December 3, 2014 petition for review and in the December 19, 2014

motion to vacate the arbitration award

1H 8    As a threshold matter, we acknowledge that Xavier uses Jurisdictional terms to frame his

argument Since the issue of subject matter Jurisdiction may never be waived, see Brady v

Cmtron, 55 V I 802, 815 (V I 2011), Xavier could not waive his challenge to the magistrate

judge’s authority by failing to raise the issue in a timely manner or by participating in the

arbitration    that is, if the issue is in fact jurisdictional

1119    We conclude that it is not As we have previously emphasized, “jurisdiction is vested in

courts not in individual judges         Vanterpool v Gov t of the V1 63 VI 563 573 (V1 2015)

(collecting cases)     For this reason, this Court has held that it is not a jurisdictional defect for a

judge to issue a ruling in a case assigned to a different Judge   while that Judge may have exceeded
Xaner t 77easuIeBay VI Com db a 0m Cmma Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 10 of 18

his authority in issuing such an order, the court did not 1d at 573 74 The Magistrate Division is

not a separate free standing court, but a division of the Superior Court, a court which is vested

with ‘ original jurisdiction in all civil actions regardless of the amount in controversy ” 4 V I C §

76(a)   Because the Superior Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over this case, that a

magistrate judge purportedly exceeded his or her authority by issuing a ruling on an individual

motion in that case that supposedly could only be adjudicated by a judge is not a jurisdictional

defect, but an ordinary trial error that a party may waive See e g Clark v Poulton, 963 F 2d

1361 I366 67 (10th Cir 1992) (characterizing a magistrate Judge s lack of statutory authority to

take an action as a non jurisdictional defect subject to waiver) (collecting cases)

1|20    The Virgin Islands’ courts have not reviewed the question of whether a motion to stay the

proceedings and compel arbitration is in effect dispositive of a case and accordingly is prohibited

by 4 V I C § 123      The Magistrate’s Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands has

original Jurisdiction to hear certain type ofcases without the aid or supervision of the Virgin Islands

Superior Court See 4 V I C § 123(a) Pursuant to the statute, with certain limited exceptions

which do not include motions to compel arbitration      a magistrate judge may “hear and determine

any pretrial matter pending before the court " 4 V I C § 123(b)(l) Magistrate Judges also have

the authority, upon consent of the parties, to conduct all proceedings in a jury or non jury civil

matter, including trial and entry of Judgment in the case See 4 V I C § 123(d); see also H&H

Awomcs Inc v V] PortAuth 52 VI 458 462 63 (VI 2009) (noting that magistrate judge 8

orders made pursuant to 4 V I C § 123(d) may be dispositive orders)           On the other hand, the

statute limits the authority of magistrate judges by enumerating speciﬁc unauthorized forms of

relief Section 123(b)(l) expressly denies magistrate Judges the authority to adjudicate
Xawer 1 Twaswe Bay VI Com (1 b a Du! Carina Bay Cmmo
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 11 of 18

               motion[s] for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for
               summary judgment, for dismissing or quashing an indictment or
               infomation made by the defendant, suppression of evidence in a
               criminal case, dismissal or to permit maintenance of a class action,
               dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
               granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action

121    ‘ The ﬁrst step when interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has

a plain and unambiguous meaning" Matter of Adoptzon of L 0F , 62 VI 655, 661 (2015)

(quoting Matter ofReynolds 60 V I 330 332 (2013)) We ﬁrst look to the plain meaning of the

text when interpreting a statute, because courts must not adopt an interpretation of a statute that

conﬂicts with the plain text See Murrell v People 54V] 338 352 (VI 2010)'Hayne.91 Ottley

61 VI 547 561 (VI 2014)         A plain and unambiguous reading of the language of the statute

discloses that a motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration is not one of the motions

excepted from the ambit of the jurisdiction of magistrate judges ‘ When the language of a statute

is plain and unambiguous, a court does not look beyond the language of the statute in interpreting

the statute 8 meaning     Codrmgton v People 57 VI 176 185 (VI 2012) (citing People v

Baxter 49 V I 384, 388 (V I 2008)) We “must presume that a legislature says in a statute what

it means and means in a statute what it says there When the words of a statute are unambiguous,

then, the ﬁrst canon [of statutory construction] is also the last judicial inquiry is complete ” Id

(quoting Connectzcut Nat Bank v Germain 503 U S 249 253 54 (1992))

1122   Xavier also argues that a motion to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration is the

functional equivalent to a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) We disagree

