2025 V.I. 17
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2025Background
- The underlying consolidated cases involve longstanding disputes over ownership and financial arrangements related to a large parcel of real estate on St. Croix, primarily concerning the Yusuf and Hamed families.
- The trial court consolidated three related cases, reasoning that consolidation would address common legal and factual questions efficiently.
- Judge appointed Hon. Edgar D. Ross as Special Master under Rule 53(a)(1)(C), citing the need for detailed oversight of pretrial matters and Ross’s familiarity with the interrelated family disputes from prior cases.
- Sixteen Plus Corporation and Hisham Hamed (together, SPC) objected to the Special Master’s hearing of dispositive pretrial motions (Rule 12 and Rule 56), arguing the Special Master lacked jurisdiction.
- SPC filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, seeking to prevent the Special Master from hearing those motions, and also sought a stay of proceedings before the Special Master.
- The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands reviewed the petition, considering whether the writ was appropriate under law and whether other avenues for relief existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Special Master can hear dispositive pretrial motions under Rule 53(a)(1)(C) | SPC: Rule 53's term "pretrial matters" does not encompass dispositive motions, and there is no precedent allowing Special Masters to hear them | Special Master/Court: Rule 53 allows a Special Master to oversee pretrial matters; no law prohibits hearings on dispositive motions | The Court found no well-settled law barring Special Masters from hearing such motions and denied the writ |
| Entitlement to a writ of prohibition | SPC: Their right to the writ is clear and indisputable | Special Master/Court: No clear right; writs are only granted in extraordinary cases | SPC did not demonstrate a clear or indisputable right to relief |
| Adequacy of alternative remedies | SPC: Sought direct Supreme Court intervention | Special Master/Court: Relief could be sought from the trial judge through other ongoing motions | The Court held there were adequate alternative remedies, so writ was not warranted |
| Judicial administration and discretion | SPC: Court should issue writ to clarify Special Master’s role | Special Master/Court: Docket management within trial court’s discretion; efficiency favored current process | Court exercised discretion not to intervene, upholding lower court’s appointment and process |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Morton, 56 V.I. 313 (V.I. 2012) (establishing writ of mandamus/prohibition as a drastic remedy reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
- In re Fleming, 56 V.I. 460 (V.I. 2012) (outlining prerequisites for a writ: clear and indisputable right, no other adequate means, and discretion of the court)
- Moorhead v. Mapp, 62 V.I. 595 (V.I. 2015) (court's discretion in granting writs, even when prerequisites are met)
- In re Christopher, 77 V.I. 648 (V.I. 2023) (emphasizing discretion of courts in managing their dockets)