Court Opinion

ID: 9947282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 15:17:29.441251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:18.143381
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                      DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
                                          *************

UNITED RESOURCES LTD CO                             )
                                                    ) CASE NO ST 2020 CV 00493
                              Plaintiff             )
                                               )        ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
v                                              )        BREACH OF CONTRACT UNJUST
                                               )        ENRICHMENT IMPLIED IN FACT
VIRGIN ISLANDS WASTE MANAGEMENT )                       CONTRACT ACCOUNT STATED
AUTHORITY ROGER MERRITT in his                 )        AND FAILURE TO FUND AND PAY
ofﬁcial capacity as executive director of the  )        PER V I LAW
VIRGIN ISLANDS WASTE MANAGEMENT )
AUTHORITY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE )
VIRGIN ISLANDS and ANTHONY THOMAS )
in his ofﬁcial capacity as commissioner of the )        JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY AND                     )
PROCUREMENT                                    )
                                                    )
                              Defendants            )

                                    Cite as 2024 VI Super 9U

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ﬁll    This matter comes before the Court on
       1       Defendant Government of the Virgin Islands’ Motion To Dismiss (“Motion”), ﬁled
               February 22 2021'

       2       Plaintiff’s Opposition To The Government Of The Virgin Islands Motion To
               Dismiss (“Opposition”) ﬁled March 18 2021; and

       3       Government of the Virgin Islands Reply To Plaintiff’s Opposition To 0V! 5
               Motion To Dismiss (‘ Reply ), ﬁled April 16, 2021
1|2   The Court will grant in part and deny in part the Government of the Virgin Islands (‘ GVI”)
Motion as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over GVI with regards to some of the claims

       I       INTRODUCTION
1|3    On December 21 2020 Plaintiff United Resources Ltd Co (“United”) ﬁled a Complaint
alleging eight (8) counts Count [ Breach of Emergency Hurricane Contract Count II Breach
of Oral Contracts Count [II Breach of Implied In Fact Contract, Count [V Unjust Enrichment,
Count V Account Stated Count VI Open Account; Count VII Injunctive Relief; and Count
VIII Failure To Fund And Pay United demanded a jury trial in its Complaint GVI made a
 United Resources Ltd Co v V] Waste Mgmt Au”: e! a!                                      2024 V1 Super 9U
 Case No ST 2020 CV 00493
 Memorandum Opinion and Order
 Page 2 of [0

 limited appearance to challenge this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule of Civil
 Procedure l2(b)(1) and to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted
 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) '
114      Citing to V I CODE ANN title 29 § 496 GVI states that Virgin Islands Waste Management
Authority (“VIWMA”) is an autonomous agency with the power to sue and be sued in its name as
well as execute its own contracts 2 GVI claims that United fails to assert an actual claim of action
against it as GVI states that it is not a party to the debris removal contract in any form implied,
written, or oral 3 GVI points out that VIWMA’s procurement powers are “autonomous of GVI’s
procurement and supply system ”4 GVI also states that there is “no assertion that the alleged debt
due pursuant to the debris removal contract arises out of any conduct attributable to GVI” and
therefore GVI should be removed as a party 5 Lastly, GVI states that United did not allege that
GVI acted or failed to act in its administrative duty in dispersing payments 6
115      United opposes GVI’s Motion and maintains that the public funds used by VIWMA are
controlled by GVI and subject to its oversight 7 United asserts that the establishment of VIWMA
did not automatically equate to the suspension of GVI’s procurement and supply processes under
31 V I C §§ 231 251 8 United states that VIWMA s enabling statute is almost void of a
procurement process for which VIWMA must follow ”9 United maintains that the procurement
rules outlined in Title 31 are triggered when funds from the local treasury are used and Title 31
makes broad references ofapplicability to authorities and independent instrumentalities, not solely
agencies '0 Citing t0 1] S7 and Exhibit E of its own Complaint United maintains that it is GVI s
Department of Finance which has authorization over the funds sent to VIWMA to pay
contractors ”"
1l6    GVI replies that 29 V I C § 497(d) plainly states that GVI is not responsible for the debts
of VIWMA        the debts, obligations, assets, contracts, bonds, notes debentures receipts
expenditures, accounts, funds, facilities and property of the Authority shall be deemed to be those
of the Authority and not to be those of the Government of the Virgin Islands[ ]’ '2 Additionally
GVI cites to this Court 8 decision in Nibbs v Gov t of the VI '3 where this Court stated
‘ [i]mportantly the Government has immunized itself from VlWMA’s debts Because the

