FOR PUBLICATION


                        SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                                DIVISION OF ST. CROIX

 MICHAEL FELIX,                                  Case No. SX-2008-CV-00086

                              PLAINTIFF,
                                                 Action for Damages
                       V.

 CARIBBEAN AUTO MART OF ST. CROIX, INC.          Jury Trial Demanded
 AND LINUS LANCANE,

                              DEFENDANT.


 CARIBBEAN AUTO MART,                            Case No. SX-2008-CV-00163

                              PETITIONER,        On Review from the Virgin Islands
                                                 Department of Labor
                       V.
                                                 (re: DOL App. No. 020-02-08)
 GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS,
 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (EX REL. MICHAEL
 FELIX),

                              RESPONDENT.


                                      Cite as: 

Appearances:

LEE J. ROHN, ESQ.
Lee J. Rohn and Associates
Christiansted, VI 00820
For Michael Felix

PAMELA R. TEPPER, ESQ.
Solicitor General, Virgin Islands Department of Justice
St. Thomas, VI 00802
For the Government of the Virgin Islands, Department of Labor

MICOL L. MORGAN, ESQ.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC
St. Thomas, VI 00802
For Caribbean Auto Mart (Case No. SX-2008-CV-00086)
Felix v. Caribbean Auto Mart of St. Croix, Inc., et al. / Caribbean Auto Mart v. Gov’t of the V.I., et al.   

Case Nos. SX-2008-CV-00086 / SX-2008-CV-00163
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Page 2 of 6

W. MARK WILCZYNSKI, ESQ.
Law Office of W. Mark Wilczynski, PC
St. Thomas, VI 00804
For Caribbean Auto Mart (Case No. SX-2008-CV-00163) and for Linus Lancane


                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WILLOCKS, Presiding Judge

¶1       THESE MATTERS are before the Court following a review of the files. Both matters were stayed

due to Caribbean Auto Mart having filed a petition for bankruptcy on March 5, 2013. So far as the Court

is aware, these matters remain stayed due to the bankruptcy proceeding. The Court questions now,

however, whether either case can be revived whenever the bankruptcy proceedings conclude.

¶2       This Court recently echoed other Superior Court judges in questioning how cases and proceedings

stayed under bankruptcy laws should be managed in Virgin Islands courts. See generally Caribbean Auto

Mart of St. Croix, Inc. v. Molloy, 

. Once a bankruptcy proceeding is commenced, court

cases pending against the debtor are stayed, and remain stayed, until bankruptcy proceedings conclude,

and the debtor is discharged. As one court explained,

         [once] the debtor receives a discharge, the automatic stay terminates and the discharge
         injunction permanently takes its place. The Bankruptcy Code provides that a discharge
         “operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the
         employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a personal
         liability of the debtor, whether or not discharge of such debt is waived.” The discharge
         injunction furthers one of the basic principles of bankruptcy—to provide the debtor with a
         fresh start. In re: Covelli, 

 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citations and ellipsis
         omitted) (emphasis added).

There are exceptions, of course. Student loans being a well-known example of a debt that, generally, is

not dischargeable in bankruptcy. But the overarching point here is that, in the vast majority of cases, once

the automatic stay takes effect, it remains in effect until most claims against the debtor are resolved.
Felix v. Caribbean Auto Mart of St. Croix, Inc., et al. / Caribbean Auto Mart v. Gov’t of the V.I., et al.   

Case Nos. SX-2008-CV-00086 / SX-2008-CV-00163
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Page 3 of 6

¶3       The consequence may be that trial courts lack authority to continue cases or proceedings stayed

by federal bankruptcy laws after bankruptcy proceedings have concluded. Courts can dismiss such cases,

however, so long as the dismissal is without prejudice. See Molloy, 

 at ¶ 5; see also In

re: Refinery Hydrocarbon Release Litig., Case No. SX-2015-CV-100, 

 (V.I. Super.

Ct. July 10, 2017). Thus, if the plaintiff or petitioner in either matter cannot proceed, then allowing these

matters to remain stayed but open for an indefinite length of time is pointless, especially if the end result

will ultimately be dismissal. Cf. Molloy, 

 at ¶¶ 4-5 (noting that an eight-year old case

had been stayed for seven years “without an end in sight.”).

