IN THE SUPERIOR COURT THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                       DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

SERGIO LAPLANTE                                       )
                                                      )      CASE NO. ST-2025-CV-00250
                       Plaintiff,                     )      RE:   Case No. ST-2025-SM-00042
                                                      )
       Vv                                             )
                                                      )
GLENVILLE THOMPSON AND ERICA                          )
THOMPSON                                              )
                                                      )
                       Defendants                     )
ee
                                        

ST. CLAIR MAGRAS,      SR
St. Thomas, VI
Pro se

GLENVILLE AND ERICA THOMSPON
St. Thomas, VI
Pro Se

                            MEMORANDUM        OPINION AND ORDER

qi     THIS MATTER is before the Court upon an Order, entered July 8, 2025, transferring this

Matter to the General Jurisdiction Civil Division from the Magistrate Division.      The Magistrate

Judge, pursuant to V.I. Small Claims Rule 2(d)(4)(5), which provides that “an action filed in the

Small Claims Division shall be automatically transferred to the Civil Division if.     (4) the court

determines that the Small Claims Division lacks jurisdiction over the case; or (5) the court finds

other good cause for a transfer, such as a need to proceed with discovery,” determined that

discovery was needed and entered the transfer order

q2     The Magistrate Judge believed that the preliminary testimony taken at the Small Claims

Trial provided evidence that this matter could not be heard within the limited bounds and summary

procedure of the Small Claims Proceeding
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 2
                                                 

q3        After a review of the record, this Court determines that this matter is not within the General

Jurisdiction of the Court and it is returned to the Magistrate Division for it to exercise its Small

Claims subject matter jurisdiction.          Having failed to establish the elements, Plaintiff's oral request

for a preliminary injunction is DENIED, and for the reasons stated below, this matter is remanded

to the Magistrate Division

                                                  BACKGROUND

q4        On February 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Small Claims Complaint!                          against Defendants

alleging that from January           of 2024,     Plaintiff had spoken to Defendants              about their sewage

overflowing       into his yard.       On   January      24, 2025,    Plaintiff alleges      that the Virgin       Islands

Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) issued a citation to Defendants for the

overflow and sewage in his yard.                At the time of filing the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that

Defendants had done nothing to correct the overflow.                 To his Complaint, Plaintiff attached a copy

of a report from DPNR with discrepancies observed during an inspection on January 24, 2025

Plaintiff also attached a Certificate of Analysis dated January 28, 2025




"VI. SM. CL. R. 2(a) (“A Small Claims action is commenced by filing a complaint with the Clerk of the Court.”);
Parris v, Nurse, 76 V.1. 492, 501 (V1. 2022) (“[G]Jeneral provisions in title 5 state that the limitations subtitle ‘applies
to suits[,] which are brought in one form of action known as ‘civil action’ pursuant to [the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.]’ The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — and identically in the present V.I, Rules of Civil Procedure
define commencement of an action. The applicable rule provides that a civil action is commenced by the filing of a
complaint.”   (alterations in original) (quoting 5 V.L.C. § 1; and citing FED. R. CIV. P. 3; V.L. R. CIV. P. 3; Kelley
Gov't   of the V. I, 59 V.1. 742, 745-46 (V.1. 2013)))
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-C       V-00250
MEMORANDUM                OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 3
                                                  

q5          Defendants did not file an answer,’ leaving the Small Claims Complaint as the only source

of facts?      In the Small Claims Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges two claims.’                     The first was for

 Trespass”      upon Plaintiffs real property based upon the past overflow of Defendants’ wastewater

q6          The second was not pled and was founded upon Plaintiff's belief that, even though

Defendant’s implemented the remedial measures ordered by DPNR, the implemented remedial

measures were inadequate.              Plaintiff admitted in the Small Claims Complaint that the past