1Def 5 Mot I
’ Def 5 Mot 4
3 Def 5 Mot 4
4 Def 5 Mot 4
5 Def 5 Mot S
6 Def 5 Mot 5
7 PI 5 Opp n 2 5
3 P] s Opp n 5 6
9 Pl s Opp n 6
'° Pl s Opp n 7
" PI 5 Opp n 8 Exhibit E is a text exchange wherein VIWMA through Amber Walker notiﬁed United that their
request for payment had been sent to the Department of Finance
1 29 V [C §497(d) Def 5 Reply 5
'3 Case No ST 2013 CV 00520 2015 VI LEXIS 120 (V 1 Super Ct Sept 30 2015)
Untied Resources Ltd Co v VI Waste Mgmt Ami: et al                                                 2024 V1 Super 9U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00493
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 3 of 10

Government has immunized itself from VIWMA’s debts, VIWMA is responsible for paying
judgments rendered against it ”'4 GVI therefore asserts that “contrary to Plaintiff‘s assertion, GVI
is immune from VIWMA’s debts and has no obligation to pay or force VIWMA to pay the alleged
debt due under the debris removal c0ntract(s) ”'5
117    Additionally, GVI asserts that United’s theory that GVI controls VIWMA procurement is
unfounded, as VIWMA is “not included in the list of entities that the Commissioner [of the VI
Department of Property and Procurement] serves ”'6 GVI points out that the statute governing
VIWMA does provide for procurement, giving the Executive Director of VIWMA procurement
powers, and that GVI and VIWMA procurement processes are separate and independent of each
other '7 GVI concludes by stating that, as GVI is not a party to any form of contract with United
this Court cannot grant the relief that Plaintiff seeks, the case must be dismissed with prej udice '8

         [1        LEGAL STANDARD

                       A Rule 12(b)(1) Motion To Dismiss
118      Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to assert by motion the
defense that the Court lacks subject matterjurisdiction19 As Rule 12(b)(1) is a jurisdictional
attack, the Court must consider that motion before reaching 12(b)(6) motions 20 A Rule 12(b)(1)
motion may be treated either as facial or factual 2' The difference, as explained by the Virgin
Islands District Court is that “[o]n a facial attack a court must accept the allegations in the
complaint as true” whereas with a factual challenge “the plaintiff’s allegations are not presumed
to be true 22 With a facial attack the Court only looks to the complaint and any documents
referenced in or attached to the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff 2‘ However,

'4 Id at *15 Def 5 Reply 5
'5 Def 5 Reply 6
'6 Def 5 Reply 6
‘7 Def 5 Reply 6
'3 Def 5 Reply 7
'9V] R CW P 12(b)(l)
0 Brunn v Dowdye 59 V 1 899 904 (V l 2013) (citing V I Gov I Hosp & Health Facdmes Corp v Gov I q/lhe
V I 50 V I 276 279 (V I 2008))( Prior to considering the merits of a matter before it a court is obligated to examine
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute "); see also In re ( o’estates Trust Fee Ling 837 F Supp
104 105 (E D Pa 1993) (“When a motion under Rule 12 is based on more than one ground the court should consider
the 12(b)(1) challenge ﬁrst because if it must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, all other
defenses and objections become moot )
" Rae v Cheelam 2019 VI SUPER 99U 118 (citing ﬁrst Raymondv Asscfa Super Ct Civ No ST 15 CV 185
2017 V l LEXIS 153 at *2 (V I Super Nov 8 2017) (unpublished) then Williams v Juan F Luis Hosp 2019 VI
Super 54U 11 3) ( Rule 12(b)(1) motions attacking the court 5 subject matter jurisdiction may either be treated as
facial or factual ”)
   Wetss v Maccaferrl Inc Civil No 14 46 2016 U S Dist LEXIS 50436 at *4 (DVI Apr 11 2016) (citing
Mortensen v Firs! Fed Sav & Loan Ass n 549 F 2d 884 891 892 n 17 (3d Cir 1977)) (unpublished)
 3 Hansenv Gov Juan F LUIS Hosp & Med Ctr Case No SX 2015 CV 00509 2018 V I LEXIS 87 at *4 5 (V1
Super Ct June 33 2018) (citing James S! Jules v Thompson Civil No SX 2009 CV 00136 2015 V 1 LEXIS 74
at *7 (VI Super Ct June 25 2015) (unpublished)) (unpublished)
United Resources Ltd Co v V I Waste Mgmt Ami: e! a!                                         2024 V1 Super 9U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00493
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 of 10

