Court Opinion

ID: 9919225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 18:14:58.277844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:27.836310
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

IN RE:                                           SCT-Civ-2023-0126
                                                 Re: ST-2022-CV-00247
35th LEGISLATURE OF THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS,
     Petitioner.

                 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT/ORDER

TO: Justices of the Supreme Court
    Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Superior Court
    The Honorable Renee Gumbs-Carty, Senior Sitting Judge
    Joseph Arellano, Esq.
    Treston E. Moore, Esq.
    Veronica J. Handy, Esq., Clerk of the Supreme Court
    Tamara Charles, Clerk of the Superior Court
    Supreme Court Law Clerks
    Supreme Court Secretaries
    Order Book
    Westlaw
    Lexis/Michie

      Please take notice that on January 17, 2024 a(n) ORDER dated January 17, 2024, was
entered by the Clerk in the above-entitled matter.

      Dated: January 17, 2024

                                                          VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ.
                                                              Clerk of the Court

                                                       By:
                                                                  Deputy Clerk II
For Publication.

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
    IN RE:                                             ) S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0126
                                                       ) Re: Super. Ct. Civ. No. 247/2022 (STT)
    35th LEGISLATURE OF THE VIRGIN                     )
    ISLANDS,                                           )
         Petitioner.                                   )
                                                       )
                                                       )

                                      On Petition to Transfer

                             Considered and Filed: January 17, 2024

                                        Cite as: 2024 VI 6

BEFORE:        RHYS S. HODGE, Chief Justice; MARIA M. CABRET, Associate Justice; and
               IVE ARLINGTON SWAN, Associate Justice.

                                ORDER OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.

¶1      THIS MATTER is before the Court pursuant to a petition filed by the 35th Legislature of

the Virgin Islands, one of the co-defendants in Payne v. Frett-Gregory et al, Super. Ct. Civ. No.

247/2022 (STT), requesting that this Court transfer that matter to itself from the Superior Court

pursuant to title 4, section 32(d) of the Virgin Islands Code and Rule 39(a) of the Virgin Islands

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Also before the Court is a response in support of the transfer filed

by the Legislature’s co-defendant, Senator Donna Frett-Gregory,1 as well as a response in

1
  In their respective filings, the Legislature and Senator Frett-Gregory request that the caption of
this case be amended to reflect the swearing-in of the members of the 35th Legislature and the
election of Senator Novelle E. Francis, Jr. as its President. Rule 34(c)(1) of the Virgin Islands
Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that

        When a public officer who is a party to an appeal or other proceeding in the
        Supreme Court in his or her official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns,
In re: 35th Legislature of the V.I.            2024 VI 6
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0126
Order of the Court
Page 2 of 7

opposition filed by plaintiffs Steven D. Payne and Noellise Powell. For the reasons that follow,

we grant the petition.

                                         I. BACKGROUND

¶2       The underlying lawsuit, filed by Payne—a former member of the 34th Legislature expelled

by that body—as well as a voter, was commenced in the Superior Court on July 25, 2022, and

originally sought an injunction and declaratory judgment declaring the expulsion illegal, as well

as money damages. The Legislature and Senator Frett-Gregory filed a motion to dismiss on

September 30, 2022, which asserted numerous grounds in support of dismissal, including failure

to join indispensable parties; immunity under the speech or debate provision of section 6(d) of the

Revised Organic Act of 1954; that the matter is non-justiciable because section 6(g) of the Revised

Organic Act provides that the Legislature “be the sole judge of the elections and qualifications of

its members” and may exercise “all the authority and attributes, inherent in legislative assembles;”

waiver; and immunity from monetary damages pursuant to section 2(b) of the Revised Organic

Act. The defendants would later file a second motion to dismiss on January 7, 2023, asserting that

the case had also become moot due to the expiration of the senatorial term to which Payne had

been elected.

¶3       The Superior Court held oral argument on the motions on January 10, 2023, and would

subsequently issue an April 25, 2023 opinion denying the second motion to dismiss on mootness

         or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action does not abate and his or her successor
         is automatically substituted as a party. Proceedings following the substitution shall
         be in the name of the substituted party, but any misnomer not affecting the
         substantial rights of the parties shall be disregarded.