? Due to the summary and informal nature of Smal] Claims Proceedings, no answer is required; and the failure to file
an answer does not waive any defense, either affirmative or negative. Ryans Rest., 949 F. Supp. at 383 (“[T]here is
no requirement in the Small Claims Division under [the Small Claims Rules] to submit an answer or other responsive
filing       ); see generally Wilkinson v. People, 79 V.1. 976, 1010-11 (V.I. 2025) (Swan, J., dissenting) (“‘An
affirmative defense is established only when a defendant admits the essential facts of a complaint and sets up other
facts in justification or avoidance.’ ‘The difference between a general defense and an affirmative defense is that a
general defense negates an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case, while an affirmative defense excuses the
defendant's conduct even if the plaintiff is able to establish a prima facie case.’” (quoting Morrison v. Exec.      Aircraft
Refinishing, Inc.,   

 (S.D. Fla. 2005); Donohue v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc.,        

 (M.D. Pa. 1994); citing Crenshaw v. City of Wetumpka, Nos. 2:15-CV-413-WKW& 2:15-CV-696-WKW, 

, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 29, 2017); Mark v. Labar, No. 08-80646-CIV, 

, at *2 (S.D. Fla
Apr. 1, 2009))); see also Gerace v. Bentley, 77 V.1. 50, 72-73 (Super. Ct. 2022) affd in part, rev'd in part and
remanded sub nom, Mosler v. Gerace, 78 V.1. 649 (V.I. Super. Ct. 2024) (“[N]ot every defense is affirmative.   ‘A
defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not met its burden of proof as to an element plaintiff is required to prove
is not an affirmative defense.’   Defenses that attack the plaintiffs complaint are called negative defenses.    ‘A negative
defense is an attack on the piaintiff's prima facie case, for example, a defense of no causation to a negligence claim
As one court put it, a negative defense is the equivalent of a defendant saying, I did not do it.’        ‘Indeed, it is well
settled that a defense which points out a defect in the prima facie case is not an affirmative defense.     These defenses
are sometimes referred to as ‘negative’    defenses because they are simply an attack on a party's prima facie case.’
(quoting Zivkovie v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 

 (9th Cir. 2002); Hon. Amy St. Eve & Michael A
Zuckerman, The Forgotten Pleading, 7 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 152, 160 (2013); Gomez v. Bird Auto., LLC, 

, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2019); citing /n re: Rawson Food Serv., Inc., 

 (11th Cir. 1988)))
3 Factual allegations in pleadings and court filings constitute judicial admissions of the party who submitted the
pleading or court filing. Walters v. Walters, 

, 775 n.7 (V.1. 2014) (“Although ‘unsworn representations of
an attomey are not evidence,’ an attorney's client may nevertheless be bound by such statements under the doctrines
of judicial admissions and judicial estoppel. (quoting Dennery I, 55 V1. at 994; and citing Arlington Funding Services
Inc. v. Geigel, 51 V.1. 118, 133 (V.L 2009), overruled in part on other grounds by Benjamin v. AIG Ins. Co. of P.R.,

 (V.1. 2012); Sebratti v. Tropical Shipping & Constr. Co., 

 (D.V.I. 2003)
(“Hence, a party is precluded from retreating from a factual claim, which he affirmatively asserted in support of {their]
cause of action, simply to avoid summary judgment.”) (collecting cases))); see V.I. R. EVID. 201(c)(1), (d); Williams
HH, 78 V1. at 704; Pedro, 63 V.1. at 525 (Gomez, D.J., concurring in part). Therefore, the allegations in a Small Claims
Complaint constitute factual admissions on the part of a Small Claims Plaintiff.
* The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has directed that the allegations of a Small Claims Complaint are to be read and
interpreted as follows, “look at the factual substance of the [allegations and/or] testimony of pro se Small Claims
parties and consider legal theories that might be implicated          Penn v. Mosley, 67 V.1. 879, 892-93, 897 (V.I. 2018)
(citing Cape Air Int'l v. Lindsey, 53 V.1.604, 619 (VI. 2919));     e.g., St. Thomas Cargo & Ship Servs., Inc. v. Braga,

, 492-7
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 4
                                            

trespasses due to wastewater overflow had ended well prior to the commencement of this Case

