Court Opinion

ID: 9927027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 22:36:13.069627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:38.637539
License: Public Domain

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                                  DIVISION OF ST CROIX
   CHARLES HUDDLESTON AND JESSIE                   ' Civil No SX 2022 CV 480
   HUDDLESTON

                                     PLAINTIFFS,

                         V                          JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
   M G C , INC , A U S VIRGIN ISLANDS
   CORPORATION,
                                   DEFENDANT       CITE AS 2024 VI SUPER          22
   M G C , INC , A U S VIRGIN ISLANDS
   CORPORATION,

                      THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF,

                         V
  GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN
  ISLANDS

                     THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT

Appearances

Douglas L Capdeville, Esq                                  Nathan J Mirocha, Esq
Law Ofﬁce of Douglas L Capdeville, P C                     MirochaLaw, LLC
St Croix U S Virgin Islands                                St Croix U S Virgin Islands
For Defendant/Thzrd Party Plamtzﬂ                          For Plamttfﬂs'

Christopher M Timmons, Esq , Esq
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
St Croix, U S Virgin Islands
For Third Party Defendant

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

       WILLOCKS, Administrative Judge

1] l   THIS MATTER came before the Court on Third Party Defendant Government of the

Virgin Islands’ (hereinafter “GVI”) motion to dismiss, ﬁled on April 3, 2023 In response, Third

Party Plaintiff M G C , Inc (hereinafter “MGC ) ﬁled an opposition and GVI ﬁled a reply thereto
  Huddleston t M G C Inc e! a]
  SX 2022 CV 480
                                                                                                            b
  Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                         2024 VI SUPER
  Page 2 of 20

                                                BACKGROUND

 1! 2        On October 19 2022 Plaintiff Charles Huddleston and Plaintiff Huddleston (collectively

 hereinafter Plaintiffs ’) ﬁled a complaint against MGC, a security company on St Croix,
                                                                                         US
 Virgin Islands, in connection with the Virgin Islands Police Department 3 (hereinafter ‘
                                                                                                          VIPD )
 response to MGC’s report that an alarm was triggered and a robbery was in progress at Plaintiffs

 who were not MGC’s customers              residence at 61 Estate Solitude, St Croix, U S Virgin Islands

 on October 6, 2022 On December 1, 2022, MGC ﬁled an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint
                                                                                     On

 February 8 2023 MGC ﬁled a motion to ﬁle a third party complaint against GVI which the Court

 subsequently granted In its third party complaint, MGC alleged the following causes of action

 against GVI for the actions of VIPD contribution and indemniﬁcation ‘ On April 3, 2023, GVI

 ﬁled this instant motion to dismiss the third party complaint

                                                 DISCUSSION

1] 3      In its motion, GVI argued that the complaint should be dismissed for lack ofsubject matter

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule

 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure

         1     Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

1] 4     In its motion GVI argued that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over MGC’s

claims against GVI because MGC failed to comply with the pre ﬁling requirements of the Virgin

Islands Tort Claims Act (hereinafter ‘ VITCA ), which are jurisdictional               to wit GVI argued that

' Here MGC 3 third party complaint did not set forth counts in separate numbered paragraphs
                                                                                            with          separate
designation of the speciﬁc names of each count in the pleadings as required by the Virgin Islands Rules of
                                                                                                             Civil
Procedure (hereinafter Rule 8 ) Thus the speciﬁc causes of action are deduced from the allegations
                                                                                                   in MGC 5 third
party complaint to wit In the event that Plaintiffs are allowed recovery on their claims from MGC,
                                                                                                      then MGC is
entitled to contribution and/or indemnity from GVI which is or may be liable to MGC for all or part of Plaintiffs
damages should they prevail at trial   (TPC )
 Huddleston t M G C Inc et a]
 SX 2022 CV 480
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                              2024 VI SUPER    5
 Page 3 of 20

 “[the injuries] allegedly occurred on October 6, 2022, ’ which is when the contribution claim

 accrued,1 and the 90 day notice period under the VITCA has long expired (Motion )

 I! 5     In its opposition, MGC did not dispute that the VITCA is applicable in this instance, but

 argued that for the purposes of the 90 day notice period under the VITCA the contribution claim

 accrued either from the [date of] entry ofjudgment against the defendant or the date of payment

 of more than the defendant’s pro rata share to the plaintiff ’3 (Opp 5 ) Alternatively, MGC argued

 that if the Coutt agrees with the accrual date argued by GVI, then ‘ the Court has discretion to grant

 MGC leave to ﬁle a late notice of intent ”4 (Id )

1] 6      In its reply, GVI reiterated that the contribution claim accrued on the date of the injury 5

(Reply I 3 ) As to MGC s alternate argument, GVI pointed out that MGC ‘ did not ﬁle a motion,

no afﬁdavits are before the Court and no reasonable excuse has been given ’ so the Court should

not grant MGC a discretionary extension for the compliance of the pre ﬁling requirements of the

VITCA (Id at 3 4 )

                  A Standard of Review

1] 7     A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) of the

Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure challenges the court’s authority to hear the case V I R

CW P 12(b)(a)          The applicable standard of review under Rule 12(b)(1) differs depending on

whether the moving party has made a facial attack or a factual attack on the court's power to hear

the case James St Jules v Thompson 2015 V I LEXIS 74 at *6 (VI Super Ct June 25 2015)