Because the record reflects that Senator Frett-Gregory had only been sued in her official capacity
as the then-President of the Legislature, we accordingly recaption this matter.
In re: 35th Legislature of the V.I.             2024 VI 6
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0126
Order of the Court
Page 3 of 7

grounds. The Superior Court, however, took no action with respect to the first motion to dismiss.

After allowing the matter to remain dormant for an additional seven months, the Superior Court

then entered a November 17, 2023 order scheduling the matter for a bench trial on March 14, 2024,

which stated that the pending motion to dismiss “will be denied and a memorandum opinion and

order will be issued shortly.” While more than two months have passed since entry of that order,

the Superior Court has not yet issued an opinion or other document explaining why the motion to

dismiss will be denied.

¶4       The Legislature filed the instant petition for transfer with this Court on December 22, 2023.

In its petition, the Legislature asserts, among other claims, that the Superior Court has infringed

on the separation of powers principles inherent in the Revised Organic Act and exceeded its

authority by setting the matter for trial without first adjudicating the immunity defenses that have

been fully briefed for nearly a year and a half, in effect denying it the protection of that immunity

which is not just to shield it from liability but also to shield it from trial.

¶5       This Court, in a December 28, 2023 order, directed the plaintiffs to respond to the petition,

which they did on January 12, 2024. While the plaintiffs oppose a transfer to this Court, they

nevertheless acknowledge the importance of the issues, and request that in lieu of a transfer this

Court allow the Superior Court to issue its ruling and then request that it certify that ruling for an

interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 6 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                           II. DISCUSSION

¶6       As the court of last resort of the Virgin Islands, this Court possesses the power to “transfer

to itself any action or proceeding originated or pending in another local court or administrative

agency within the Territory upon a finding that such a transfer will promote the administration of

justice.” 4 V.I.C. § 32(d). “[F]or the purposes of transferring an action to this Court, the
In re: 35th Legislature of the V.I.           2024 VI 6
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0126
Order of the Court
Page 4 of 7

administration of justice is promoted when a case involves purely legal questions, issues of public

importance, and issues of such urgency that use of the normal appellate process would be

inadequate.” In re Brady, 51 V.I. 112, 115-16 (V.I. 2009); see also V.I. R. APP. P. 39(a).

¶7       We agree with the Legislature and Senator Frett-Gregory that the narrow issues identified

in the petition warrant a transfer from the Superior Court to this Court pursuant to section 32(d).

As all parties seem to agree, the issues raised in the petition—whether the Legislature and Senator

Frett-Gregory are immune from suit pursuant to various provisions of the Revised Organic Act,

and whether section 6(g) of the Revised Organic Act vests the Legislature with the authority to

expel a member without the possibility of judicial review—are pure questions of law that certainly

constitute issues of high public importance. The only dispute, then, is with respect to the third

factor: whether the normal appellate process is inadequate to resolve these issues.

¶8       This Court has long recognized that the judicial process is best served when issues—even

purely legal ones—are adjudicated by the Superior Court in the first instance. See, e.g., Gov’t of

the V.I. v. Connor, 60 V.I. 597, 604 (V.I. 2014). Likewise, this Court has acknowledged that the

Superior Court possesses broad discretion over the manner in which it disposes of cases on its

docket. See, e.g., In re Elliot, 54 V.I. 423, 429 (V.I. 2010). But these principles are not absolute

and must certainly yield when placed in direct conflict with substantive law, and especially

constitutional guarantees. One such long recognized exception is that courts must “resolv[e]

immunity questions at the earliest possible stage of the litigation,” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224,

227 (1991), since immunity confers “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability”

which “is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Saucier v. Katz, 533

U.S. 194, 200-01 (2001) (emphasis in original). For this reason, appellate courts—including this

Court—have also long permitted the immediate appeal of the denial of an immunity defense by a
In re: 35th Legislature of the V.I.            2024 VI 6
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0126
Order of the Court
Page 5 of 7

trial court. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); see also In re Najawicz, S. Ct. Civ.

No. 2012-0112, 2012 WL 4829227, at *2 (V.I. Oct. 10, 2012) (unpublished).