However, at the Small Claims Trial, Plaintiff orally sought an injunction to prohibit Defendants

from resuming the use of this wastewater storge facility

q7       On April 8, 2025, a Small Claims Trial was held at which both Parties were present and

sworn.   The Magistrate   Judge then continued the trial for an in-person hearing on Tuesday July 1,

2025, at 10:00 a.m.   in Courtroom      III, Magistrate Court, Barbel Plaza South, St. Thomas, Virgin

Islands, before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Paula D.          Norkaitis.   The Parties were further

ordered to submit all evidence or documentation in support of their claims no later than Friday

June 27, 2025

q8       A review of the file reveals that Defendants submitted a document from DPNR dated June

17, 2025, which indicated that no discrepancies were observed and that work can continue, and

that Defendants (1) just need to backfill sand around septic area where erosion occurred; and (2)

lifted the citation previously issued

qo       On July   1, 2025,    both Parties were present and after hearing limited testimony,      the

Magistrate Court determined that the case needed to be transferred to the Regular Civil Division

of the Superior Court.        In the transfer order, regarding the Trespass claim, it was noted that

 Plaintiff testified that the water seepage stopped on June 10, 2025, but requested that the Court

enter an injunction against Defendants because as soon as Defendants turn on certain water access

the overflowing and damages will continue.”            In support of the Trespass claim, the Court

acknowledged that “Plaintiff [had] information from a plumber and private construction contractor

as to their analysis of damages and causes.”       Also,   “Defendant Glenville Thompson provided a
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 5
                                               

June 17, 2025 document from DPNR lifting the previous citation of January 24, 2025, and noting

‘Just needs to backfill soil around septic area where erosion occurred.’”

410     Regarding       the   Injunction   claim,   in response   to Defendant’s   proffer   of evidence   of

remediation of the causes of the wastewater seepage, “Plaintiff disagreed with DPNR’s finding

and demanded further information from DPNR.”

qil     The Magistrate Judge concluded, “In the instant matter, preliminary testimony provided

ample evidence for this Court to determine that this matter cannot be heard within the limited

bounds and summary procedures of the Small Claims Division.” “The Court cannot determine the

extent of Plaintiff's damages, which Plaintiff states are ongoing beyond Plaintiff's initial $10,000

damage claim.”        “Plaintiff seeks an injunction against Defendant, which this Court does not have

authority to issue.     Accordingly, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over this matter

and finds good cause for a transfer.”

                                                    ANALYSIS

q12     This matter is before this Court on an order of transfer because “the amount of testimony

and documentation required to resolve this matter adequately and justly is well beyond the scope

of this Court, which is designated to provide a ‘simple [and] speedy resolution to minor matters

that do not rise to the level of regular civil matters.””°

qi3     The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has established that the first step in determining if a

Small Claims Complaint has stated a cause (or causes) of action within the limited and specific

Small Claims Subject Matter Jurisdiction is to, “rather than [blindly accept] the legal terminology

used by a party when.         . . review[ing a Small Claims Complaint,] the [Court] is cautioned to look



5 Transfer Order (quoting V.I. SM. CL. R. 1(d))
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 6
                                               

at the factual substance of the [allegations and/or] testimony of pro se Small Claims parties and

consider legal theories that might be implicated                © From the allegations and testimony in this

Case, sewage flowing downhill from a septic tank is reasonably understood as pleading an action

for Trespass.’      The Magistrate Judge in the transfer order found that Plaintiff had also, at least,

attempted to orally assert a claim for an injunction.          The Court will consider both claims in turn

      I      Trespass Claim

414       The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has held the elements of Trespass to be the following

          a plaintiff claiming trespass has the burden of proving that the defendant
          intentionally (a) entered land in the possession of the other, or caused a thing or a
          third person to do so, or (b) remained on the land, or (c) failed to remove from the
          land a thing which he was under a duty to remove.[*]

Plaintiff utilized the Small Claims Complaint and, therein, limited the damages sought to $10,000

or less.” The Magistrate Division could have applied the elements of trespass to the facts and then

determined the Plaintiff's damages

415       Notably, “trespass victims may have damages for injury to the land calculated using

methods other than the diminished value rule.”'®               “While special damages compensate for the

unusual results of a plaintiff's injury, general damages ordinarily accompany a particular cause of