’ For its argument on the accrual date of the contribution claim, GVI did not cite to any authority
3 For its argument on the accrual date of the contribution claim, MGC relied on Dublin v V 1 Tel Corp , 15 V I 214
(VI Terr Ct June9 I978)
4 For its alternative argument, MGC relied on Title 33 V I C § 3409(c)
5 For its argument on the accrual date of the contribution claim, GVI relied on Martinez v Frazer, 23 V I 53 (V I
Terr Ct October 23 [987)
 Huddleston v M G C Inc et a!
 SX 2022 CV 480
                                                                                                 g
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                 2024 VI SUPER
 Page 4 of 20
 When the attack on subject matter jurisdiction is facial, it ‘ is an argument that considers a claim

 on its face and asserts that it is insufﬁcient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court

 based on a Jurisdictional defect, ’ and “the court must only consider the allegations ofthe complaint

 and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the

 plaintiff James St Jules v Thompson 2015 V I LEXIS 74 at *6 7 (V I Super Ct June 25

 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) In other words under a facial attack, the

 Court must ‘ apply the same standard of review it would use in considering a motion to dismiss

 under Rule 12(b)(6)    James St Jules, 2015 V I 74, at *7 On the other hand, when the attack on

subject matterjurisdiction is factual, the defendant disputes the existence of certain jurisdictional

facts alleged by plaintiffs” and the Court ‘ is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the

existence of its power to hear the case ’James St Jules, 2015 V 1 74, at *7; see Martinez v

Colombian Emeralds Inc 51 VI 174 189 (VI 2009) (Under Rule 12(b)(1) the court is free

to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case ”); see also

Daley Jeﬂers v Graham 69 V I 931            939 n 8 (2018) ( When an attack on subject matter

Jurisdiction is factual the Superior Court is free to evaluate the merits ofjurisdictional claims and

may look beyond the face of the complaint to make this determination ”) In such a case, “no

presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff‘s allegations        [and] the burden of proving the

existence of subject matter jurisdiction lies with the plaintiff James St Jules, 2015 V I 74, at *7,

see Franczs v Govtofthe VI No ST 13 CV 387 2014 VI LEXIS 43 at *2 3 (VI Super Ct

July 10 2014) ( Once a defendant challenges a plaintiff‘s pleading on FED R ClV P 12(b)(l)

grounds, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the Court has the authority to hear and

decide the case ”)
 Huddleston i M G C Inc et a!
 SX 2022 CV 480                                                                                $
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                               2024 VI SUPER
 Page 5 of 20
                  B Analysis

18       While MGC did not dispute that the VITCA is applicable in this instance the Court must

still perform its own analysis to determine that the VITCA is indeed applicable See Henry v

Dennery 2013 V 1 Supreme LEXIS 4 at *6 (V I 2013) (the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has

repeatedly instructed that parties cannot simply stipulate to the law )

                    i      Whether the VITCA is Applicable

‘1 9     The Revised Organic Act grants sovereign immunity to the Government of the Virgin

Islands for tort claims Sec Title 48 U S C § 1541(b) ( That no tort action shall be brought against

the government of the Virgin Islands or against any officer or employee thereof in his ofﬁcial

capacity without the consent of the legislature constituted by this Act [48 USCS § 1541 et seq ] )

“The VITCA provides the mechanism by which persons may sue the Government in tort in the

courts ofthe Virgin Islands     Fleming v Cruz 62 V I 702 718 (V I 2015) see Title 33 V I C §

3408(a)( Subject to the provisions of section 3416 of this chapter, the Government of the United

States Virgin Islands hereby waives its immunity from liability and action and hereby assumes

liability with respect to 111qu or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the

negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the Government of the United States

Virgin Islands while acting within the scope of his ofﬁce or employment, under circumstances

where the Government of the United States Virgin Islands, if a private person, would be liable to

the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred The

Government consents to have the liability determined in accordance with the same rule of law as

applied to actions in the courts of the Virgin Islands against individuals or corporations, Provided

That the claimant complies with the provisions of this chapter ) Here, MGC sued GVI for

contribution and indemniﬁcation based on tort law by claiming that GVI is jointly and severally
Huddleston v M G C Inc et 01
SK 2022 CV 480
Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                 2024 VI SUPER      5
Page 6 of 20

liable or wholly liable for Plaintiffs’ injury as the result the conduct of VIPD, which is an

“executive department in the Government of the Virgin Islands,” Title 3 V I C § 251, and under

VITCA, ‘Govemment of the Virgin Islands            includes the executive, legislative, and judicial

branches of the Government of the Virgin Islands, agencies and instrumentalities of the

Government of the Virgin Islands         Title 33 V I C § 3401 As such the VITCA is applicable

to the facts of this case

                    ii      Whether MGC Complied with the Pre Filing Requirements of the
                            VITCA

1] 10   The VITCA provides that “[n]0 Judgment shall be granted in favor of any claimant unless

such claimant shall have complied with the provisions of this section [3409]        Title 33 V I C §

3409 Title 33, section 3409 of the Virgin Islands Code provides

        No judgment shall be granted in favor of any claimant unless such claimant shall have
        complied with the provisions of this section applicable to his claim

        (a) a claim for the appropriation by the Government of lands or any right, title of interest
        in or to lands shall be ﬁled within two years after the accrual of such claim,

        (b) a claim by an executor or administrator of a decedent who leﬁ him or her surviving a
        husband, wife or next of kin, for damages for a wrongful act, neglect or default, on the pan
        of the Government by which the decedent's death was caused shall be ﬁled within ninety
        days aﬁer the appointment of such executor or administrator, unless the claimant shall
        within such time ﬁle a written notice of intention to ﬁle a claim therefor in which event the
        claim shall be ﬁled within two years aﬁer the death of the decedent In any event such
        claim shall be ﬁled within two years after the death of the decedent;

        (c) a claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injury caused by the
        tort of an ofﬁcer or employee of the Government of the United States Virgin Islands while
        acting as such ofﬁcer or employee, shall be ﬁled within ninety days after the accrual of
        such claim unless the claimant shall within such time ﬁle a written notice of intention to
        ﬁle a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be ﬁled within two years after the
        accrual of such claim

