FREDERIKSTED — A new law meant to expedite court cases for elderly or terminally ill people drew the ire of Virgin Islands Supreme Court justices this week. Associate Justice Ive Arlington Swan said: “what this legislation has done is wreak havoc on the Superior Court.”
The statements came amid oral arguments in an appeal filed by Limetree Bay Terminals, which is the defendant in the underlying lawsuit filed by Vincent Liger.
Liger is among a number of St. Croix residents who say their homes were sprayed with oil droplets during the disastrous Limetree Bay refinery accidents in 2021.
In August 2021, the Legislature passed Act No. 8468. Under the law, if a motion for preference for an elderly party is granted, “the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 180 days from that date.”
Superior Court Judge Alphonso Andrews Jr. upheld the law in January 2022, and wrote in an opinion that the new legislation is “substantive law” and does not conflict with judicial rules or violate the doctrine of separation of powers between the three branches of government.
That ruling came in a case involving oil refinery workers who had initially filed suit in 2006 against Hess and related oil refinery companies and “allege, during their employment, defendants negligently exposed them to toxic substances which caused them to suffer disease and illnesses,” according to the opinion.
Andrews pointed out that “the typical civil case takes at least four years to achieve judicial resolution. The delay exists due to the plethora of cases routinely filed in this court.”
Liger filed suit against Limetree Bay Terminals in August 2022, and Judge Jomo Meade granted his request for preference as an elderly party, and set a trial date for July 2023.
Limetree Bay Terminals appealed, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday from the company’s lawyer, Carl Beckstedt, and Liger’s attorney Warren Burns.
Associate Justice Maria Cabret was recused, so the panel consisted of Swan, Chief Justice Rhys Hodge, and the court’s newest Associate Justice, Harold Willocks.
“This is his first sitting as an Associate Justice of the court and we’re happy to have him,” Hodge said.
Beckstedt explained the history of the case, and argued that the law violates the separation of powers doctrine, which keeps each of the three branches of government — executive, legislative, and judicial — independent to ensure checks and balances on each branch’s powers.
The complex litigation involves major issues that will require extensive briefing and testimony by experts, and when the lower court scheduled a trial date, “the case just hadn’t really gotten off the ground yet,” Beckstedt said.
The 90-day deadline to name experts in advance of trial had already passed, and Limetree Bay Terminals “was put in a box” and forced to hurriedly prepare for a major trial, he added.
Swan discussed how the Virgin Islands is required to adhere to the 6th Amendment and provide criminal defendants with a speedy trial, but unlike the federal government, the territory does not have a Speedy Trial Act.
But the territory does have rules about scheduling orders for civil cases, and “is there anybody who could seriously believe that a civil case for personal injuries can go to trial in the Superior Court within 180 days? It’s almost impossible,” Swan said. “This is going to create a disaster for the Superior Court judges.”
He also pointed out that even if a plaintiff dies, the litigation could still go forward with potential recovery going to the estate.
Burns argued that two Superior Court judges upheld the law as substantive, rather than procedural, and the courts “have gone on about their business.”
He also said the law gives judges some discretion, but Hodge disagreed, and said the law tightly circumscribes the timeframe in which a trial must be set, and only allows for one continuance.
Willocks said he understands the law’s intent, but senators went “too far” in telling the Superior Court how to set its calendar.
If the legislature passed a law that allowed elderly or terminally ill people to petition for preferential treatment, but left it up to the courts to “establish rules and regulations to have this preferential treatment implemented, we would not be here, would we?” Willocks said.
“I think you’re right, your Honor,” Burns agreed.
Swan was blunt: “What this law has done, is that it has gone into the scheduling of cases. It has gone into the discretion. It has invaded the Judicial Branch.”
If the law is upheld, “this court is going to be inundated by a deluge, an avalanche of writ of mandamus by criminal defendants and by the civil plaintiffs when the court cannot — and there’s only so much time — when the court cannot meet the language of this statute,” Swan added. “I don’t think the legislature had really thought this thing through, or I don’t know if it had any input from the Superior Court.”
The justices will consider the arguments before issuing a written ruling.
By SUZANNE CARLSON/V.I. Daily News