65 V.I. 234
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2016Background
- Plaintiffs (the Yobs and Eilons) sued the Supervisor of Elections challenging removal from voter rolls based on an alleged 90-day durational residency requirement and obtained a preliminary injunction.
- Valerie Stiles moved to intervene; the Superior Court granted intervention on March 29, 2016.
- Stiles sought leave to file a superseding amended answer asserting a counterclaim challenging the Plaintiffs’ bona fide residency; the Superior Court summarily denied the motion on April 25, 2016 and denied reconsideration on May 11, 2016.
- The Superior Court issued a declaratory judgment holding the Virgin Islands Code does not impose a 90-day durational residency requirement.
- This appeal challenges only the denial of Stiles’s motion to amend (arguing the denial rested solely on her status as an intervenor). The Supreme Court expedited the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an intervenor may assert claims available to original defendants | Stiles: once granted intervention, she stands equal to original parties and may assert any claim available to the defendant that is not waived | Superior Ct / Plaintiffs: efficiency and potential new fact-intensive issues warrant barring an intervenor from adding a counterclaim the defendant did not assert | Reversed: intervenor has equal standing and may assert claims available to original defendant (absent waiver); denial solely for intervenor status was error |
| Whether Bryan v. Fawkes bars intervenor from raising claims not raised by defendant | Stiles: Bryan treats intervenor as equal party and does not categorically bar raising available claims | Plaintiffs: Bryan permits limiting intervenor’s claims to avoid enlarging proceedings; court relied on efficiency concerns | Court: Bryan allows intervenor equal standing; intervenor cannot resurrect waived claims but may press unwaived claims |
| Whether appeal is jurisdictionally proper though original parties did not appeal | Plaintiffs: Stiles lacks standing to appeal when original parties did not appeal | Stiles: intervenor may appeal; standing is not a jurisdictional barrier in VI courts | Held: Court has jurisdiction; local law permits intervenor appeals and standing is a claims-processing rule, not jurisdictional |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies forecloses Stiles’s counterclaim (alternative ground) | Plaintiffs: Stiles failed to exhaust statutory administrative procedure to challenge residency | Stiles: (not decided below) | Court declined to resolve on expedited appeal and remanded for Superior Court to consider consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryan v. Fawkes, 61 V.I. 201 (V.I. 2014) (an intervenor is treated as an original party with equal standing)
- Hansen v. O’Reilly, 62 V.I. 494 (V.I. 2015) (permitting intervenor to appeal where original defendants abandoned the matter)
- Rojas v. Two/Morrow Ideas Enters., Inc., 53 V.I. 684 (V.I. 2010) (final-judgment rule on appellate jurisdiction)
- Harvey v. Christopher, 55 V.I. 565 (V.I. 2011) (standard of review for denial of motion to amend is abuse of discretion)
- Corriette v. Morales, 50 V.I. 202 (V.I. 2008) (plenary review where discretion turns on legal precept)
Disposition: Reversed Superior Court’s April 25, 2016 order; remanded with instructions to grant Stiles’s motion to amend and proceed consistent with opinion.