        A claimant who fails to ﬁle a claim or notice of intention, as provided in the foregoing
        subsections, within the time limited therein for ﬁling the notice of intention, may,
        nevertheless, in the discretion ofthe court, be permitted to ﬁle such claim at any time within
        two years after the accrual thereof, or in the case of a claim for wrongful death within two
 Huddleston v M G C Inc et a!
 SX 2022 CV 480
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                2024 VI SUPER      07
 Page 7 of 20

         years aﬁer the decedent's death The application for such permission shall be made upon
         motion based upon afﬁdavits showing a reasonable excuse for the failure to ﬁle the notice
         of intention and that the Virgin Islands or its appropriate department or agency had, prior
         to the expiration of the time limited for the ﬁling of the notice of intention, actual
         knowledge of the facts constituting the claim The claim proposed to be ﬁled, containing
         all of the information set forth in section 3410 of this title, shall accompany such
         application No such application shall be granted if the court shall ﬁnd that the Government
         of the United States Virgin Islands has been substantially prejudiced by the failure of the
         claimant to ﬁle such notice of intention within the time limited therefor But if the claimant
         shall be under legal disability, the claim may be presented within two years after such
         disability is removed

         Title 33 V I C § 3409
The VITCA further provides the requirements concerning the claim or the notice of intention

         The claim or notice of intention shall be ﬁled in the Ofﬁce of the Governor and a copy
         shall be served upon the Attorney General and a written receipt therefor shall be issued
         with the date of ﬁling indicated thereon The claim shall state the time when and the place
         where such claim arose, the nature of same, and items of damage or injuries claimed to
         have been sustained and the total sum claimed The notice of intention to ﬁle a claim shall
         set forth the same matters except that the items of damage or injuries and the sum claimed
         need not be stated The claim and notice of intention to ﬁle a claim shall be veriﬁed

        Title 33 V I C § 3410
1| 1]   The Court recognizes that the Virgin Islands Supreme Court has not yet determined

whether the pre ﬁling requirements of the VITCA are jurisdictional or claims processing rules

See e g Alexander v Wilson, 73 V I 528, 1[ 13 (V I 2020) ( It remains an issue of ﬁrst impression

in the Virgin Islands whether the pertinent provisions of the VITCA are jurisdictional, or claims

processing rules which may be waived ) Fleming v Cm 62 V I 702, 718 n 13 (V I 2015) (‘ In

this case, we do no decide whether the VITCA 3 claim ﬁling requirements are jurisdictional        We

leave a decision on whether the VITCA 3 claim ﬁling mandates are jurisdictional for another

day ’) However, in Richardson v Knud Handsen Mem [Hosp , 744 F 2d IOO7 1010 (3d Cir

1984), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in its capacity as the de facto court of last resort of the

Virgin Islands, held that compliance with the pre ﬁling requirements under the VITCA are
 Huddleston v M G C Inc et a1
 SK 2022 CV 480
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                               2024 VI SUPER          32
 Page 8 of 20

 jurisdictional, and Richardson remains binding on the Virgin Islands Superior Court See e g

 Yuxtang Peng v Williams 67 V I 482 485 n 2 (V I Super Ct July 24 2017) 6 Christopher v

