Simpson v. Golden
2012 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 10
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- Simpson and Golden were condominium owners; Simpson sued Golden for breach of a no-pets by-law claiming damages from cat phobia.
- April 19, 2005, the Superior Court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a binding arbitration clause.
- Simpson sought reinstatement in May 2005, then withdrew, and the court acknowledged the withdrawal on July 7, 2005; no appeal followed.
- November 20, 2007, the trial court awarded Golden $15,000 in attorney’s fees as prevailing party, finding frivolous, unreasonable, and unfoundationed conduct by Simpson.
- Dec 19, 2007, Simpson moved to reconsider; 2008 denials followed; January 27, 2010 final judgment for $15,000; February 16, 2010 notice of appeal filed.
- This Court ultimately held that the appeal on the April 19, 2005 order was time-barred and that Simpson waived the merits challenge to the attorney’s fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the April 19, 2005 dismissal timely challenged? | Simpson contends the dismissal was incorrect and should be vacated. | Golden argues the appeal was untimely once tolling ended. | Time-barred; cannot review the dismissal. |
| Is the non-time-barred issue properly before the Court? (attorney’s fees) | Waives meritorious challenge by focusing on the time-barred dismissal. | Fees issue is properly before the Court if preserved; but merits were not properly presented. | Merits waived; affirm fee award on waiver grounds. |
| Was Golden a prevailing party and were the fees appropriately computed? | Simpson challenges prevailing party characterization and the fee calculation. | Golden prevailed and the fee amount was properly calculated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). | Not reached due to waiver on timeliness; referenced in discussion only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (filing of fees motion does not alter final judgment date for appeal)
- Judi’s of St. Croix Car Rental v. Weston, 49 V.I. 396 (V.I. 2008) (final judgment appealability based on final order)
- Vazquez v. Vazquez, 54 V.I. 485 (V.I. 2010) (VISCR 5(a) time limits are claims processing rules, not jurisdictional)
- Gov’t of the V.I. v. Martinez, 620 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2010) (timeliness of appeal may be waived if properly raised)
- American Society for Testing & Materials v. Corrpro Cos., Inc., 478 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2007) (cited in context of fee shifting and fee award standards)