when the challenge is factual, the Court must evaluate the merits of the jurisdictional claim based
on the evidence offered by either party and the plaintiff is not afforded a presumption of
truthfulness 2"
                     B Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss
119     Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to challenge a pleading for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ”25 To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, the
plaintiff must provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief,”26 and [t]he facts alleged in the pleadings, and any inferences drawn therefrom must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff ”27 All material allegations in the complaint are
taken as true, and the Court must construe all facts in a light most favorable to the non moving
party 23

1110    “Even if a complaint is ‘vague,’ ‘inartfully drafted,’ ‘a bare bones outline,’ or ‘not a model
of specificity,’ the complaint may still be adequate so long as it can reasonably be read as
supporting a claim for reliefI ]”29 Further, the purpose of the notice pleading standard is to avoid
‘dismissals of cases based on failure to allege speciﬁc facts which, if established, plausibly entitle
the pleader to relief ’ 30 Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) states that a claim for relief
must contain a short statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction, “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief  because this is a notice
pleading jurisdiction,” and “a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief ”3'
                     C Unjust Enrichment

1111     In Walters v Walters,32 the Virgin Islands Supreme Court held that
          [T]he elements of the unjust enrichment cause of action             require the plaintiff
          to prove (I) that the defendant was enriched, (2) that such enrichment was at the
          plaintiff’s expense, (3) that the defendant had appreciation or knowledge of the

2‘ Id at *5 (citing Weiss, 2016 L S Dist LEXIS 50436 at ‘4 then In re Hort on Healthcare Servs Data Breach
Ling 846 F 3d 625 632 (3rd Cir 2017)
 5 V l R CIV P 12(b)(6)
   V l R Civ P 8(a)(2)
7 Adams v North West Company (International) Inc 63 VI 427 438 (Super Ct 2015) (citing Benjamm v A10
Ins Co ofPuerIo RICO 56 V1 558 566 (VI 2012))
 a L Hem: Inc v Vulcan Materials Co Civ No 206—170 2010 WL 924259 at ‘1 (D V1 Mar 11 2010) (citing
Chiistopher v Harbur) 536 U S 403 406 (2002))
’9 Bastc Servs Inc v Gov I of Virgm Islands 2019 VI 21 11 12 (citing Casaday v Allstate Ins Co , 232 P 3d 1075
1080 (Utah App 2010))
‘0 Basic Servs Inc 1| 10 (citing V l R CW P 8 Reporter 5 Note and M1115 Williams v Mapp 67 V l 574 585 (V 1
2017))
3' V1 R CIV P 8(a)
3 60 V1768(V12014)
 United Resources Ltd Co v V! Waste Mgmt Am]: e! a!                                  2024 V] Super 9U
 Case No ST 2020 CV 00493
 Memorandum Opinion and Order
 Page 5 of 10

           beneﬁt, and (4) that the circumstances were such that in equity or good
           conscience the defendant should return the money or property to the plaintiff

                       D Injunction
1112     This Court stated in Newman v McKay33 that the party seeking an injunction has the burden
of proof and the Court should consider the following four (4) factors “(1) the plaintiff’s likelihood
of success on the merits, (2) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive
relief, (3) whether granting injunctive relief will harm the defendant more than the plaintiff will
be harmed without such relief, and (4) the public interest ”34