¶4       This question of how to proceed with these two matters, each having been stayed for nearly eight

years now, is made more complex because Case No. SX-2008-CV-00086 (hereinafter “the damages

action”) and Case No. SX-2008-CV-00163 (hereinafter “the review proceeding”) are different actions and

were commenced by different parties. The damages action was commenced by Michael Felix (hereinafter

“Felix”) against Caribbean Auto Mart and Linus Lancane allegedly for wrongful termination. The

damages action, clearly, is stayed against Caribbean Auto Mart,1 and will remain stayed during bankruptcy

proceedings unless Felix asks for, and the bankruptcy court grants, relief from the stay to allow the

damages action to proceed. By contrast, the review proceeding was commenced by Caribbean Auto Mart.

Actions commenced by a party who later files for bankruptcy are not necessarily stayed. See, e.g., Chaput

v. Scafidi, 

 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017) (“[F]ederal courts, relying on the plain language

of the bankruptcy code and a common sense reading of its provisions, distinguish proceedings against the

debtor from proceedings by the debtor.” (emphasis omitted) (collecting cases)). However, even though



1
  Technically, Felix’s case against Linus Lancane is not stayed, unless a court concludes that it could not proceed without
impacting Caribbean Auto Mart’s bankruptcy proceeding. Cf. In re: Refinery Hydrocarbon Release Litig., Case No. SX-15-
CV-100, 

, *13 (V.I. Super. Ct. July 10, 2017) (“Generally, claims against non-bankrupt co-defendants
will not be stayed absent a showing that such claims are ‘related to’ the defendant in bankruptcy and the bankrupt estate.”).
Felix v. Caribbean Auto Mart of St. Croix, Inc., et al. / Caribbean Auto Mart v. Gov’t of the V.I., et al.   

Case Nos. SX-2008-CV-00086 / SX-2008-CV-00163
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Page 4 of 6

Caribbean Auto Mart commenced the review proceeding, that proceeding initially involved a claim

against Caribbean Auto Mart, inasmuch as Felix sought unemployment benefits and prevailed before the

Virgin Islands Department of Labor. Presumably, it too must remain stayed. Cf. Molloy, 

 at ¶ 4 (“The goal of the automatic stay is to ‘prevent the commencement or continuation, after a

bankruptcy petition has been filed, of lawsuits and proceedings to recover a claim against the debtor that

arose before the filing of the petition.’” (first emphasis added) (brackets and citation omitted)). Yet, even

if the review proceeding can resume once bankruptcy proceedings conclude, the Court notes that a final

order was entered in this matter in February 2010, with a motion for reconsideration timely filed, but not

ruled on for nearly eleven years now, three of which proceeded Caribbean Auto Mart’s bankruptcy

petition. Whether the Court still retains jurisdiction to rule on that motion is unclear. Cf. Companion

Assurance Co. v. Smith, 

 (2017).2

¶5       Nevertheless, “state and territorial courts have their own procedures for suspending proceedings

against parties subject to a bankruptcy stay.” In re: Refinery Hydrocarbon Release Litig., Case No. SX-

15-CV-100, 

, *8 (V.I. Super. Ct. July 10, 2017). One procedure is to dismiss those

cases and proceedings that are stayed by operation of the bankruptcy laws without prejudice, subject to




2
  The Court also questions whether staying the review proceeding is appropriate, given that unemployment benefits are “paid
solely through public employment offices, or such other agencies as the U.S. Secretary of Labor shall approve, in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Labor.” 24 V.I.C. § 305(a). In addition, “benefits shall be paid promptly
in accordance with . . . the decision of a hearing examiner . . . under section 306,” and “upon the issuance of such . . . decision
. . . unless and until such . . . decision has been modified or reversed . . . in which event benefits shall be paid or denied for
weeks of unemployment thereafter in accordance with such modifying or reversing . . . decision.” Id. § 305(h)(1). In other
words, Felix should have received his unemployment benefits, which Caribbean Auto Mart would not have paid directly to
him. Accord Haugen v. Superior Dev., Inc., 

