Timothy Defoe v. Lenroy Phillip
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26138
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Phillip, employed at a Virgin Islands refinery, struck Defoe with a company vehicle; Defoe then received workers’ compensation and sued Phillip for negligence.
- The Superior Court granted Phillip summary judgment, relying on Tavarez v. Klingensmith, holding workers’ compensation immunity barred coworker suits.
- The Virgin Islands Supreme Court reversed, saying the Act’s immunity did not bar coworker suits, and stated it was not bound by pre-2007 Third Circuit decisions pending its own guidance.
- Phillip sought certiorari review in the Third Circuit to determine whether § 1613 allows disregarding Third Circuit precedent during the interim period.
- The Third Circuit’s jurisdictional framework for VI matters began with the 2004 creation of the VI Supreme Court, which began operations in 2007, creating a period of federal certiorari review over local law decisions.
- A key issue is whether the Third Circuit may review the VI Supreme Court’s decisions on local law under § 1613 during its certiorari period and whether the VI Supreme Court may overrule pre-2007 precedents on local law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1613 certiorari covers the VI Supreme Court remand ruling | Phillip asserts no final decision; remand means non-final | This qualifies as a final decision under Cox exceptions | Yes, final decision under §1613 as modified for local/federal issues |
| Whether the VI Supreme Court may reject pre-2007 local-law precedents | Pre-2007 precedents bind the VI Supreme Court | VI Supreme Court may overrule pre-2007 precedents under §1613 with manifest-error guard | VI Supreme Court may reject pre-2007 local-law precedents, under manifest-error standard |
| Application of Cox and Florida/Fort Wayne exceptions to finality | Exceptions do not apply; Tavarez should govern | Exceptions apply; reviewing a federal/local issue necessary to avoid erosion of federal policy | Exceptions apply; reviewing Tavarez is warranted to protect federal policy |
| Whether the standard to review local-law decisions is manifest-error, not de novo | Pre-2007 precedents should be followed unless manifestly wrong | Manifest-error standard governs Virginia Islands local-law review | Yes, we review VI Supreme Court local-law decisions for manifest error; Tavarez not manifestly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Tavarez v. Klingensmith, 372 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2004) (workers’ compensation immunity does not bar coworker suits (pre-2007))
- Virgin Islands v. John, 654 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2011) (defines finality for certiorari purposes in VI context)
- Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1975) (finality and certiorari exceptions framework)
- Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1945) (finality rule and exceptions language quoted)
- Florida v. Thomas, 532 U.S. 774 (U.S. 2001) (context for federal-policy significance of review)
- Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1989) (federal-policy impact sanity in finality review)
- Pichardo v. V.I. Com’r of Labor, 613 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 2010) (limits of VI Supreme Court review and institutional tradition)
- Haeuser v. Dep’t of Law, 368 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2004) (manifest-error standard in Guam context)
- Edwards v. HOVENSA LLC, 497 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2007) (recognizes VI Supreme Court as final on local law)