IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
District of St Croix
m
Republican Party of the Virgin Islands et Case Number SK 2022 CV 00131
a], Action Misappropriation of Name
Plaintiff
v
Gordon Ackley et a1,
Defendant
NOTICE of ENTRX
of
Order
F0 Xolmna M Manning judgeb/Magristrates ST] Al:
Challotte 3111111131 5 Sheldon qu Clerk 01 11h ( curt
Scot F McChain_l;<.q Law Clelks IT
MALL
Please take notice that on May 03 2022
a(n) Memorandum Opinion and 01de1
dated May 5’: 2022 was/were entered
by the Clerk in the above titled mattel
Dated Max 03 2022 Tamara Challes
Clerk of the Court
By a %
Sharisse Bascombe
Court Clerk II
f
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED Civil No SX 2022 CV 131
STATES VIR IN ISLANDS A/G/A VIGOP
JOHN CANEgATA INDIVIDUALLY AND IN ACTION FOR TEMPORARY
C RESTRAINING ORDER
H15 CAPACITY AS HAIRMAN OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND PERMANENT INJUCNTION
VIRGIN ISLANDS, ROBERT MAX
SCHANFARBER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CITE AS 2022 VI SUPER 49
CAPACITY AS NATIONAL COMMITTEEMAN OF
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED
STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND LILLIANA
BELARDO DE O’NEAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND
IN HIS CAPACITY AS NATIONAL
COMMITTEEWOMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN
ISLANDS,
PLAINTIFFS,
V
GORDON ACKLEY ANOTINETTE
GUMBS HECHT AND JEVON WILLIAMS
!
DEFENDANTS '
Appearances
Yohona Manning, Esq
Scot F McChain, Esq
Charlotte S Sheldon, Esq
MCCHAIN HAMM & ASSOCIATES
Christiansted U S Virgin Islands
For Plamnfls
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLOCKS Presiding Judge
‘1 1 THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff Republican Party of the U S Virgin
Islands 21an VIGOP (hereinafter VIGOP ) Plaintiff John Canegata individually and in his
capacity as Chairman of the VIGOP (hereinafter Canegata ) and Plaintiff Robert Max
VIGOP eta! . Ackle) er a1
SX 2022 CV HI
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 2 0f 16
Schanfarber, individually and in his capacity as the National Committeeman of the VIGOP
(hereinafter Schanfarber’) and Plaintiff Lilliana Belardo De 0 Neal individually and in her
capacity as the National Committeewoman of the GOP s (hereinafter 0 Neal and together with
VIGOP Canegata and Schanfarber Plaintiffs ) motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction filed on April 8, 2022
BACKGROUND
‘][ 2 On April 8 2022 Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint against Defendant Gordon Ackley
(hereinafter Ackley ) Defendant Antoinette Gumbs Hecht (hereinafter Gumbs Hecht ) and
Defendant Jevon Williams (hereinafter Williams and together with Ackley and Gumbs Hecht
“Defendants ) in an action for a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction, and
permanent injunction In the complaint Plaintiffs alleged inter alia (i) the VIGOP is the only
recognized United States Virgin Islands affiliate of the national Republican Party (Compl ‘][ 43),
(ii) The individual plaintiffs are current officeholders of the VIGOP to wit, Canegata is the
Chairman of the VIGOP Schanfarber is the National Committeeman of the VIGOP and 0 Neal
is the National Committeewoman of the VIGOP (Compl W 7 9) (iii) Defendants and their
associates have engaged in longstanding rivalries with the individual Plaintiffs Canegata
Schanfarber and 0 Neal for the control of the VIGOP (Compl ‘ll‘ll I2 41) (iv) Most recently
Defendants held an illegal caucus on March 29 2022 which was not sanctioned by the V 1 Board
of Elections and was not held in conformity with Virgin Islands law (Compl <II 35) (v) At the
illegal [March 29 2022] caucus the Defendants have similarly created confusion and utilized voter
intimidation methods to attempt the overthrow of VIGOP leadership and the Plaintiffs duly
elected positions within the Party (Compl ‘I[ 36) and (vi) Defendants are wrongfully using the
VIGOP er a! v Acklet eta!