 6 In Yuxtang Peng, the Court addressed the issue of whether Richardson is still binding on Virgin Islands Superior
 Court
          In Richardson the Third Circuit Court ofAppeals exercising its power as the ﬁnal arbiter of Virgin Islands
          local law   held that the terms under which the Government of the Virgin Islands consented to waive its
          immunity from tort liability as embodied in the VITCA are Jurisdictional and ‘ It follows that the terms may
          not be waived   744 F 2d at 1010 The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has made it clear that decisions
          rendered by the Third Circuit while serving as the de facto court of last resort in the Virgin Islands “are
         binding upon the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands even if they would only represent persuasive authority
         when [the Supreme Court] considers an issue Najawzcz 1 People of the Virgin Islands, 58 V I 315, 327
         28 (V l 2013) (intemal citation omitted); see also In re People of the Virgin Islands 51 V I 374 n 9 (V I
         2009) Thus the Third Circuit 5 holding in Richardson remains binding on this Court
         The Court notes that, while the case in Richardson originated in the District Court of the Virgin Islands in
         1980 the District Court was acting as a territorial court when it adjudicated Richardson 5 claim for wrongful
         death See Callwood l Enos 230 F 3d 627 43 V I 293 297 98 (3d Cir 2000) (The District Conn of the
         Virgin Islands used to have general original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under territorial law in
         which the amount in controversy was more than $500) see also Carty v Beech Aircraft Corp , 679 F 2d
          1051 1057 19 V l 641 (3d Cir 1982) (characterizing jurisdiction of the District Court of the Virgin Islands
         under the Revised Organic Act prior to the 1984 amendments as “more like a state court of general
         jurisdiction than a United States district court ) For a detailed description of the development of the
         judiciary of the Virgin Islands see James St Jules t Thompson 2015 V l LEXIS 74 at *16 2O
         67 V I 482 485 n 2 (V 1 Super Ct July 24 2017)
Furthermore, the Court notes that in this instance, the Court need not undertake a Banks analysis concerning the
VITCA because it is an issue of statutory interpretation rather than a detennination of common law See In re L 0 F ,
62 V I 655 661 n 6 (V 1 2015) (The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has established that a Banks analysis is not
required for statutory interpretation )      see also    Smith 1     Henley    67 V I     965    970 n 2 (V 1      2017)
(‘A Banks analysis was unnecessary, however, because the issue here is purely a matter of statutory interpretation
not common law ) Banks 1 Int] Rental & Leasmg Corp 55 V1 967 (VI 2011) Additionally the Court also notes
that in Wallace v People ofthe V I , the Virgin Islands Supreme Court reafﬁnned that [i]t is true that prior decisions
of the Appellate Division remain binding upon the Superiox Court unless overturned by this Court 71 V I 703, 738
n 5 (V I 2019) (citing Defoe i Phillip 56 V I 109 119 (V I 2012) ( This Court is not required to follow       decisions
of the District Court or the Third Circuit interpreting local Virgin Islands law In addition to previously holding that
decisions of our predecessor court, the Appellate Division of the District Court of the Virgin Islands, are
not binding on us, we have also recently held that this Court    unlike the Superior Court      is not compelled to treat
the Third Circuit's interpretation of Virgin Islands law as binding precedent Although the establishment of this Court
has changed the relationship between the local Virgin islands judiciary and the Third Circuit, this Court's creation did
not erase pre existing case law, and thus precedent that was extant when the Court became operational continues
unless and until this Court address the issues discussed there Accordingly, decisions rendered by the Third Circuit and
the Appellate Division of the District Court are binding upon the Superior Court even if they would only represent
persuasive authority when this court considers an issue ’” (quoting Judi’s ofSt Crozx Car Rental v Weston, 49 V I
396 403 n 7 (VI 2008)’ In re People of the V I 51 VI 374 389 n 9 (VI 2009))» The Court is nevertheless
cognizant that, in ﬂamed t ﬂamed, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court held that “decisions of the Appellate Division
and the Third Circuit addressing issues of Virgin Islands common law are no longer binding on the Superior Court, ’
63 V l 529 535 (VI 2015) (citing Go» I o} the VI 1 Connor 60 V l 597 605 n 1 (VI 2014)) and that decisions
issued by the Appellate Division after 2007, like decisions of the District Court or Third Circuit heard through
diversity or supplementaljurisdiction are not binding on the Superior Court, 63 V I at 535 (citing Better Bldg Mamt
o} the! I Inc 1 Lee 60VI 740 755 56 (VI 2014) Waltersv Walters 60V] 768 777 n 10(VI 2014) People
v Simmonds 56 VI 84 90 (V1 Super Ct 2012) Edwardsv HOVE’VSA LLC 497 F 3d 355 359 61 (3d Cir 2007))
However Richardson did not concern common law and it was issued prior to 2007 As such until the Virgin Islands
 Huddleston v M G C Inc et a1
 SX 7072 CV 480                                                                                            3
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                         2024 VI SUPER
 Page 9 of 20
 Gov Juan F Luzs Hosp & Med Ctr 2016 165 *1! (V I Super Ct Oct 12 2016) ( despite any

 contrary intimations from the Supreme Court, this Court is bound by the Third Circuit's precedent

 in chhardson and must consider challenges to the VITCA' s preﬁling requirements as challenges

 to subject matterjurisdiction unless and until the Supreme Court ofthe Virgin Islands conclusively

 determines otherwise ’); Richardson v Schneider Medical Regional Cetner, 2017 V I LEXIS 168

 (V I Super Ct Dec 4 2017)‘ Hansen v Gov Juan F Luzs Hosp & Med Ctr 2018 V I LEXIS

 87 *9 (V 1 Super Ct June 22 2018)

ﬂ 12     Given that GVI s motion to dismiss alleged lack of jurisdiction based on MGC’s

noncompliance with the preﬁling requirements of the VITCA, it depends on a determination of

facts    such as whether MGC timely complied with the pre ﬁling requirements of the VITCA by

ﬁling the claim or notice of intention with the Ofﬁce of the Governor and serving a copy upon the

Attorney General Thus, GVI made a factual attack on the Court 8 power to hear this instant case

against GVI, which means that the Court is free to weigh the evidence and MGC has the burden

of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction

1] 13    In this instance, the Court must determine the accrual date of MGC’s claims against GVI

See Samuel v Gov t ofthe V I 44 V I 201 205 (V l Terr Ct March 1 2002)( Determining an

accrual date is essential in assessing whether a claimant has complied with the pre ﬁling

procedures of VITCA, speciﬁcally the stringent 90 day notice period to ﬁle a claim or notice of

intent ’) In summary, MGC relied on Dublin and GVI relied on Martina for the determination

of the accrual date for MGC 5 contribution claim, and neither party made any attempt to cite or

Supreme Court explicitly declares that all decisions of the Appellate Division and the Third Circutt are no longer
binding on the Virgin Islands Superior Court or deﬁnitively proclaims that the pre ﬁling requirements of the VITCA
are not jurisdictional, the Court continues to ﬁnd Richardson binding
 Huddleslon 1 M G C Inc eta]
 SX 2022 CV 480
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                            2024 VI SUPER 6
 Page 10 of 20

 distinguish any authority against their position7 In any event, the cases cited by MGC and 6V]

Dublin and Martinez          are not binding on this Court because the decision of a Territorial Court

judge is not binding upon a Superior Court judge 3 See Farris v Nurse 76 V I 492, 498 n 8 (V I

2022) (“It is well established that a prior decision of one Superior Court judge in one case does

not constitute controlling authority in any subsequent proceeding ’ )(quoting Ednei v Edney, 64

VI 661 665 n2 (V1 2016)) see also In the Matter on0                           60 VI 654 661 n 8 (VI 2014)

( [T]he decision of a single Superior Court judge                 is not binding precedent on other Superior

Court judges ) (citing Threadgzll v Armstrong World Indus 928 F 2d 1366 1371 & n 7 (3d Cir

1991)) Furthermore while the VITCA was patterned after the New York equivalent                             the New

York Court of Claims Act (hereinaﬁer ‘ NYCCA ), the notice provisions therein are in fact

different See Gan ale. v Stevens N0 82 191 1983 U S Dist LEXIS 20508 at *4 5 n 2 (D VI