¶9       While we agree with the plaintiffs that it would certainly be preferable to allow this case

to proceed through the ordinary appellate process, we do not believe that process has proved

adequate. Although the defendants were entitled to a ruling on their immunity claims at the earliest

possible stage in the litigation, the Superior Court has permitted those claims to go unresolved for

more than a year and a half, exercising its discretion to first address non-immunity claims such as

mootness even though they were asserted months later. And while the Superior Court indicated

in its November 17, 2023 order that the motion to dismiss “will be denied and a memorandum

opinion and order will be issued shortly,” no subsequent opinion or order has issued, which has

made it impossible for the defendants to appeal to take an immediate appeal on that issue to this

Court and raises the specter that an opinion might potentially not even issue until after the

scheduled March 14, 2024 trial.

¶ 10     For these reasons, we agree that this is amongst the extraordinarily rare cases that warrants

invocation of our transfer power pursuant to section 32(d). Accordingly, it is hereby

         ORDERED that the petition to transfer is GRANTED and that Payne v. Frett-Gregory et

al, Super. Ct. Civ. No. 247/2022 (STT), is HEREBY TRANSFERRED from the Superior Court

of the Virgin Islands to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands, effective on the date of entry of

this Order. Further filings in this case shall be filed with this Court under case number S. Ct. Civ.

No. 2023-0126, which shall be hereafter recaptioned as Stephen D. Payne and Noellise Powell v.

35th Legislature of the Virgin Islands and Senator Novelle E. Francis, Jr. The Legislature’s

motion for leave to file a reply to the plaintiffs’ opposition to transfer is DENIED AS MOOT. It

is further
In re: 35th Legislature of the V.I.            2024 VI 6
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0126
Order of the Court
Page 6 of 7

         ORDERED that the November 17, 2023 order of the Superior Court denying the

defendants’ motion to dismiss without explanation and setting the matter for trial on March 14,

2024 is VACATED. It is further

         ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter are HEREBY STAYED pending this

Court’s consideration of the following defenses raised by the defendants in their September 30,

2022 motion to dismiss:

         1. Immunity pursuant to section 6(d) of the Revised Organic Act;

         2. Non-justiciability pursuant to section 6(g) of the Revised Organic Act; and

         3. Immunity pursuant to section 2(b) of the Revised Organic Act.

This Court shall consider these defenses based on the parties’ prior filings in Super. Ct. Civ. No.

247/2022 (STT), together with additional briefs the parties shall file with this Court pursuant to

the following briefing schedule:

         1. The defendants shall file a brief in support of dismissal based on the above-referenced

              defenses on or before January 31, 2024, together with an appendix containing any

              documents necessary for this Court’s consideration of those defenses, which may

              include copies of papers or other exhibits previously filed with the Superior Court.

         2. The plaintiffs shall file a brief in response to the defendants’ brief on or before

              February 14, 2024, which shall be limited solely to the above-referenced defenses.

         3. The defendants may file a reply brief on or before February 21, 2024.

Such briefs and appendix shall comply with and be filed in accordance with the Virgin Islands

Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the defendants deemed to be the Appellants and the plaintiffs

deemed to be the Appellees. Counsel for all parties SHALL APPEAR before this Court on
In re: 35th Legislature of the V.I.          2024 VI 6
S. Ct. Civ. No. 2023-0126
Order of the Court
Page 7 of 7

Tuesday March 12, 2024, at 10:00AM, for oral argument limited solely to these three defenses.

It is further

          ORDERED that the procedures to further govern this case SHALL BE DETERMINED,

IF NECESSARY, after resolution of the defendants’ immunity and justiciability defenses. It is

further

          ORDERED that copies of this Order be served on the appropriate parties.

          SO ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2024.

ATTEST:

VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQ.
Clerk of the Court

By:             /s/ Reisha Corneiro
          Deputy Clerk II

Dated:            January 17, 2024

Copies to:
Justices of the Supreme Court
Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Superior Court
The Honorable Renee Gumbs-Carty, Senior Sitting Judge
Joseph Arellano, Esq.
Treston E. Moore, Esq.
Veronica J. Handy, Esq., Clerk of the Supreme Court
Tamara Charles, Clerk of the Superior Court
Supreme Court Law Clerks
Supreme Court Secretaries
Order Book
Westlaw
Lexis/Michie