                      E “Failure To Fund And Pay”
1113   United asserts as Count VII] a claim titled ‘ failure to fund and pay ”35 United cites 31
V I C § 238, which requires government agencies to ﬁle with the Commissioner of Property and
Procurement detailed estimates of their requirements for equipment and contractual services;36 31
V I C § 233, which requires that purchase requests bear a certiﬁcation that there is “a sufﬁcient
unencumbered apportionment of its appropriation balance, in excess of all unpaid obligations, to
defray the amount of such order;”37 3] V I C § 234, which states that “[n]o purchase shall be made
by any department or agency of the government               except by written order approved by the
Commissioner of Property and Procurement and issued in accordance with section 233 of this
title,” as well as provides that violators shall be personally liable and dismissed from
employment,38 and 31 V I C § 248 which states in part that “[n]o contract or purchase on behalf
of the government shall be made unless the same is authorized by law or is under an appropriation
adequate to its fulﬁllment      as well as providing that a copy of any service contract must be “ﬁled
in advance with the Committee on Finance of the Legislature ”39
1114     VIWMA s enabling statute is in Title 29 ‘0 Title 29 V l C § 497(d) states in part
          The Authority shall be a non proﬁt independent public body politic and
          corporate and a governmental instrumentalin subject, as provided herein, to the
          control of the aforementioned members acting in their capacity as members of
          the Board thereof, but it is a corporation having legal existence and personality
          separate and apart from the Government and the ofﬁcers controlling it Subject
          to section 500e(a) of this chapter the debts obligations assets, contracts, bonds,
          notes debentures receipts expenditures accounts funds, facilities and property

3‘ 58 V 1 I70 (VI Super Ct 20l3)
1‘ Id at 175
35 Pl 5 Comp! 111] l89 204
3° 3! v [c §233
3’ 31 v [c §233
38 3| v [C §234
3" 3| V l C § 248
4° 29 V l C § 496 is the enabling statute for VIWMA
Umted Resources Ltd Co v V! Waste Mgmt Ami: e! a!                                    2024 VI Super 9U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00493
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 6 of 10

          of the Authority shall be deemed to be those of the Authority and not to be those
          of the Government of the Virgin Islands, or any ofﬁce, bureau, department,
          agency, commission, municipality, branch, agent, ofﬁces or employee thereof4|
1} 15    Section 500e(a) states

          All property, including funds of the Authority shall be exempt from levy and
          sale by virtue of an execution, and no execution or other judicial process shall
          issue against the same nor shall any judgment against the Authority be a charge
          or lien upon its property, except, that this subsection shall not apply to or limit
          the right of bondholders to pursue any remedies for the enforcement of any
          pledge or lien given by the Authority on its rates, fees, revenues, or other income
          or any other funds 42

         [II     ANALYSIS
{[16    GVI does not attach any documents to its Motion, so the Court considers only the
Complaint and the documents attached to the Complaint GVI has not indicated whether it is
attacking the Complaint facially or factually, but it does state that “the pleadings fail to assert a
factual or legal basis for any alleged debt owed to Plaintiff by GVI ’43 It thus appears that GVI’s
attack is factual
1117  United alleges that ‘ GVI is responsible for funding of all legal and ﬁnancial obligations of
[VIWMA] ’ GVI is ultimately responsible for the payment of all legal and ﬁnancial obligations
of [VIWMA];” GVI “is responsible for overseeing administering, and making ﬁnal approval for
payment of the legal and ﬁnancial obligations of [VIWMA];” and “[t]he Virgin Islands
Department of Finance (“DF”) is a department within the GVI responsible for holding, accounting
for, and disbursement of funds for payment of the obligations of [VIWMA] 4"
1|l8    GVI is referenced in Count I Breach of Emergency Hurricane Contract, when United
alleges that ‘Plaintiff and [VIWMA] on its behalf and on behalf of the GVI, entered into a written
agreement for Plaintiff to provide services on behalf of [VIWMA] and the GVI in exchange for
Defendant paying Plaintiff for those services” and “GVI beached the agreement by not paying the
invoices sent by Plaintiff ”“5 In Count [I    Breach of Oral Contracts, United alleges “[t]he GVI
breached the agreements by not paying the invoices sent by Plaintiff” and that United suffered
damages because of this breach 4" In Count Ill   Breach of Implied In Fact Contract, United
alleges that GVl’s conduct and the circumstances demonstrate an agreement that GVI would pay