SX 2022 CV I31
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 3 m 16
name symbol emblem and insignia of the national Republican Party namely an elephant with
three stars across its back without Plaintiffs consent in violation of Title [8 V I C § 301(c) ”
(Compl (ll 45) and (vii) Defendants are using the name symbol, emblem and insignia of the
VIGOP and the national Republican Party to represent themselves as the official VIGOP (Compl
‘ll 46 )
‘1! 3 On the same date August 8 2022 Plaintiffs filed this instant motion and attached the
affidavit of Plaintiffs counsel Yohana Manning, Esq dated April 7 2022 (hereinafter ‘ Manning
Affidavit ) and the affidavit of Canegata in his capacity as Chairman of the VIGOP acting on
behalf of the VIGOP dated April 7 2022 (hereinafter Canegata Affidavit ) in support of
Plaintiffs motion pursuant to Rule 65(b)( l)(B) and Rule 84(a) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil
Procedure According to the Manning Affidavit Defendants were served with a copy of the
motion the proposed order thereto and the Canegata Affidavit via hand delivery (Manning Aff
‘]| 2 ) As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order no opposition has been filed '
STANDARD OF REVIEW
‘|[4 Rule 65 0f the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter Rule 65 ) governs
injunctions and restraining orders ‘[A] TRO i9 civil equitable relief granted for the purpose of
preserving the status quo In )e N(ljanLZ 52 V I 311 335 (V I 2009) see Appleyard v Juan F
Luzs Hosp & Med Ctr 2014 VI LEXIS 56 *4 (VI Super Ct July 28 2014) (unpublished)
(‘ A temporary restraining order is a stop gap procedural device to preserve the status quo until a
preliminary or permanent injunction can be considered ) While temporary restraining orders
' Rule 6 l of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure provides that ‘ [Nothing herein shall prohibit the court 1mm
ruling without a response or reply when deemed appropriate VI R Cw P 6 l(f)(6) Here the Court finds it
appropriate to rule on Plaintifts motion without a rLsponse trom Defendants
VIGOP era! v Ackle) eta!
8X 2022 CV 13!
Memorandum Opinion and Order
2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 4 0f I6
fall within an exception to the general rule requiring notice and
an opportunity to be heard
Wessmger v Wessmger 56 VI 48! 489 n 9 (VI 2012) the
Court ‘may issue a temporary
restraining order without written or oral notice to the advers
e party or its attorney only if
(A)specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearl
y show that immediate and
irreparable injury loss or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard
in opposition and (B) the movants attorney certifies in writin
g any efforts made to give notice
and the reasons why it should not be required VI R CIV P 65(b)(l) Every temporary
restraining order issued without notice must state the date and
hour it was issued' describe the
injury and state why it is irreparable state why the order was
issued without notice and be
promptly filed in the clerk of court 5 office and entered in the record
V I R CIv P 65(b)(2) On
the other hand the Court may issue a preliminary injunction only
on notice to the adverse party
VI R Cw P 65(a)
‘11 5 Precedents from the Virgin Islands Supreme Court established that
the Superior Court must
consider four factors when deciding a motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary
injunction ( 1) whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of succes
s on the merits;
(2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured by denial
of the relief, (3) whether granting
preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the nonmoving
party, and (4) whether granting
the preliminary relief will be in the public interest 3RC & C0 t Boyzes Trucking Sys 63 V I
544 550 (VI 2015) The moving party has the burden of makin
g some showing on all four
injunction facts Id, 63 VI at 557 The Virgin Islands Supreme Court instru
cted that in
evaluating the injunctive motion the Superior Court must evalua
te the moving party 5 showing
on all four factors under a sliding scale standard and that [i]n condu
cting this sliding scale
VIGOP er a! t Ackle) e! a!
