IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
RECOVERY FINANCE LIMITED ’
Plaintiff,
v Case No SX 202l-CV 00360
VIRGIN ISLANDS GOVERNMENT
HOSPITALS AND HEALTH FACILITIES
CORPORATION AND GOVERNOR 2022 VI SUPER 51
JUAN F LUIS HOSPITAL and MEDICAL
CENTER
Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
11 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Virgin Islands Government Hospital
and Health Facilities Corporation‘s (“VIGHHFC”) Motion Requiring Jomder of an Indlspensable
Party, filed March 29, 2022 Plaintiffdid not file a response The arguments considered, the Court
will grant the Motion
BACKGROUND
12 The Court will limit its recitation of background facts to those relevant to the disposition
of this pending Motion On or about December 30 2019 the Governor Juan F Luis Hospital
(“JFL”) and/or VIGHHFC, and Navigation Construction, LLC (“Navigation”) entered into a
Construction Contract (“Contract”) for the post hurricane reconstruction at JPL See Complaint at
1 5 and Exhibit 1 Motion at 1 ' On or about February 7, 2020, Navigation (as “Borrower”) and
Plaintiff Recovery Finance Limited (as “Lender”) (“Recovery”) pursuant to a Loan Agreement
between them, provided VIGHI-IFC and/or JFL with a Notice of Assignment and
Acknowledgement (“Assignment”) that required VIGHHFC and/or JFL to submit all payments
due Navigation under the Contract to be wired to Recovery Complaint at 1 7 and Exhibit 2 By its
Complaint, Plaintiff claims that VIGHl-IFC and/or JFL agreed to make all payments due
Navigatxon to Recovery and that payments made thereafier to Navigation were improper in
violation ofthe Assigmnent in favor of Recovery Complaint at 11 8 10
' The Contract describes the work as remediation of mold from the Intensive Care Unit and Operating
Rooms at
JFL Complaint, Exhibit 1 at!
Recovery Finance Ltd v V I Gov I Hosp: & Health Facilmes Corp Case No 8X 202 l-CV 00360
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 2 of 5 2022 VI SUPER $1
13 However, Defenth argues that the Assignment was not properly executed, and that
Navigation told VIGHHFC and/or JFL that the paperwork had not been finalized and directed
VIGHHFC and/or JFL to make payments to Navigation See Motion at 1 2, see also Answer &
Afinnative Defenses at 111] 7, 10
LEGAL STANDARD
14 Virgin Islands Rule of Civil Procedure 19 addresses required joinder of parties and states
in the relevant portion
(a) Persons Required to Be Joined if Feasible
(1) Required Party A person who is subject to service of process and whose
joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction must be joined
as a party if
(A) in that person's absence, the court cannot accord complete reliefamong
existing parties, or
(B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is
so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect
the interest, or
(ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of meaning
double. multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the
interest
(2) Joinder by Court Order Ifa person has not beenjoined as required, the court
must order that person be made a party A person who refused to join as a
plaintiff may be made either a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary
plaintiff 2
35 In practice, “[t]he determination ofwhether a party must be joined to a lawsuit under Rule
19 hinges on whether one of three tests outlined in Rule 19 (a)(1)(A) (a)(1)(B)(i) or (a)(1)(B)(ii)
can be met Arwdson v Buchar No ST 16 CV 410 2018 WL 10613032 at ‘14 (V I Super
June 6, 2018) ‘Only one of the three tests must be fulfilled for a party to be deemed required ” Id
“Once one of the grounds for joinder under Rule 19(8) has been established, the proper remedy is
to order joinder ” Callwood v Superlor Court ofthe VJ No ST 09 CV-499,
2014 WL 7186900
at 1"2 (V 1 Super Nov 5 2014) (citing George v George 59 V1 1092 1099 (D V I 2013) Fed
R Civ P 19(a)(2)) see also Marsh Monsanto v Clarenbach, 66 V I 366 387, 390 (V I 2017)
(Swan, .1 , dissenttng), Cenm v Estate Chocolate Hole Landowners Ass’n Inc , No ST 15 CV