4' 29 v I C §497(d)
4 29 v [C §500e(a)
‘3 Def ’5 Mot 4
‘4 Pl 5 Comp] 111120 24
45 Pl sCompl1|1|l18 121
‘6 Pl 5 Comp] 1| I29
 United Resources Ltd Co v V! Waste Mgmt Au!!! er a]
                                                                                       2024 VI Super 9U
 Case No ST 2020 CV 00493
 Memorandum Opinion and Order
 Page 7 of l0

 for the services rendered for VIWMA, because “Plaintiff provided the services
                                                                                           and invoiced
 [VIWMA]” but neither VIWMA or GVI paid those invoices 47
 1119   In Count IV    Unjust Enrichment, United alleges that GVI received funds from the
 Federal Government speciﬁcally to pay Plaintiff for the services performed,” “GVI allocated funds
 to [VIWMA] specifically to pay Plaintiff for the services performed,’ “Defendants have custody
 control and authority of the funds from the Federal and USVI Government designated to
                                                                                               pay
 Plaintiff for the services performed ’ and that GVI had knowledge ofthese beneﬁts, accepted them
 were enriched by them, and it would be inequitable to allow GVI to keep them 48 In Count V
Account Stated, United alleges ‘Plaintiff sent [VIWMA] statements of the services provided and
of the outstanding balance owed by [VIWMA] and the GVI                   [VIWMA] and the GVI never
objected to the statements sent by Plaintiff until Plaintiff said that it would have to take legal action
to collect the amounts due        and [VIWMA] and the GVI owes Plaintiff $4 621 092 64 plus
interest, on the account ”49
1120     In Count VI        Open Account, United alleges “[p]ursuant to oral agreements between
Plaintiff and [VIWMA] on its behalf and on behalf of the GVI Plaintiff opened an account for
[VIWMA] and the GVI and began providing services to and on behalf of [VIWMA] and the
                                                                                       GVI
as requested;” ‘ Plaintiffinvoiced [VIWMA] per the open account,” [VIWMA] and the GVI never
objected to the invoices sent by Plaintiff until Plaintiff said that it would have to take legal action
to collect the amounts due and [VIWMA] and the GVI owes Plaintiff $4 621 092 64 plus
interest per Plaintiff’s open account with Defendant ”50 In Count VII        Injunctive Relief United
only mentions GVI in the prayer for relief “Plaintiff prays that the Court enter an order
preliminarily ordering that the GVI and [VIWMA] place $5 621 092 64 from the $15 000 000 00
appropriated by the Virgin Islands Legislature into an escrow account, or in the registry of
                                                                                                     the
Court ”" In Count VIII       Failure To Fund And Pay, United cites to Title 31 and alleges that GVI
had a duty to ensure that VIWMA had sufﬁcient credit and funds prior to entering into a contract
GVI had oversight responsibilities prior to entering into the contract and during the performance
of the contract, United performed the work and VIWMA and the GVI owe it money, VIWMA
claims it does not have sufﬁcient funds but GVI has sufﬁcient funds, and GVI can allocate funds
to VIWMA 52
1121    United attaches to its Complaint as Exhibit A, a letter from United States Virgin Islands
Senator Janelle Sarauw to VIWMA regarding United’s rate dispute, as Exhibit B, the letter
                                                                                            from
United giving their rate quotes; as Exhibit C, the Emergency Hurricane Contract signed by
                                                                                              the
Executive Director of VIWMA and United’s Chief Executive Manager; as Exhibit D, an email
referencing an auditor inquiry about the rates for the work between VIWMA and United, as Exhibit
E, a text message exchange referencing how much United is owed and referencing a request
                                                                                              for