 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012) (“Although employers fund the
unemployment insurance program and an employer's tax rate may increase based on benefits paid to applicants, an employer
does not pay unemployment benefits directly and a former employee's application for benefits is not a claim against an
employer.” (citations omitted)). Thus, even if Caribbean Auto Mart were to prevail in the review proceeding, reversing the
administrative law judge’s decision now—twelve years later—might not have a financial impact on the bankruptcy estate,
particularly if the end result would mean that Felix is only denied future unemployment. See 24 V.I.C. § 305(h)(1); see also id.
§ 305(h)(2); id. § 305(j)(3); Serrant v. V.I. Emp’t Sec. Agency, 

 (3d Cir. 1995) (reversing reviewing court’s
decision to affirm recoupment decision).
Felix v. Caribbean Auto Mart of St. Croix, Inc., et al. / Caribbean Auto Mart v. Gov’t of the V.I., et al.   

Case Nos. SX-2008-CV-00086 / SX-2008-CV-00163
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Page 5 of 6

their refiling, if appropriate, once bankruptcy proceedings have concluded. See id. at *10 (“‘The

bankruptcy court does not have the power to preclude another court from dismissing a case on its docket

or to affect the handling of a case in a manner not inconsistent with the purpose of the automatic stay.’”

(quoting Dennis v. A.H. Robins Co., 

 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)); see also Molloy,

 at ¶ 7 (“State and territorial courts have found that ‘the need of a court to advance a

crowded docket is certainly sufficient to justify the dismissal of a case.’” (quoting In re: Refinery

Hydrocarbon Release Litig., 

 at *11)); Brouillard v. DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc., 

 (2014) (per curiam) (“We agree with these courts that dismissal without prejudice represents

the sounder method for achieving compliance with the federal mandate, and therefore we dismiss this

appeal without considering the merits of the underlying case. Within 60 days of the conclusion of the

bankruptcy proceedings or the date the bankruptcy court enters an order terminating the automatic stay,

the Brouillards may file a new notice of appeal with this Court, which shall be effective to appeal the . . .

Judgment notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Court’s rules of appellate procedure.”).

“However, before taking any significant action sua sponte, the Court must first give the parties a chance

to respond.” Molloy, 

 at ¶ 7 (citing Hughley v. Gov’t of the V.I., 

 (2014)).

         Accordingly, for the reasons given above, it is hereby

         ORDERED that Michael Felix, as plaintiff in Case No. SX-2008-CV-00086, and respondent in

Case No. SX-2008-CV-00163, shall SERVE and FILE a notice in writing, within fourteen (14) days

from the date of entry of this Order, informing the Court: (1) whether Felix filed a proof of claim with the

bankruptcy court; (2) whether Caribbean Auto Mart, defendant in Case No. SX-2008-CV-00086, and

petitioner in Case No. SX-2008-CV-00163, listed these actions on its bankruptcy schedule; and (3)

assuming that Felix did not miss the deadline to file a proof of claim, whether Felix intends to file a motion

with the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay to allow either case to proceed.
Feltx v Cartbbean Auto Mart of Sr Crow: Inc et a1 / Caribbean Auto Marl v Gov tofthe V! et a!   

Case Nos SK 2008 CV 00086 / 8X 2008 CV 0016?
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Page 6 of 6


        If Felix will not move the bankruptcy court for relief from the automatic stay then Felix shall file

a response within the same time given above to SHOW CAUSE why Case No SX 2008 CV 00086

should not be dismissed without prejudice for the reasons stated above as to Caribbean Auto Mart, and

further SHOW CAUSE why his case against Linus Lancane should remain stayed It is further

        ORDERED that Linus Lancane SHALL—and Caribbean Auto Mart MAY but is not required

to—SERVE and FILE a reply to any response that Felix files within fourteen (14) days thereafter

        DONE and so ORDERED this é may of January, 2021




                                                 ;        HAROLD W L WILLOCKS
                                                     Presiding Judge of the Superior Court