® Penn v. Mosley, 67 V.L. at 892-93, 897 (citing Cape Air Int'l v. Lindsey, 53 V.1.604, 619 (V.L. 2919))
  Notably, Plaintiff judicially admits that the water seepage has abated, making a claim of Nuisance inapplicable
8 Klein v. Bassil, 78 V.1. 593, 610 (V.I. ) (quoting Hodge, 50 V.I. at 306 citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §
 158 (1965)); see also Virgin Islands Waste Mgmt. Auth. v. Bovoni Invs., LLC, 61 V.1. 355, 364-65 (V.I. 2014)
(“‘[W]here the interference with property rights is only temporary, casual, or intermittent, without any permanent use
or appropriation or destruction of an existing right, there is a mere trespass and not a taking.’” (quoting Stewart v.
State, 

 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998); citing 51 N.Y. Just. 2d Eminent Domain § 88; American Woolen
Co. v. State, 

 (N.Y. App. Div. 1921); Carr v. Town of Fleming, 

 (N.Y
App. Div. 1986)))
° Use of a Small Claims Complaint creates a presumption of Small Claims Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Braga, 2025
VI SUPER 40, € 16 (“By using the Small Claims Complaint provided by the Court, a plaintiff enjoys a presumption
of compliance with Rule 2(a)(1).”)
 "0 Myers v. Derr, 

 (V.I. 2008) (citing Benton Gravel Co. v. Wright, 

 (Ark.1943)
 United States Steel Corp. v. Benefield, 

 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977)))
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-C V-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 7
                                               

action.        Unlike special damages, a plaintiff need not specifically plead each type of general

damages, but rather may recover under a general allegation of damages.”''                   “[T]he damages for a

trespass or encroachment are the injury to the land itself, the loss of use of the land, and the

discomfort and annoyance from not being able to occupy the land.”'?                      In a claim for Trespass,

“damages [can] properly [be] characterized as damages{, inter alia,] for loss of use of the land or

for discomfort and annoyance.          [T]Jhese are general damages that typically flow from a trespass

claim, and (are,]therefore implied by law,”         and need not be specifically pled.'? The Plaintiff “was

entitled to damages for loss of use of [the subject] property . . ., discomfort and annoyance from

not being able to occupy [the] property during that period, and discomfort and annoyance suffered

as a result of” overflowed          sewage.”'*      Although     “the trial court expressed       concern   [about

calculating damages,] general damages are implied by law, and thus a defendant has constructive

notice that they are being sought even if the plaintiff does not request them in the complaint.”!>

q16       Small Claims Plaintiffs must limit their damages claim to $10,000 or less.                 Based on the

Supreme Court’s holding on damages from Trespass to land, the Small Claims Complaint properly

pled a Trespass claim and sought the damages usually associated with such a claim.                      So long as

the Magistrate Division articulated facts that logically and rationally supported its damages

calculation, such a factual determination would not be overturned as either clearly erroneous or

unsupported by any evidence.'®            More importantly, nothing about this determination appears


" Jd. at 291 (citing Roberts v. Graham, 

 (1867); Meyers v. Moody,          

 (Sth
Cir.1982); LINC Finance Corp. v. Onwuteaka, 

 (7th Cir.1997);              Suarez Matos v. Ashford
Presbyterian Community Hosp., 

 (1st Cir.1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. $4(c)))
2 Id. at 292 (citations omitted)
3 Id. at 293
' Id. at 294 (citations omitted)
'S Id, at 294 (citations omitted)
'6 See, e.g., Penn, 67 V.1. at 892-93 (reviewing a Small Claims appeal for sufficient evidence)
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 8
                                                     

overly complicated or requiring discovery,'’ which indicates that the transfer order may have been

issued in error

417          However, before making such a ruling, the Court must also consider whether Plaintiff

properly raised an injunction claim in the Small Claims Proceeding.                    If there was, the Small Claims