1123   A motion to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration is not the functional equivalent

of a motion for summary Judgment, which is authorized under Rule 56 0f the Virgin Islands Rules
quer v Tietmue Bay V I Corp d but DIV! Cmma Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 12 of 18

of Civil Procedure or a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) A motion to stay the proceedings

and to compel arbitration is non dispositive because there is no ﬁnal exercise ofjudicial authority

by the court until after the arbitration process is completed, at which time the court has the

jurisdiction to afﬁrm, modify, or vacate the arbitrator’s awards, where the action remains lodged

See VI Water & Power Auth v General Elec Int I 561 Fed Appx § 131 133 (3d Cir 2014)

(concluding that motions to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings are not dispositive because

such a ruling does not dispose of the case, instead it merely suspends it, and the court maintains

its authority to dissolve the stay or make orders effectuating arbitration awards); see also

PowerShare v Syntel 597 F 3d 10 14 (lst Cir 2010) (holding that a motion to stay litigation

pending arbitration was not dispositive because “[e]ven if such a motion is granted, the court still

retains authority to dissolve the stay or, after the arbitration has run its course, to make orders with

respect to the arbitral award ’)    When a magistrate judge refers a matter to arbitration that is

govemed by the FAA the Superior Court never loses jurisdiction over the action as the decision

of the arbitrator is subject to the review of the Superior Court See Gov't 0fthe V I Dep’t ofEduc

v St Thomas/St John Educ Admrs Ass n Loc 101 67 V I 623 639—40 (2017) (noting the

authority of Superior Count to vacate an arbitrator’s award on the condition that the

arbitrator exceeded his or her authority in rendering the award, which may include ignoring limits

in the arbitration agreement itself on issues to be arbitrated or remedies the parties agreed to make

available; if the award was the product of fraud, partiality, or malfeasance on behalf of the parties

or the arbitrator—or if the award was predicated upon a mistake ﬂowing from such conduct; or if

the arbitrator manifestly disregards the law) A contrary interpretation would be akin to rewriting

the rule See Whyte \ Bockmo 69 V I 749 756 (2018) (declining to rewrite Rule 8(c)(1) to require

the right to arbitrate to be pled as an afﬁrmative defense)
Xavzel v Tiemwe Bay VI Corp (1 b a 0m Carma Bay Casino
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion ofthe Court
Page [3 of 18

124      Additionally, several federal courts that have addressed the issue have found that “motions

to stay proceedings to enforce arbitration provisions are non dispositive        Torrance v Aames

Funding Corp 242 F Supp 2d 862 865 (D Or 2002) (citing Touton S A v M V Rzzcun Trader

30 F Supp 2d 508 509 (E D Pa 1998) Herko v Metropolitan Life Ins Co 978 F Supp 141

I42 43 n l (W D N Y 1997); See also All Saint 3 Brands Inc v Brewery Group Denmark, AIS,

57 F Supp 2d 825 833 (D Minn 1999) (ﬁnding that motions to stay proceedings and to compel

arbitration constitute non dispositive matters which a magistrate judge can determine pursuant to

28 U S C § 636(b)(l)(A))

1125     The magistrate judge’s act of ruling on the motion to stay the proceeding and to compel

arbitration under the FAA did not consider the merits of Xavier’s claims ‘ [I]t is for the arbitrators

[, not the courts,] to rule on the merits of the parties claims and defenses ’ Interdtgztal Commc ns

Corp v Fed Ins Co 308 Fed Appx 593 596 (3d Cir 2009) See alsoAT& TTechnologles v

Communications Workers ofAm , 475 U S 643, 649 (1986) (noting that in determining whether

the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration, the court must avoid ruling on the merits of the

underlying claims), United Steelworkers of America v American Mfg Co 363 U S 564, 568

(1960)    Equally important Title 4 section l23(c) of the Virgin Islands Code grants the Superior

Court judge the authority to “reconsider any pretrial matter handled by the magistrate judge where

it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous and contrary to law ’ See

4 V I C § 123(c) Accordingly, we conclude that a motion to stay the proceedings and to compel

arbitration is non dispositive and not a functional equivalent of a motion to dismiss or a motion

for summary judgment, because granting such a motion leaves the Superior Court with the

jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration award and the magistrate division can therefore hear a motion

to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings
Xavzer v Twasule Bay VI C011) d b (1 DH: Carma Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ N0 2020 00l4
Opinion of the Court
Page 14 of 18