‘7 Pl 5 Compl 1H] I34 38
4‘ Pl sCompl 1111 143 45 I49 52
‘9 Pl 5 Compl W 163 66
‘° P] 5 Comp] 111] [63 66
“ Pl sCompl 1] I88
‘ Pl sCompl 1”] 189 204
 Ulmed Resources Ltd C0 v VI Waste Mgmt Am]: 2! a!
                                                                                           2024 VI Super 9U
 Case No ST 2020 CV 00493
 Memorandum Opinion and Order
 Page 8 of 10

 funds having been made to the Department of Finance as Fxhibit F invoices sent by United to
 VIWMA; as Exhibits G N emails between United and VIWMA discussing emergency rates, bins
 money owed to United by VIWMA the outline ofvarious projects project requirements, and work
 conducted or to be conducted by United for VIWMA as Exhibits 0 R VIWMA s announcement
 soliciting bids for waste removal projects and the corresponding bid response from United;
                                                                                            as
 Exhibit S, a ﬁnancial statement from United showing invoiced amounts payments made by
 VIWMA, and payments outstanding from VIWMA as Exhibit T emails between United and
 VIWMA regarding use of barges overdue payment issues and indicating successive attempts by
 United to reach VIWMA as Exhibit U an email from interim Executive Director Ann E Hanley
 reafﬁrming VIWMA’s commitment to paying its vendors what they are owed as Exhibit V Act
No 838! ’Bill No 33 0375 of the Virgin Islands Legislature appropriating ﬁfteen million dollars
($15 000 000 00) to VIWMA for outstanding vendor payments to waste haulers as Exhibit W an
email from Keith Richards of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources to United
indicating that GVI provided ﬁfteen million dollars ($15 000 000 00) to VIWMA to address prior
debts; as Exhibit X an email from purported counsel for VIWMA to [ nited alluding to the
ﬁnancial circumstances of GVI and VIWMA and encouraging settlement at a lump sum over
further rate negotiations and ﬁnally as Exhibit Y an offer letter from VIWMA to United offering
settlement of the dispute for a lump sum of one million four hundred ﬁfty six thousand ﬁve
hundred ten dollars and twenty cents ($1 456 510 20)

1122    Complaint Exhibits A B C D F, G, H I J K L M N O, P Q R, S T b and Y from
United, including the contract, bills, invoices, negotiations for further work, solicitations for bids
bids, discussions over work done and to be done, and so forth, are all between VIWMA and United
Further in the Complaint GVI is just simply conﬂated with VIWMA in the allegations regarding
the contract and accounts GVI is plainly not a party to the contracts, either written, oral, or implied,
or any account stated or open account Title 29, § 497(d) plainly states that GVI is not responsible
for the debts of VIWMA, as this Court in NIbbS again afﬁnned 53 Therefore, Counts I, II, 111 V,
and VI must be dismissed against GVI and the Commissioner of the Department of Property and
Procurement as this Court holds no jurisdiction over GVI as pertains to those claims

123     However United 5 Complaint Exhibits E, V, W and X all implicate GVI as earmarking or
providing funds to VIWMA for the purpose of settling its outstanding payments to waste removal
contractors The Court now considers whether the remaining claims can survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion Taking the evidence and allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiff Counts IV,
VII, and VIII which involve the equitable claims of unjust enrichment and injunction, as well
                                                                                              as
the claim that GVI failed to properly fund VIWMA may go forward As United has no legal
remedy, since it is not a party to the contract, it is appropriate that it may pursue equitable
remedies 54 For injunctive relief, United has alleged it is owed a signiﬁcant sum of money that

53 29 V IC § 497(d) see also Nlbbs 20l5 V l LEXIS 120 at *15 (“Because the Government has immunized
                                                                                                    itself
from VIWMA s debts VIWMA is responsible for paying judgments rendered against it[ ] )
5‘ Caccmmam & Rover Corp v Bamn Popular de Puerto Rico, 6] V l 247 252 (V l 2014)
                                                                                  (“Because unjust
enrichment is an equitable remedy it   like all equitable remedies   is inappropriate where a legal remedy is
available ) see also Mitsubishi In! I Corp v Cardinal TarIIIe Sales 14 F 3d [507 15l8 (11th
                                                                                            Cir I994) (“It is
United Resources Ltd Co v V I Waste Mgmt Au”: er al                                                2024 V1 Super 9U
Case No ST 2020 CV 00493
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 9 of 10