383
2016 WL 3981434 at *6 (V1 Super July 18 2016) sze Oak Banking Co v Princess M!”
2 The language of VI R Civ P 19(a) mirrors the language of Fed R Civ P 19(3)
Recovery Finance Ltd v V] Gov 1 Hosp: & Health Facilities Corp Case No SX 2021 CV 00360
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 3 of 5 2022 VI SUPER 51
Props LLC Civil Acuon No 2016 0070
2021 WL 3889412 at ‘11 (D V1 Aug 30 2021)
(ordered joinder when necessary party was absent) “1f the absent party is found to be a required
party the Court then determines whether it has personal jurisdiction over the party proposed to
bejoined Arwdson
2018 WL 10613032 at ’15
16 As one court opined on the application of required joinder
By its very nature Rule 19 (it) calls for determinations that are heavily influenced
by the facts and circumstances of individual cases There is no precise formula for
determining whether a particular non party is [required for] an action A
determination of who is an indispensable party involves many considerations, and
the decision must rest upon the facts ofeach particular case, the nature ofthe relief
sought, and the nature and extent of a person’s interest in the controversy The
pressing question for Rule 19 (a) assessments must be whether success in the
litigation can afford the plaintiffs relief for which they have prayed Accordingly,
the “completeness” of relief must be analyzed within the relevant level of
generality the four comers of the complaint
Id (internal citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
11 7 Relevant to this matter, when considering if a non party to the litigation is a required party
under V I R Civ P l9(a)(1)(B)(ii), the Court “balances the plaintiffI’s] choice of forum against
the policies ofjudicial economy and the fairness to other parties " Id (quoting Smdm Expedition
Inc v Wreck & Abandoned Vessel known as The Smdia 895 F 2d 116, 122 (3d Cir 1990))
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)
DISCUSSION
18 In its Motion, Defendant VlGHHFC argues that Navigation is an indispensable party
because in its absence ‘ VlGHHFC would have a substantial risk of incurring double obligations”
in light of the fact that “Navigation could demand payment afier VlGHHFC has paid Recovery,
because it could claim that there is no valid Assignment ” Motion at 2 While Plaintiff dld not
oppose this Motion, the Court will still consider whether the proffered arguments meet the standard
of V I R Civ P 19 to require joinder 3
3 With respect to an unopposed motion to dismiss, ‘a motion is not automatically granted
simply because it is
unopposed Leev Thomas No ST 17 CV 321 2018 WL 5255322 at ’1 (V I Super Oct
19 20l8) (quoting Ayala
v Lockheed Martin Corp , 67 V I 290, 303 (V I Super 2017)) “In other words, even though
a motion is unopposed,
courts must still determine whether to grant it, especially when the decision is within the
court's discretion ” Id. (citing
In re Alumina Dust Claims 67Vl 172 187 (VI Super Ct 2017))
Recovety Fmance Ltd v V I Gov 1 Hosp: & Health Facilities Corp Case No SX 2021-CV 00360
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 of 5 2022 VI SUPER 5]
19 The Conn considers persuasive the case of CWLC LLC v Mount HawIey Ins Co , 2022
U S Dist Lexis 48580 (D La Mar 17, 2022) [hereinafier “Mount flawley’], which arose out of
a first party insurance dispute In Mount Hawley, CWLC filed suit against its insurer, Mount
HaWIey for failure to adequately pay on its casualty insurance claim for hurricane damage it had
incurred Id at ‘1 2 During the pendency of the case, CWLC hired Target Solutions to do
mitigation work pursuant to a service agreement that required all insurance proceeds be paid
directly to Target Solutions [d at *2 CWLC’s service agreement with Target Solutions included
a forum selection clause upon which Target Solutions relied to initiate litigation against Mount
Hawley and CWLC in Texas state court Id Mount Hewley argued that Target Solutions was a
necessary party to CWLC’s insurance claim litigation by virtue of the assignment of proceeds
provision, seeking dismissal due to its absence as a party Id at 3 The Mount HawIey court held
that “Target Solutions, as alleged assignee of plaintiff‘s coverage for mitigation work, is a
necessary party to this breach of insurance contract case” in that “Mount Hawley is exposed to
a risk of conflicting or inconsistent obligations if litigation is allowed to proceed in both forums ”
Id at *6 7 The court ordered the plaintiffto amend its complaint, limiting its claims to insurance
coverage issues but not to include claims arising from CWLC’s mitigation work contracted under
the service agreement with Target Solutions Id at *9
1] 10 In the present case, Defendant VIGHHFC seeks an order requiring that Recovery join
Navigation as a necessary pany, arguing that the Court cannot accord complete relief between the
existing parties in Navigation‘s absence Similar to Mount]; Hawley, in the absence ofNavigation,
Defendant VIGHHFC is potentially exposed to duplicative obligations This possibility of
duplicative obligations might arise in that, afier the conclusion of the case, Navigation could
present its demand on the original Contact with VIGHHFC asserting Its claim to payment on
account based upon the invalidity ofthe Assignment In this setting, the Court finds Navigation to
be a required party as contemplated under V I R Civ P 19(a)(l)(B)(ii) and therefore must be
joined perVI R Civ P l9(a)(2) See Callwood
2014 WL 7186900 at *2 3
1| 1] The Court further notes that it has personal jurisdiction over Navigation The Court takes
judicial nonce that Navigatlon is a U S Virgin Islands limited liability company Search for
Registered Entities, www corporationsandtrademarks vi gov, (follow “Corporation Search”
hyperlink, then search “Item Name or Number” for “Navigation Construction”) (last visited April
28 2022) S V I C §§ 4901-4902
Recovery Finance Ltd v VJ Gov 1 Hosp: & Health Factlmes Corp Case No SX 2021 CV 00360
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 5 of S 2022 VI SUPER SI
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Virgin Islands Government Hospital and Health Facilities
Corporation’s Motion Requiring Joinder of an Indispensable Party is GRANTED It is further
ORDERED that within 30 days, Plaintlff Recovery Finance Limited shall, if feasible, join
Navigatlon Construcuon, LLC as a party to the action
DATED May 6 2022
DOUGLAS A BRADY IU B
ATTEST
TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk 0 e urt
B . -
Court Clerk Supemsor .22
Distribution List
Alex M Moskowitz, Esq
Julie A Beberman, Esq , AAG