Division lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider equitable claims; and transfer may have

been appropriate

      Ik         Injunction

418        = Initially, it should be noted that Plaintiff did not request in writing an injunction.               Plaintiff

neither requested an injunction in the Small Claims Complaint nor filed a motion for such—the

Pleadings did not expressly contain a claim for equitable relief. Rather, at the Small Claims Trial

on the Trespass claim, Plaintiff became concerned that the remedial measures admittedly taken by

Defendants were inadequate and that resumption of the use of the septic tank would again result

in Trespass to his land going forward

q19         “[S]ection 111 of title 4 of the Virgin Islands Code creates a Small Claims Division of the

Superior Court that may only consider uncomplicated civil cases with an amount in controversy

of $10,000 or less.”'® While Small Claims Proceedings are informal and the rules of procedure

are generally suspended, the absence of an injunction claim in the Small Claims Complaint is a

factor that weighs against the determination that this matter was appropriate for transfer to the



'7 In the Transfer Order, it states the following,    “Plaintiff's argument regarding Defendants’ negligence will require
significant additional research, discovery, and deposition of witnesses, such as DPNR, and expert testimony regarding
consequences from water, septic, engineering, and construction.” The Court does not find that a negligence claim was
pled, and the Trespass claim is not complicated requiring discovery and depositions
'8 Braga, 

, 114 (citations omitted); 4 V.LC. § 111 (Small Claims Proceedings are “informal and
summary as is consistent with justice.”); 4 V.LC. § 112(a) (“The small claims division of the Superior Court has
jurisdiction of all civil actions, concurrently with the civil division of the said court, wherein the amount in controversy
does not exceed the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.”)
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-C     V-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 9
                                                

General Jurisdiction Division, especially since none of the Parties had availed themselves of any

of the multiple methods of transfer and had not retained counsel

q20      ~—At the time of the Small Claims Trial, there was no written claim for injunction before the

Court; and DPNR was not a party to the proceeding.                 With this background, the question is what

was the course of conduct most consummate with the goals of Small Claims Proceedings when

the Plaintiff orally asserted that subsequent remedial measures were inadequate and expressed a

desire that use of the septic tank enjoined?

q21      Recently, in Magras v. Gibs, this Court addressed a very similar factual scenario.                     In that

case, the Small Claims Complaint named two defendants.                  There were no factual allegations in the

complaint identifying the defendants as employed by or acting on behalf of the Government, and

neither the named defendants nor the Government supported the motion for transfer with a factual

declaration under penalty of perjury or evidence capable of judicial notice.                   Recognizing that the

facts presented a truly unique and exceptional set of circumstances, the Court remanded that case

back to the Small Claims Division to make findings of fact in the first instance that would rebut!”

the presumption of Small Claims Subject Matter Jurisdiction created by a Small Claims Plaintiff's

use of the Small Claims Complaint.7°

22       The Court reasoned as follows, “if the Court is to preserve the purposes of Small Claims

Proceedings, [there must be] adequate factual support [justifying transfer out of the Small Claims

Subject Matter Jurisdiction] prior to an order of transfer being entered.’”?'                  The Court believes a



'9 Magras v. Gibs, 

, page 10
0 Braga, 2025 VI SUPER 40, J 16 (“It is legally significant that ‘[t]he Clerk of Court may issue a form and instructions
that, if completed, will satisfy the requirements of [V.I. SM. CL. 2(a)]        By using the Small Claims Complaint
provided by the Court, a plaintiff enjoys a presumption of compliance with Rule 2(a)(1),”        and, thus, enjoys the
presumption that Small Claims Subject Matter Jurisdiction exists. (citation omitted and alterations in original))
2! Gibs, 

, page 10
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 10
                                                

similar analysis applies here and dictates a similar outcome, as the present facts are unique and

quite uncommon; yet, the facts are not so out of the ordinary that they are unlikely to recur