Mar 22, 1983) (‘ Although the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act was ‘primarily drawn from’ the

New York Court of Claims Act N Y Judiciary Law §§8 12 (McKinney 1981) the ﬁling

requirements contained in the two statutes differ in one dramatic respect The New York act

7 The Court reminds the parties that they have a duty to cite authority for and against the positions being advocated,
and not just authority that supports its position See V l R Cw P ll(b)(5) ( By presenting to the court a pleading
written motion or other paper     whether by signing ﬁling submitting or later advocating it      an attorney or self
represented party certiﬁes that to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances       that the applicable Virgin Islands law has been cited, including authority
for and against the positions being advocated by the party ) (emphasis added)
The Court must note that interestingly CV! and MGC only made arguments as to the accrual of MGC 5 contribution
claim and not as to MGC s indemniﬁcation claim This is an example of why it is important for a litigant to comply
with Rule 8, which mandates that the pleading should set forth counts in separate numbered paragraphs with separate
designation of the speciﬁc names of each count in the pleadings V 1 R ClV P 8 It is for the beneﬁt of everyone
involved the plaintiff the defendant the Court to have the claims clearly identiﬁed See Arno v Hess Corp , 71
V1 463,499 (V1 Super Ct Oct 17 2019)( the law favors clarity and precision especially in pleadings ) In the
interest of efﬁciency, the Court will nevertheless address the accrual of both claims herein in the event that MGC
intended to proceed with both claims against GVI
8 The Territorial Court is the predecessor of the Superior Court Manda i Govt ofthe VI , 56 V I 194 201 n 3 (V I
2012) (observing that the name of the Territorial Court was changed to the Superior Court on October 29 2004), and
thus the Territorial Court and the modern Superior Court are treated as equivalents see Farms, 76 V I at 498 n 8
(treating the Territorial Court as the direct equivalent of the modem Superior Court) (citing Hodge v Bluebeard's
Castle Inc 62 V I 671 676 & n 2 (V I 2015)
 Huddleston v M G C Inc 6! a!
 SK 2022 CV 480
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                               2024 VI SUPER 6
 Page 1] of 20

 provides that the ﬁling of a ‘claim actually triggers the commencement of a lawsuit in the abate

 Court of Claims By contrast, neither the ‘notice of intention nor the claim’ described in our act

 amounts to a civil complaint In Bye i New York State, 90 Misc 2d 265 394 N Y S 2d 381 383

(Ct (I 1977) the Court of Claims acknowledged that a document which is not the vehicle for

commencing a lawsuit cannot properly be made ‘the subject ofattack as substantively insufﬁcient

because there [is] nothing to dismiss ”’) (citation omitted), see also Ashley v Am Airlines Inc ,

No 85 CW 0614 (PKL) 1988 U S Dist LEXIS 11612 at *15 I6 18 (S DN Y Oct 21 1988)

( ‘Upon examination, however the Court ﬁnds that the VITCA differs from the NYCCA (in both

its earlier and current versions) in several signiﬁcant respects   Finally and most importantly in

the present case, the New York Court of Appeals has taken a different view than a Virgin Islands

court in deciding a key question under each act      namely, when a claim for indemniﬁcation or

contribution against the government accmes for purposes of the Act's notice requirements      While

both acts raise the gate which had barred plaintiffs from bringing suit against the government at

common law, the NYCCA offers plaintiffs a relatively unobstructed avenue to recovery, while the

VITCA provides a much narrower crawlspace ) As such, the Court will not resort to New York

judicial decisions in this area for guidance

1] 14   Here, by alleging a contribution claim against GVl, MGC is alleging that GVI also played

a role in causing injury to Plaintiffs and thus seeking contribution from GVI in the event that MGC

is found liable to Plaintiffs; by alleging an indemniﬁcation claim against GVl, MGC is alleging

that GVl was solely responsible in causing injury to Plaintiffs and thus seeking to shift the entire

liability from itself to GVl in the event that MGC is found liable to Plaintiffs See Willie v

Amerada Hess Corp       66 V I 23 87 (V I Super Ct Feb 28 2017) ( Indemniﬁcation and

contribution differ in the extent to which a tortfeasor is able to rid himself of liability Where
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a!
8X 2022 CV 480
Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                             2024 VI SUPER 6
Page 12 of 20
Indus Inc 502 F 2d 259 11 VI 220 241 n 17 (3d Cir 1974) (emphasis added» Given that

neither party has identiﬁed a statute or a binding decision from an authoritative court that addresses

the issue of whether the accrual of contribution claim and indemniﬁcation claim is the same as the

underlying predicate tort a Banks analysis is necessary 9 See Banks v International Rental &

Leasmg Corp 55 V I 967 977 78 (V I 2011) see also Gov t ofthe Virgin Islands v Connor 60

V I 597 (V I 2014) (‘ Thus, the Superior Court, when considering a question not foreclosed by

prior precedent from this Court must perform a three part analysis as set forth in Banks ”) In

Robbins v Port ofSale Inc , the court performed a Banks analysis as to the issue of whether the

limitations of actions for indemnity and contribution are the same as the predicate tort's, which

also addressed the accrual date of such claims 62 V I 151 154 (V I Super Ct March 6 2015)

The Robbins court concluded that the soundest rule of law for the Virgin Islands is that “that the

statute of limitations for contribution and indemnity in the Virgin Islands is not coterminous with

the statute of limitations for the predicate tort; the causes of action for contribution and indemnity

do not accrue at the time of the tort, but only when liability is discharged ” Id , 62 V I at 158 59

Having reviewed the Banks analysis conducted in Robbins, this Court agrees with its reasoning

and conclusion and adopts its Banks analysis and conclusion as though the same was set forth

herein Based on this conclusion, the Court ﬁnds that the 90 day notice period has not expired