                           B      Xavier’s argument is waived on appeal

1126    Secondly, Xavier argues on appeal that Treasure Bay “waived its contractual right to

arbitration by actively litigating and delaying prior to moving the Superior Court to compel

arbitration and stay the proceedings ’ (Appellant’s Br 6 ) Xavier has waived this issue             It is

noteworthy that Xavier ﬁled his motion opposing arbitration on June 2, 201 1, arguing that Treasure

Bay had waived the right to arbitrate by ﬁling a responsive pleading and engaging in extensive

pre trial discovery Subsequently, on June 22, 2012         a little over one year later   the magistrate

judge compelled the parties to arbitrate, ultimately rejecting Xavier s argument by concluding that

there was minimal discovery in the record, that no evidence existed of considerable expenses

incurred in litigating the case to that time and that the two plus years delay in the case was

attributed to Xavier; therefore, no prejudice was incurred by him

1127    There are two important things which merit underscoring about Xavier s motion for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order to compelling arbitration and staying the

proceedings     First, the motion was untimely, because it was ﬁled well beyond the expiration of

the ten day period provided under either of the rules authorizing the motion 2 Second, Xavier did

not contest the magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Treasure Bay did not waive its right to arbitrate

2 Xavier ﬁled the motion for reconsideration premised upon Rule 7 3 of the Local Rules of Civil
Procedure for the District Court of the Virgin Islands and the conclusion that this rule applied in
Superior Court Proceedings as expressed in Golden Resorts LLP v Simpson 55 V l 170 173
(V I Super Ct 201 1) Treasure Bay contends that instead, Superior Court Rule 320(c)(1) governed
a motion seeking reconsideration of a pretrial matter that was decided by a magistrate judge at the
time of the proceedings now under review We need not resolve which rule would have been
applicable, however, because both rules required a motion for reconsideration to be ﬁled within
ten days aﬁer the issuance of the order sought to be reconsidered Since Xavier’s motion for
reconsideration, ﬁled on July 12, 2012, was ﬁled approximately 30 days aﬁer the magistrate
judge 5 order compelling arbitration and staying the Superior Court proceedings issued on June
1 l, 2012, it was untimely regardless of which of these rules was applicable at the time
Xavm v Treasure Bay VI Corp d b a 0m Cwma Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 15 of 18

Importantly, Xavier conceded that conclusion, abandoned his argument that Treasure Bay waived

its right to arbitrate, and later simply argued that he could not afford the cost of arbitration because

of his disability, citing to the arbitration clause in the parties’ consummated agreement as evidence

the court could rely upon to order Treasure Bay to assume the entire cost of the arbitration

Subsequently, the parties consummated an agreement on the issue of the cost of the arbitration that

was ostensibly suitable to Xavier because he thereaﬁer consented to, and, with the representation

of counsel, participated in and received the beneﬁt of a complete hearing before the arbitrator

Signiﬁcantly, Xavier has provided no argument to explicate why he admittedly agreed with

Treasure Bay on the issue of the cost of arbitration and proceeded to arbitration if he believed that

Treasure Bay had waived its right for the parties to resolve their dispute via arbitration See Gray

Holdco Inc v Cassady 654 F 3d 444 451 (3d Cir 2011) (noting that courts are reluctant to

infer waiver lightly due to the strong preference to enforce arbitration contracts)        Xavier has

therefore waived this argument on appeal      ‘ A claimant may not voluntarily submit his claim to

arbitration, await the outcome, and, if the decision is unfavorable, then challenge the authority of

the arbitrators to act ’ cmek v Southern Paciﬁc Co , 338 F 2d 655, 657 (9th Cir 1964), Fortune

Alsweet & Eldridge Inc v Dame! 724 F 2d 1355 1357 (9th Cir 1983) See also Woolley v

Eastern Alf Lmes Inc , 250 F 2d 86 91 (5th Cir 1957) (citing cases)

1128    It is a ﬁmdamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract, and governing doctrines

in the Virgin Islands and federal Jurisprudence require courts to honor the parties’ expectations

Gov't 0fthe V I Dep't ofEduc , 67 V l at 638 (citing Granite Rock Co v Int’l Bhd of Teamsters

561 U S 287 296 (2010)) First Options ofChzcago Inc v Kaplan 514 U S 938 947 (1995)

see also AT&TMobtluy LLC v Concepczon, 563 U S 333 351 (2011); Rent A Center West Inc

v Jackson 561 U S 63 67 (2010) Williams v EF Hutton & Co 753 F2d 117 119 (D C Cir
Xavier t Treasure Bat V I Com (lab (1 DIN CmmaBm Casmo
S Ct Civ N0 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 16 of 18