{23     ~~ Plaintiffs complaint plainly stated a claim for Trespass based upon past action (or inaction)

of the Defendants.      There was absolutely no dispute that Defendants had taken remedial measures

to rectify the leaking septic tank after the dates alleged in the complaint.               The Trespass claim was

founded upon discrete past conduct of the Defendants and did not involve the question of whether

remedial measures were adequate.           DPNR and its determination that Defendants’ remedial actions

were adequate were unrelated and irrelevant to the Trespass claim, a claim for $10,000 or less and

properly before the Small Claims Division.              The only question that appeared to be in issue was

damages, a factual determination for which the Magistrate Division is eminently capable.”* At the

Small     Claims   Hearing,    no party appeared        with counsel      or requested      counsel;    and no party

requested the matter be transferred

424       The Magistrate Judge faced the question of the proper procedural course when a Small

Claims Plaintiff orally asserts a claim for an injunction founded upon facts separate and distinct

from the claim (or claims) properly pled and before the Small Claims Division and no party has

availed themselves of counsel or a transfer to the General Jurisdiction Civil Division.                     Under this

procedural posture and these facts, it was error for the Magistrate Judge to sua sponte transfer the

only claim actually asserted in the pleadings—-which was also properly within the Small Claims

Jurisdiction,      --out of the Small Claims Division

425       The proper course would be to uphold the Parties’ right to the informality and low cost of

a Small Claims Proceeding and determine the Trespass claim based upon the facts pre-dating



*2 It is for the Magistrate Judge to determine in the first instance if all the elements of Trespass have been proved
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 11
                                              

remedial actions taken by Defendants and, allegedly, approved and found adequate by DPNR

There was no reason for the Court to allow the Small Claims Plaintiff to orally amend the Small

Claims Complaint to add a new equitable claim based upon facts distinct and separate from the

claim before the Court, especially when the Small Claims Division does not have subject matter

jurisdiction to consider equitable claims.     Further, as discussed in the preceding section, calculating

damages of $10,000 or less based upon the facts alleged to have constituted Trespass by the

Defendants is not so complicated as being beyond the competence of the Small Claims Division

§26     The Court wishes to acknowledge that the present case and the case of Magras v. Gibs are

unique and will not commonly         recur.     Most   Small Claims Complaints      will contain judicial

admissions that the Defendants were acting on behalf of the Government or expressly name the

Government.    The pleadings in Magras v. Gibs were truly unusual in that they contained no such

allegations and lacked allegations that allowed for the inference that they were Government

employees/officials.   Given that use of the Small Claims Complaint creates a presumption of Small

Claims Subject Matter Jurisdiction and the absence of judicial admissions establishing the

Government was a party, some evidence was required to be produced to rebut the presumption of

Small Claims Jurisdiction.     Therefore, in Magras v. Gibs, it was error to allow the motion to

transfer without first requiring the Government to produce the necessary factual support, either by

declaration under penalty of perjury or pointing out evidence capable of judicial notice

427     Similarly, most Small Claims Plaintiffs will not assert claims that can readily be factually

and legally divided without making the subsequent proceedings overly complicated.                  Factual

allegations are not commonly capable of discrete and distinct division and analysis due to the

reality that most human conduct occurs in unbroken chains of thought and action.           But, where the
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 12
                                            

claims are founded upon discrete sets of facts capable of independent analysis, the Small Claims

Division should honor the Parties’ choice not to have counsel and determine those claims that are

factually within the Court’s Small Claims Jurisdiction and factually distinct from claims not within

that limited jurisdiction.     This precise set of facts and procedure will not likely recur with any

frequency

428          At the time of the Small Claims Trial, DPNR was not a party to the proceeding; and no

injunction claim was contained in the Small Claims Complaint, even if the Court were to give the

allegations the most generous construction possible.         No party had counsel, and no Party had

requested a transfer, plainly indicating a desire for the informal and low-cost resolution provided

for in a Small Claims Proceeding.       Under these facts and in response to an oral assertion of a need

for an injunction made in the middle of a Small Claims Trial, the Magistrate should have denied

the injunction claim without prejudice as being beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and not

properly pled and proceeded to determine the factually distinct Trespass claim based upon facts

that pre-dated the remediation measures.        Therefore, it was reversible error when the Magistrate

transferred the only claim that had been pled and was within the presumption of the Court’s Small