However, this raises the issue of whether a claimant can comply with the VITCA’s pre ﬁling

requirements prior to the accrual of a contribution claim/indemniﬁcation claim The language of

9 “A Banks analysis calls for the balancing of three non dispositive factors that include “( 1) whether any Virgin
Islands courts have previously adopted a particular rule; (2) the position taken by a majority of courts from other
jurisdictions, and (3) most importantly, which approach represents the soundest rule for the Virgin Islands "
Reynolds v Ro/m 70 VI 887 893 (VI 2019) (quoting Simon v Joseph 59 VI 611 623 (VI 2013)) Although
only the Superior Court is required to conduct Banks analyses Connor 60 V I at 603 (citing Banks, 55 V I 967) the
parties are again reminded of their duties under Rule 1 l of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure See supra
footnote 7
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a1
SX 2022 CV 480
Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                 2024 VI SUPER ’5
Page 13 of 20

However, this raises the issue of whether a claimant can comply with the VITCA’s pre ﬁling

requirements prior to the accrual of a contribution claim/indemniﬁcation claim The language of

Title 33 V I C § 3409(c) is ambiguous as to this issue since the statute s ‘silence could be

interpreted as either permitting or not permitting compliance prior to the accrual of the claim See

One St Peter LLC v 3d of Land Use Appeals 67 VI 920 924 (2017) ( Statutory language

is ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one interpretation ”) Thus, the Conn will now

‘ proceed to examine the legislative history ofthe statute and its purpose to ascertain if [a pr0posed]

interpretation was within the legislature's intent ’ One St Peter LLC v Bd ofLand Use Appeals,

67 V I 920 926 (V I 2017) (quoting Sonson v People 59 V I 590 598 (V I 2013))                 [C]ourts

must assume that the legislature intends for the entirety of the statutory language, as well as the

whole statutory scheme, to be effective, unless to do so would lead to unjust or absurd results or

would otherwise undermine the legislative intent       Willis v People of the V I 71 V I 789, 825

(V 1 2019) In Brunn v Dowdye, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court identiﬁed that the intent of the

pre ﬁling notice requirements under the VITCA is to afford the Government an opportunity to

 make an investigation in order to determine if the claims should be settled without suit      59 V I

899 911 (V I 2013) see thllzps v Govt ofthe VI No 617 1983 1984 V I LEXIS 38 at *3

(V I Terr Ct Aug 14 1984) ( The purpose behind the ninety day notice provision of the Tort

Claims Act is to prevent the presentation of stale claims so that the Government has an adequate

opportunity to investigate and to explore the merits of a claim and to pursue a settlement while the

evidence remains fresh in the memory of witnesses ’) To interpret Title 33 V I C § 3409(c) to

not permit compliance prior to the accrual of a contribution claim/indemniﬂcation claim would

undermine the legislative intent to afford the Government an opportunity to investigate More

speciﬁcally, since Plaintiffs are suing MGC for the underlying predicate tort and MGC is seeking
Huddleston » M G c Inc et a!
SX 2022 CV 480                                                                                 %
Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                 2024 VI SUPER
Page 14 of 20
contribution/indemniﬁcation from GVI, it aligns with legislative intent to notify GVI sooner while

Plaintiffs’ suit against MGC is still ongoing rather than later aﬁer Plaintiffs suit against MGC

have concluded Accordingly, the Court ﬁnds that Title 33 V I C § 3409(c) permits compliance

ofthe VITCA’s pre ﬁling requirements prior to the accrual of a contribution claim/indemniﬁcation

claim Thus the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter so long as MGC complies

with the VITCA’s pre ﬁling requirements The Court ﬁnds that, by serving the Attorney General

with a copy of its third party complaint, MGC has complied with VITCA 3 pre ﬁling requirement

of serving a copy of its claims upon the Attorney General Title 33 V I C § 3410 However, MGC

still needs to ﬁle its claims with the Ofﬁce of the Governor since notifying the Attorney General

is not the same as notifying the Ofﬁce of the Governor, which the VITCA clearly required Title

33 V I C § 3410 ( The claim or notice of intention shall be ﬁled in the Ofﬁce of the Governor and

a copy shall be served upon the Attorney General        ) As such, the Court will order MGC to ﬁle

a copy of its third party complaint at the Ofﬁce of the Governor and upon MGC ﬁling a notice of

compliance, GVI s motion to dismiss for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be deemed

denied See James St Jules 2015 V l 74, at *7 (noting that when an attack on subject matter

jurisdiction is factual, “no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff‘s allegations   [and] the

burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction lies with the plaintiff )

        2   Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted

1] [5   In its motion, GVI argued that MGC s third party complaint fail[ed] to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted because in the context of the facts alleged, [GVI] owes no

individualized duty to members of the public, and thus the actions of the VIPD in responding to

[MGC’s] false alarm cannot be the basis for a negligence claim ’ (Motion 10 ll ) GVI stated that

“[w]hether law enforcement owes a particularized or individualized duty has not been determined
Huddleston 1 M G C Inc e! a]
SX 2022 CV 480                                                                                     6
Memorandum OPIIIIOII and Order                                              2024 VI SUPER
Page 15 of 20
by Virgin Islands’ Courts” and thus, after conducting 21 Banks analysis, concluded that the soundest

rule for the Virgin Islands is to hold that the Law Enforcement owes no Individualized Duty

Absent a Special Relationship      (Id , at 13) (emphasis omitted )

1| 16   In its opposition, MGC argued that the Court should deny GVI’s motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because “(1) MGC has made sufﬁcient

claims putting the GVI on notice for negligent acts and omissions ’ of the VIPD ofﬁcers as

contemplated by V I R Civ P 8 and the VITCA and (2) at this juncture procedurally the Court

does not need to decide the motion to dismiss on the merits     (Opp 7 )

