2017 V.I. LEXIS 95
Superior Court of The Virgin I...2017Background
- In October 2015, 101 individual asbestos complaints were filed against Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. (HOVIC) and Hess Corp.; two plaintiffs later dismissed, leaving 99 2015 cases. All 2015 cases were assigned to the undersigned judge. 2016 and 2017 batches of similar cases were filed and assigned among other judges.
- Edwards (lead 2015 plaintiff) moved to “consolidate” the 99 2015 cases for pretrial purposes and requested a master case caption to coordinate pretrial work; a parallel motion was filed for 2016 cases by Andre. Plaintiffs initially represented defendants did not oppose but later retracted that representation. Defendants have not filed a formal opposition.
- The court construed Edwards’ motion as a request to open a master case to coordinate the 2015 matters (coordination ≠ joining cases for trial). The court acknowledged inherent and Rule 16 authority to adopt special procedures for complex litigation.
- The Superior Court already has numerous toxic-tort master dockets (totaling over 800 grouped cases; with pending new batches the total exceeds 1,000), and cases are at varying procedural stages.
- The court concluded that grouping solely by year or current judge assignment may not be the most efficient or just approach; multiple alternative grouping schemes (e.g., direct workplace vs. take-home claims, length-of-service cohorts) may be superior.
- The court deferred ruling and ordered counsel to meet and confer within 21 days and to file a joint report within seven days after meeting, proposing preferred groupings and identifying agreements/disagreements; participation will not constitute waiver or appearance by defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should consolidate/coordinate the 2015 cases under a master case for pretrial purposes | Edwards: court has inherent authority and Rule 16 powers; master-case coordination will promote economy and mirror past mass-tort practice | Hess/HOVIC: no formal opposition filed, but plaintiffs later acknowledged defendants may oppose; defendants’ detailed position not before court | Court deferred decision; construed request as to open a master case but will not grant without further counsel input and analysis of grouping options |
| Whether “consolidation” should result in loss of individual case identity or simply coordination | Edwards framed relief as pretrial consolidation under a master case (coordination) | Not fully briefed | Court emphasized distinction: master case coordinates pretrial only; individual cases keep separate identities and may proceed to trial individually |
| Whether current judge assignment or year-filed is a sufficient basis to group cases | Edwards/Andre: year-filed (and current judge assignment) provides convenient grouping and common core issues | Implicit: judge assignment alone is arbitrary and may produce inefficient multiple master dockets and conflicting schedules | Court held judge-assignment/year alone is an inadequate justification; other grouping schemes should be considered |
| Proper procedure to determine grouping and management of these mass-tort cases | Plaintiffs asked the assigned judge to open a master case for their year cohort now | Defendants reserved right to oppose; presiding judge has reassignment and case-load equalization authority | Court ordered counsel to meet-and-confer and submit a joint report proposing grouping options; deferred ruling pending that process |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (federal precedent on court’s authority to control docket for economy of time and effort)
- Prentice v. Seaborne Aviation, Inc., 65 V.I. 96 (Super. Ct. 2016) (recognizing inherent power of court to manage docket, including dismissal where arbitration applies)
- Vanterpool v. Gov’t of the V.I., 63 V.I. 563 (2015) (assignment of a case to a judicial officer ordinarily cannot be altered except by recusal or presiding judge reassignment)
- Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.I. 23 (Super. Ct. 2017) (discussing trial scheduling and status of refinery-worker toxic tort cases)
- In re Jt. E. & So. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 769 F. Supp. 85 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (survey of various aggregative techniques courts have used to manage asbestos mass litigation)