GVI has control ofthese funds and may use or divert these monies, and United will be signiﬁcantly
harmed if it is not able to access this money so GVI should be enjoined and the earmarked funds
be put into escrow

1124     For unjust enrichment, United alleges that GVI was enriched by l nited s labor and
expending of resources on its behalf, this enrichment came at United’s expense in performing work
and using its equipment and resources, that GVI was aware of this benefit and the circumstances
are such that GVI should reimburse United Lastly, United has alleged that GVI failed to follow
Title 31 provisions by contracting with United but failing to ensure there was a proper allocation
of funds for United’s contract services and by not following the proper protocol as outlined therein
While GVI asserts the procurement processes are different, at this stage dismissal would be
premature and the parties should be permitted to brief the issue and offer evidence on this purported
claim

         IV       CONCLUSION

1125 On December 21 2020, Plaintiff United ﬁled a Complaint alleging eight (8) counts against
VIWMA and GVI, as well as against the Executive Director of VIWMA and the Commissioner
of the Department of Property and Procurement of GVI On February 22 2021 GVI ﬁled its
motion seeking to dismiss the counts against it on the basis of Virgin Islands Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Counts I II III V and VI will be dismissed as they relate
to contracts and accounts that do not include GVI as a party but rather are between United and
VIWMA However under the notice pleading standard L nited has implicated GVI in Counts IV,
VII, and VIII, which may proceed at this stage

         Accordingly, it is hereby
       ORDERED that Defendant Government of the Virgin Islands Motion To Dismiss ﬁled
February 22 2021 is GRANTED with respect to Counts I II III V and VI and is DENIED
with respect to Counts IV, VII, and VIII and it further

       ORDERED that Counts I, II, 111, V and VI are DISMISSED with prejudice against
Defendants Government of the Virgin Islands and Anthony Thomas in his ofﬁcial capacity as
Commissioner of the Department of Property and Procurement; and it is further

axiomatic that equitable relief is only available where there is no adequate remedy at law[ ]’ )
 Untied Resources Ltd Co v V! Waste Mgmt Anti: et a!                              2024 VI Super 9U
 Case No ST 2020 CV 00493
 Memorandum Opinion and Order
 Page 10 of [0

        ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be directed to
 Attorneys Tee Persad, Clive Rivers, Robert Goldsmith, III, and Assistant Attorney General Sheena
 Conway

 DATED February g» 2024                    mm                               ?)M gE
                                                         DENISE M FRANCOIS
                                              Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands

 ATTEST

 TAMARA CHARLES
 Clerk of the Court

 BY      W
   LATOYA CAMACHO
#7 Court Clerk Supervisor 2 ZZIZDZV
           IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                      District of St. Thomas/St. John

United Resources LTD. CO.,                   Case Number: ST-2020-CV-00493
                     Plaintiff               Action: Debt And Breach Of Contract
vs.

Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority,
Roger Merritt, in his official capacity as
executive director of Virgin Islands Waste
Management Authority, THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS and ANTHONY
THOMAS, in his official capacity as
commissioner of the Department of Property
and Procurement
                        Defendants.

                                 NOTICE of ENTRY
                                       of
                                      Order
 To: Teeluck Persad, Esq.                       Robert V. Goldsmith, III, Esq.
     Clive C. Rivers, Esq.                      Sheena Conway, Esq.

                         Please take notice that on February 29, 2024
           a(n)      Order Denying Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss As Moot &
                                 Memorandum Opinion And Order
                     dated      February 23, 2024       was/were entered
                           by the Clerk in the above-titled matter.

Dated:   February 29, 2024                                         Tamara Charles
                                                                  Clerk of the Court
                                                  By:

                                                                 Elizabeth A. David
                                                                 Chief Deputy Clerk