1985) (recognizing that an arbitration agreement is a contract not to be rewritten by the courts for

the parties)‘ AT&T Techs 475 U S at 650 (noting that Supreme Court of the United States

recognizes a presumption of arbitrability when there is a valid arbitration clause) “A party cannot

be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit ” AT&T

Techs , 475 U S at 648       Grounded in this principle is the important recognition that “arbitrators

derive their authority to resolve disputes only because the parties have agreed in advance to submit

such grievances to arbitration ” Id (quoting Gateway Coal Co v United Mme Workers, 414 U S

368, 374 (1974)        Therefore, it follows that “when the parties have provided that a particular

dispute should be settled in arbitration, rather than in litigation, a court may not override that

agreement by itself deciding such a dispute ” National R R Passenger Corp v Boston & Mame

Corp 850 F 2d 756 759 (D C Cir 1988)              [A]rbitration is matter of consent [and] it will not be

imposed upon parties beyond the scope of their agreement ’ U S Postal Service v National Rural

Letter Carriers Ass n, 959 F 2d 283, 287 (D C Cir 1992) Moreover, to ensure that parties who

bargain for binding arbitration receive the beneﬁt of their bargain, the power of the Superior Court

to vacate an arbitrator’s award is restricted 3

3 The Superior Court may only vacate an arbitrator's award if

                 (1) the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority in rendering the
                 award (which may include ignoring limits in the arbitration
                 agreement itself on issues to be arbitrated or remedies the parties
                agreed to make available), (2) if the award was the product of fraud,
                partiality, or malfeasance on behalf of the parties or the arbitrator
                or if the award was predicated upon a mistake ﬂowing from such
                 conduct; or (3) if the arbitrator manifestly disregards the law

Govt ofthe V I Dep t ofEduc 67 V I at 639 (emphasis added)
X0116! v Treasme Bay V1 C0!p drb a 0m Carma Bay Casmo
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 17 of 18
1|29    We reach this conclusion taking into consideration that the purpose of arbitration is to

provide a quick and inexpensive means to resolve claims and acknowledging the strong public

policy favoring arbitration and the enforcement of arbitral awards         See Pamewebber Inc       v

Faragallt 61 F 3d 1063 1068 69 (3d Cir 1995) (citing Gavlzk Cons! Co v H F Campbell Co

526 F 2d 777 783 (3d Cir 1975) (quoting Carmel: v Rederz A/B Nordze 389 F 2d 692 696 (2d

Cir 1968)) (noting that arbitration is a favored policy for resolution of disputes in the Virgin

Islands) The purposes of arbitration would be disserved if Xavier were allowed to consent to and

participate in arbitration presumably with the expectation of a favorable arbitral award and

subsequently be allowed to invoke the argument that the magistrate judge erred in compelling the

patties to arbitration as a basis for vacating an unfavorable award and relitigating the case for a

more favorable decision See Krattenstem v G Fox & Co 236 A 2d 466 470 (Conn 1967)                 [I]t

is for the arbitrators [, not the courts,] to rule on the merits of the parties’ claims and defenses ”

lnterdzgztal Commc n5 Corp 1 Fed Ins Co 308 Fed Appx 593 596 (3d Cir 2009)‘ See also

AT & T Technologies 475 U S at 649 (noting that in determining whether the parties have agreed

to submit to arbitration, the court must avoid ruling on the merits of the underlying claims);

United Steelworkers ofAmerica, 363 U S at 568; see also Messa v State Farm Ins Co 641 A 2d

1167 1170 (Pa Super Ct 1994)            Moreover, ‘by consenting to binding arbitration parties

relinquish the legal and procedural safeguards that accompany judicial proceedings ” Gov (ofthe

V I Dep tofEduc 67 V I at 639 (citing Doe v CentralArk TranStt 900 S W 2d 582 584 (Ark

Ct App 1995))
Xavier v TreasweBm VI Corp db,aDut Calina Bat Casino
S Ct Civ No 2020 0014
Opinion of the Court
Page 18 0f 18

                                      [V     CONCLUSION

1130    Because the Magistrate’s Division did not err when it granted Treasure Bay’s motion to

compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings, which is a non dispositive motion, and Xavier has

waived his argument on appeal, we afﬁrm the Superior Court’s January 27, 2020 order

DATED this 25th day of March 2024

                                                 ‘   IVE ARLINGTﬁg SWAN
                                                     Associate Justice

ATTEST

VERONICA J HANDY ESQ
Clerk of the Court

By W W     eputy Clerk

Dated Marm 25, 202+