11 17   In its reply, GVI reiterated that ‘ law enforcement owes no general duty to the public ’ and

‘ nowhere in the VITCA does the statute create duties that do not otherwise exist       (Reply )

                A Standard of Review

1] 18   Rule 12(b)(6) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter Rule 12(b)(6) )

allows a party to assert the defense of “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ’

by motion and move for dismissal The Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufﬁciency of the complaint

Rule 8 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “Rule 8”) requires, Inter aha, “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief     because this

is a notice pleading jurisdiction      and the pleading shall be set forth in separate numbered

paragraphs as provided in Rule 10(b), with separate designation of counts and defenses for each

claim identiﬁed in the pleading     VI R Clv P 8(a)(2) As a notice pleading jurisdiction, ‘ [a]

complaint is sufﬁcient ‘so long as it adequately alleges facts that put an accused party on notice of

claims brought against it      0xley 2018 VI LEXIS at *3 (quoting M1113 Williams 67 V I 574

585 (V I 2017)); accord Arno, 71 V I at 501 (“‘Plead the who, what, where, when, and how

sufﬁcient information to put a defendant on notice of the conduct and actions the plaintiff
 Huddleston v M G C Inc et (1!
 SX 2022 CV 480
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                              2024 VI SUPER 6
 Page 16 of 20

 complains of        (brackets and citation omitted» “[A] complaint need not plead facts to support

 each element of a claim in order to adequately allege facts that put an accused party on notice or

to show[] the pleader is entitled to relief under V I R CIV P 8(a)(2)[] [b]ut a complaint should

provide factual allegations sufﬁcient to advise the responding party of the transaction or

occurrence on which the claim is based and identify the claim, reciting its elements, so as to enable

the defendant to respond intelligently and to enable the Court to determine on a motion to

dismiss under VI R Civ P 12(b)(6) whether the claim is adequately pled                              Oxley 2018 VI

LEXIS at *10 '0 see Mills Williams 67 VI at 585 (citing VI R Civ P 8 Reporters Note)

(“Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 8 expressly states that the Virgin Islands “is

a notice pleading jurisdiction, V I R Civ P 8(a) and the Reporter's Note eliminates any doubt

that this language is calculated to apply[] an approach that declines to enter dismissals of cases

based on failure to allege speciﬁc facts which, if established plausibly entitle the pleader to

relief ’ ) (emphasis in original); see also Brathwatte v H D V 1 Holding Co , 2017 V I LEXIS 76,

at *3 (V I Super Ct May 24 2017) (acknowledging that Virgin Islands Civil Procedure Rule

8(a)(2) eliminates the plausibility standard and instead will permit a complaint so long as it

 adequately alleges facts that put an accused party on notice of claims brought against it ))

1] 19    ‘ When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court does not address

the merits       Oliver v Termmzx Int] Co 73 V I 210 214 (V I Super Ct April 26 2020) accord

Arno, 71 V I at 494 Instead, courts assume all reasonable factual allegations in the complaint as

'0 The Oxley court noted that ‘considering the policy of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands requiring the Superior
Court to conduct a Banks analysis to determine the applicable common law when confronted with an issue of common
law that has not yet been adopted by the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands in order to enable the Superior Court to
recognize a potential Banks issue and order the parties to brief it this Court underscores that a complaint should recite
the elements of a common law claim so as to make clear the legal theory presented, given that elements among
common law claims of the same name may vary 2018 V I LEXIS *10 11 This Court agrees
Huddleston i M G C Inc et a!
SX 2022 CV 480                                                                                 ,5
Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                 2024 VI SUPER
Page [7 of 20
true and draw all fair inferences from such allegations ’ ’ Arno, 71 V I at 494 (quoting In re Kelvin

Manbodh Asbestos thlg Sezers 47 V I 375 380 (V I Super Ct March 3 2006)) However

“[a]llegations will not be reasonable, nor will inferences in favor of the plaintiffbe fair, where they

contradict facts either contained in the public record or Judicially noticed by the Court        In re

Kelvm Manbodh Asbestos thlg Serzes 47 V I at 380

                B Analysis

11 20   As noted above, MGC failed to comply with Rule 8 when its third party complaint failed

to set forth counts in separate numbered paragraphs with separate designation of the speciﬁc names

of each count, but the Court nevertheless deduced that MGC alleged a contribution claim and an

indemniﬁcation claim against GVI for the actions of VIPD '1 The Court ﬁnds unpersuasive GVI’s

argument that GVI cannot be held liable for VIPD s actions because VIPD does not owe a general

duty to the public and thereby, VIPD s actions in responding to [MGC 5] false alarm cannot be

the basis for a negligence claim   (Motion ) The plain language of the VITCA is unambiguous that

the VITCA is applicable whenever an injury or loss of property or personal injury or death

(collectively, hereinafter loss”) is caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any

person acting on behalf of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government

“while acting within the scope of his ofﬁce or employment, under circumstances where the

Government of the United States Virgin Islands, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant

in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred, ’ and that the

Government is to, after a claimant’s compliance with the VITCA’s pre ﬁling requirements waive

its immunity from liability and action, and assume liability with respect to such Loss with no

exception made as to the Loss caused by the negligent or wrongﬁil act or omission of VIPD Title
 Huddleston v M G C Inc et a!
 SK 2022 CV 480
 Memorandum Opinion and Order                                                           2024 VI SUPER 1 2 2
 Page 18 of 20

 33 V I C §§ 3401, 3408(a) 1° ‘ The ﬁrst step when interpreting a statute is to determine whether

 the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning                 Miller v People ofthe V I , 67 V I