Claims Jurisdiction

      III.      Appropriate Remedy

429          Lastly, the Court must consider the appropriate remedy for this situation.   As the Virgin

Islands Supreme Court has made clear that “neither parties to litigation nor this Court [are] entitled

to disregard the Court's rules—parties cannot disregard courts rules simply because they see it as
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 13
                                                   

convenient,””* if the Court were to retain General Civil Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the

remaining Trespass claim, it is not entirely certain the Court is permitted to jettison the Virgin

Islands Rules of Civil Procedure and the Virgin Islands Rules of Evidence in favor of the informal

procedure and reduced burden of proof mandated in a Small Claims Proceeding.“                                     Yet, the

Trespass claim was properly pled via a Small Claims Complaint;                             and to date,     no Party has

requested a transfer to this Division of the Court or retained counsel.                   Both at the commencement

of the Small Claims Proceeding and now, the Trespass claim was (and is) within the subject matter

jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division of this Court.                Under the present circumstances, the more

equitable course for the Parties is to remand this matter to the Magistrate Division so that the

Parties    may     enjoy    their   right    to the     informal     proceedings      proscribed      in Small     Claims

Proceedings

{30       Notably, if the Court retained this matter, it would face the choice of either forcing the

Parties to endure the time and expense of pre-trial procedures prescribed by the Virgin Islands

Rules of Civil Procedure or potentially committing error by disregarding the duly adopted rules of

the Court.       Remand avoids both issues.            This matter will be remanded back to the Magistrate




3 Stewart v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Land Use Appeals, 2025 VISUPER 44U, 4] n.4 (citing Henry v. Dennery (““Dennery
IP’), No. S.CT.CIV. 2012-0130, 

, at *2 (V.I. Jan. 11, 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished)); see also
Dennery H, 

, at *2 (There “is simply no excuse for a single judge setting aside a mandatory court
tule that was validly adopted by the Superior Court pursuant to its rulemaking authority.”); see /d. at *2 (“[T]his Court
has repeatedly instructed that parties cannot simply stipulate to the law.”   (citing Rohn v. People, S. Ct. Crim. No.2011
0087, 

 (V.I. Nov. 21, 2012); Matthew v. Herman, 56 VI. 674, 682 (V.I. 2012))
4 See Dennery IT, 

, at *2 (“[P]arties may not stipulate to an appellate court's application of a different
standard of review of a lower court decision.” (citing K & T Enterprises, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 97 F.34.171, 175 (6th
Cir. 1996))); e.g., Jd. at *2 (“The fact that the Appellate Division believed that proceeding in derogation of Rule 322
in this case would somehow benefit both parties' by providing them with additional due process rights is simply no
excuse for a single judge setting aside a mandatory court rule that was validly adopted by the Superior Court pursuant
to its rulemaking authority.”)
LaPlante v. Thompson and Thompson
ST-2025-CV-00250
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAGE 14
                                            

Division so that a Smal] Claims Trial on the Trespass claim may be had and the claim finally

adjudicated

                                             CONCLUSION

431      The injunction claim has been denied.       The only remaining claim before this division of

the Court is a claim that was, due to the use of the Small Claims Complaint, presumptively within

the subject matter jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division.        Because this matter was improperly

transferred, it is remanded back to the Magistrate Division for a determination of Plaintiffs

Trespass claim in accordance with the law applicable to Small Claims Proceedings

       Accordingly, it is hereby

       ORDERED         that this matter is remanded back to the Magistrate Division; and it is further

       ORDERED         that the Magistrate Division shall schedule a Small Claims Trial as soon as

reasonably practicable in light of its calendar; and it is further

       ORDERED         that a copy of this Order shall be directed to counsel of record



DATED:      February 10, 2026
                                                  HONO               SIGRID M. TEJO
 ATTEST                                           Judge of t          rior Court of the Virgin Islands

 TAMARA CHARLES
 Clerk of     ie

 BY:               A
          DON             DONOVAN
          Court Clerk Supervisor      02   /12   / 2026