Civil No. 739/1997 | Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands | Jun 12, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(June 12, 2003)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons the Court will deny Defendants’ motion.
On August 11, 1997, Defendant Weisner Development Company (“Weisner”) hired Plaintiff to perform certain duties. His employment contract had a term of four months. However, on or about November 17, 1997 Weisner terminated Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an action for wrongful discharge pursuant to 24 V.I.C. § 62. Subsequently, the Virgin Islands Legislature (“Legislature”) amended § 62 to exclude persons who were not employed for longer than six calendar months from filing any cause of action under the Wrongful Discharge Act (“the 2001 amendments”). Consequently, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss asserting that when retroactively applied, the Legislature’s amendment to the definition of employee under 24 V.I.C. § 62 — excluding persons who had been employed for less than six calendar months — precludes Plaintiff from filing any cause of action in Court for wrongful discharge. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution precludes retroactive application because to do so would deprive Plaintiff of rights that accrued when he filed his case in 1997.
Standard of Review
Defendants challenge the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, in considering such motions, this Court is mandated by law to accept as true all allegations set forth in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom after viewing them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Jordan v. Fox, et al., 20 F.3d 1250" court="3rd Cir." date_filed="1994-04-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/joe-jordan-james-mitchell-jordan-mitchell-v-fox-667153?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="667153">20 F.3d 1250 (3d Cir. 1994.) Moreover, in deciding motions to dismiss, the Court does not decide whether the Plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits. Instead, the Court decides whether “relief can be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistently with Plaintiff’s allegations.” Jordan, 20 F.3d 1250" court="3rd Cir." date_filed="1994-04-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/joe-jordan-james-mitchell-jordan-mitchell-v-fox-667153?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="667153">20 F.3d at 1261.
Discussion
The general rule is that absent specific indication that a law is to be applied retroactively, the law should only be applied prospectively. See VI. Maritime Service v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority, 978 F. Supp. 637" court="D.V.I." date_filed="1997-06-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/virgin-islands-maritime-service-inc-v-puerto-rico-maritime-shipping-authority-2135856?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2135856">978 F. Supp. 637, 37 V.I. 193 (D.V.I. 1997). Issues of retroactivity arise when a statute applies to conduct occurring prior to its enactment. See
In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants cite to Johnson v. Virgin Islands Port Authority, 236 F. Supp. 2d 503" court="D.V.I." date_filed="2002-12-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/johnson-v-virgin-islands-port-authority-2336565?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2336565">236 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D.V.I. 2002) where the District Court held that a recently enacted statute which eliminated a potential tort recovery must be applied to a claim based on facts which predated the statutory amendment. Defendants assert that this holding, citing, In re TMI, 89 F.3d 1106" court="3rd Cir." date_filed="1996-07-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/in-re-tmi-v-anoka-catherine-balinosky-regis-beasley-louis-borda-betty-marie-boylestein-george-boylestein-shirlean-burhanan-ruth-butler-frank-caka-susan-chynoweth-daniel-chynoweth-catherine-costello-john-costello-martha-costik-richard-costik-mary-margaret-earhart-edward-ferguson-marco-glad-722382?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="722382">89 F.3d 1106 (3d Cir. 1996), governs the case herein because the facts are identical to the case at bar. This assertion is misplaced. The In re TMI Court dealt with an issue regarding a statutory amendment creating a federal cause of action for injuries- resulting from nuclear incidents, and which provided for jurisdiction oyer and the consolidation of such actions in the federal district court where the accident occurred. See 42 U.S.C. § 2210(n)(2). Moreover, the amendment specifically stated that “the amendments made ... shall apply to nuclear incidents occurring before, during, or after the date of the enactment of this act.” 42 U.S.C. § 2214 (note). The court determined that because the legislature unambiguously declared retroactivity, the amendment applies. In re TMI stands for the notion that when a legislature unequivocally states that the amendment is to be applied retroactively, courts must apply it retroactively, In Johnson the court dealt with the issue of whether an amendment limiting the potential recovery of a party should be given retroactive effect when the injury occurred prior to the amendment, but the complaint was filed after the amendment. The District Court ruled that it should, and in so doing cited
In their reply to Plaintiffs opposition, Defendants filed a second notice of supplemental authority—Henry v. The Paint Depot, Civ. No. 413/2000, Memorandum and Order, Jan. 30, 2003, Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands-Division of St. Thomas & St. John. Therein, the Court ruled that the 2001 amendments to the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act must be applied to actions pending at the time of the law’s effective date. Defendants assert that Henry addressed the identical issue presented in this action. Therefore, Defendants argue that the 2001 amendments must be applied retroactively herein. In Henry, the Court determined that judgment as a matter of law must be granted in favor of Defendant Paint Depot (“Depot”) because the amendment when applied retroactively did not create new legal consequences for Depot, did not impose any new liability on Depot, did not impair any of Depot’s rights,
The Henry court, relying on Landgraf v. USL Film Products, 511 U.S. 244" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1994-04-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/landgraf-v-usi-film-products-117841?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="117841">511 U.S. 244, 128 L. Ed. 2d 229, 114 S. Ct. 1483 (1994), granted summary judgment to the Defendant because Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and thus, by inaction, forfeited his rights to defend against the motion. In Landgraf the court stated “there exists a judicial presumption, with great antiquity, that a legislative enactment affecting substantive rights does not apply retroactively absent clear statement to the contrary.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. 244" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1994-04-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/landgraf-v-usi-film-products-117841?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="117841">511 U.S. at 286 (citing Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1990-06-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/kaiser-aluminum--chemical-corp-v-bonjorno-112403?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="112403">494 U.S. 827, 840 (1990)). To that end, as expressed in Cebados de Leon v. Reno, 58 F. Supp. 2d 463" court="D.N.J." date_filed="1999-06-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ceballos-de-leon-v-reno-2568285?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2568285">58 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D.N.J. 1999), the Landgraf two prong test must be used, and therefore provides:
(1) Whether [the Legislature] has expressly stated the statutes proper reach; and
(2) Whether, in the absence of express specification of the temporal reach of the statute, the statute could nonetheless have retroactive effect if it did not impair the rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transaction already completed.
The Henry court in its analysis of the Landgraf test correctly applied the first prong to Depot and found no clear legislative intent stated. The court thereupon determined that as a matter of law retroactive application was proper in that such would not impair Depot’s rights, would not increase Depot’s liability, and would not impose new duties on Depot with respect to transactions already completed. However, the Henry court, in concluding that the 2001 amendments applied retroactively, did not consider whether in the absence of a clear statement to the contrary retroactive application would impair rights Henry possessed, because Henry had failed to respond to the summary judgment motion, and therefore, forfeited his defenses. Had the Henry court considered the factors, as applicable to both parties, there might have been a different result. Conversely, a complete application to the case herein yields a different result in that retroactive application of the 2001 amendments would impair rights Plaintiff possessed at the time he filed his lawsuit.
Therefore, the premises considered, and the Court otherwise being fully advised, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be DENIED.
In Johnson v. Virgin Islands Port Authority, the Plaintiff brought a negligence action against the Authority for her husband’s death from complications arising from injuries he sustained in a boating accident involving the Authority. At the time of his injury there was no statutory cap on damages if one sued the Authority. However, subsequent to Plaintiffs husband’s injury and before Plaintiff filed her complaint in court, the Virgin Islands Legislature amended the statute and limited recovery to a statutory cap of $25,000.00.