 827, 844 (2017) It is well settled that when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous,

 no further interpretation is required See Thomas v People ofthe V I 69 V I 913 925 (V I 2018)

(noting that because ‘the statutory language [of 14 V 1 C § 2101(a)] is plain and unambiguous,

no further interpretation is required” ); see also Codrmgton v People ofthe V I , 56 V I 176, 185

(V 1 2012) ( Accordingly 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's meaning ’) “The Virgin

Islands Legislature has instructed that [w]ords and phrases shall be read with their context and

shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the English language ’ Title 1

V 1 C § 42 Miller 67 V I at 844 There is nothing in the VITCA to suggest that the Virgin Islands

Legislature intended to carve out an exception for Loss caused by the negligent or wrongful act or

p Title 33 section 3401 of the Virgin Islands Code provides
         As used in this chapter the term
                  Government of the Virgin Islands includes the executive legislative, and judicial branches of the
                 Govemment of the Virgin Islands, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government of the Virgin
                  Islands and Governing Boards and Commissions of the Government of the Virgin Islands, including
                 but not limited to the Virgin Islands Government Hospitals and Health Facilities Corporation, but
                 does not include any contractor with the Government of the Virgin Islands
                   Employee of the Government includes elected or appointed ofﬁcials, employees, members of
                 Governing Boards and Commissions and other persons acting on behalf of the Government of the
                 United States Virgin Islands
        Title 33 V I C 9' 3408
Title 33 section 3408(a) of the Virgin Islands Code provides
        Subject to the provisions of section 3416 of this chapter, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands
        hereby waives its immunity from liability and action and hereby assumes liability with respect to injury or
        loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an
        employee of the Govemment of the United States Virgin Islands while acting within the scope of his ofﬁce
        or employment, under circumstances where the Government of the United States Virgin Islands if a private
        person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission
        occurred The Government consents to have the liability determined in accordance with the same rule of law
        as applied to actions in the courts of the Virgin Islands against individuals or corporations; Provided That
        the claimant complies with the provisions of this chapter
        Title 33 V [C § 3408(a)
 Huddleston t M G C Inc et a]
 ﬁlianfl‘tﬁiigpinion and Order                                               2024 VI SUPER i
 Page 19 of 20
 omission of a VIPD ofﬁcer acting on behalf of VIPD, an executive branch of the Government,

 while acting within the scope of his ofﬁce or employment under circumstances where the

 Government, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the

 place where the act or omission occurred, so that the Government would not to waive its immunity

 from liability and action, and would not assume liability with respect to such Loss [f the drafters

 intended to make such an exception as to VIPD ofﬁcers then the draﬁers clearly could have done

 so by explicitly including the exception in the VITCA As such, the Court will give effect to the

 plain and unambiguous language of the VITCA and hold that the Government will after a

claimant’s compliance with the VITCA’s pre ﬁling requirements, waive its immunity from

liability and action, and assume liability with respect to the Loss caused by the negligent or

wrongful act or omission of Government employees          including VIPD employees       while acting

within the scope of his ofﬁce or employment, under circumstances where the Government, if a

private person would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the

act or omission occurred As such, the Court rejects GVl’s argument that GVl cannot be held liable

for VlPD’s actions because VIPD does not owe a general duty to the public, and in viewing all the

factual allegations in the third party complaint as true and construing it liberally in the light most

favorable to MGC the Court ﬁnds that the third party complaint adequately allege facts that put

an accused party on notice of claims brought against it Mills Williams, 67 V I at 585

Accordingly, the Court will deny GVI s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted

                                         CONCLUSION

1] 21   For the reason stated above the Court will order MGC to ﬁle a copy of its third party

complaint at the Ofﬁce of the Governor and ﬁle a notice of compliance thereafter, and deny GVI’s
Huddleston v M G C Inc et a]
5x 2027 cv 480                                                                             6
Memorandum Opinion and Order                                             2024 VI SUPER
Page 20 of 20

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted At this juncture

the Court will order this matter stayed pending MGC ﬁling a notice of compliance to prove the

existence of subject matter jurisdiction Accordingly it is hereby

        ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Memorandum

Opinion and Order, MGC shall FILE a copy of its third party complaint at the Ofﬁce of the

Governor and FILE 3 notice with the Court to advise compliance thereof, and upon MGC s ﬁling

its notice of compliance, CW 3 motion to dismiss for the lack of subject matter Jurisdiction will

be DEEMED DENIED without any ﬁthher action from the Court It is further

        ORDERED that GVI s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted is DENIED And it is further

       ORDERED that this matter is STAYED pending MGC ﬁling a notice of compliance and

upon MGC s ﬁling its notice of compliance, the stay will be LIFTED without any further action

from the Court
                                             “A
       DONE and so ORDERED this g               day of January 2024

ATTEST
Tamara Charles
                                                MiM2
                                                  HAROLD W L WILLOCK
Clerk of the Court                          Administrative J udge of the Superior Court

By    \ 1% 2M
         ourt Clerk Supervisorz:
        IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                    District of St. Croix

Charles W. Huddleston et al,            Case Number: SX-2022-CV-00480
                  Plaintiff             Action: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional
v.                                      Distress

M.G.C. Inc.,
                   Defendant.

                       NOTICE of ENTRY
                              of
                  Memorandum Opinion and Order
To Nathan Mirocha, Esq.                    Douglas L. Capdeville, Esq.
                                           Christopher M. Timmons, Esq.

                  Please take notice that on January 23, 2024
         a(n)             Memorandum Opinion and Order
                 dated     January 22, 2024      was/were entered
                     by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.

Dated    January 23, 2024                                Tamara Charles
                                                        Clerk of the Court
                                             By:

                                                         Janeen Maranda
                                                          Court Clerk II