SX 2022 CV I31
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 5 of 16
analysis the Superior Court must make findings on each of the four factors and determine
whether
when the factors are considered together and weighed against one another the moving party
has made a clear showing that [it] is entitled to [injunctive] relief 1 Id
(II 6 Under Rule 65, ‘[e]very order granting an injunction and every restraining order must
(A) state the reasons why it issued (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable
detail and not by referring to the complaint or other document the act or acts restrained or
required and that [t]he order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal
service or otherwise (A) the parties (B) the parties officers agents servants employees
and
attorneys, and (C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described
in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B) V I R CIV P 65(d)( l) and (2) Furthermore under Rule 65 [t]he
court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives
security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained
by
any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained but [t]he Government
of the
Virgin Islands its officers and its agencies are not required to give security V I R CIV P 65(c)
The temporary restraining order expires at the time after entry not to exceed 14 days that the
’ [n 3RC & Co the Virgin Islands Supreme Court explained that because courts 0t equity
developed these remedies
in order to provide reliet that was unavailable in courts 0| law [i]t is axiomatic that equitable
relief is only available
where there is no adequate remedy at law and [t]his is why a party Seeking injunctive
reliet must demonstrate that
the injunction is necessary to avoid certain and imminent harm for which a monetary
award does not adequately
compensate in other Words harm without an adequate legal remedy 61 V I at 554 (internal quotation
marks and
citation omitted) However, the Virgin Islands Supreme Court pointed out that ‘irreparable
injury [alone] is not
enough to support equitable relief [t]here must be a plausible claim on the merits’ and [a]s
a result in some cases
the showing on the merits may be as minimal as simply making out a prima tacit: case it
the showing on the m0ving
party 5 likelihood of irreparable harm is strong enough and the likelihood that the injunction Would cause irreparable
harm to the nonmoving party is low enough to outweigh the weaker showing on the merits ‘ Id 6? V I at 554 55
Nevertheless the Virgin Islands Supreme Court also pointed out that {allthough the primary
reason for granting a
preliminary injunction is to prevent irreparable harm, this iactor is less decisive where
the likelihood of success on the
merits is very strong Id, 63 VI at 556 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) Finally as to the public
interest factor the Virgin Islands Supreme Court noted that this iactor ‘ will typically tavor
the moving party if [it]
demonstrates both a likelihood 0t success on the merits and irreparable injury ’ Id 63 V l £11556
(internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)
VIGOP e! a! I Ackles er a!
8X 2022 CV l3]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 6 or 16
court sets unless before that time the court for good cause extends it for a like period or the
adverse party consents to a longer extension and “[t]he reasons for an extension must be entered
in the record VI R CIv P 65(b)(2)
DISCUSSION
I The Four Factors
‘1] 7 Plaintiffs, the moving party have the burden of making some showing on all four factors
3RC & Co 63 V I at 557 The Court will address the four factors in turn
it Whether Plaintiffs have shown a reasonable probability of success on the
merits
‘II 8 As to the first factor Plaintiffs argued that they ‘ have a high probability of success on the
merits based on the fact that this identical issue has already been raised before this Court [in
Canegata v Schoebaum 64 V I 252 (V I Super Ct May 27 2016)] and this Court granted the
injunction (Motion 4) Plaintiffs made the following assertions in support of their argument (i)
Defendants misus[ed] the name and symbol of the VIGOP and the national Republican Party
to represent themselves as the official VIGOP for the purpose of holding the illegal 2022 caucus
and electing a new leadership (Id at 3)’ (ii) Pursuant to [Title] 18 V I C § 301(c) Defendants
are neither authorized to use nor have been given the express consent of the VIGOP to use the
symbol, emblem or insignia of the national [Republican] Party and therefore an injunction to
restrain them from such usage is necessary (Id at 4), (iii) ‘ In [Canegata] the defendants, who
are affiliated with the present Defendants, replaced the unauthorized image with a similar image
yet this Court still found that they were in violation of [Title 18 V IC] § 301(c) (Id at 5)
(emphasis omitted), (iv) “Here where Defendants have used the exact VIGOP image an elephant
with three stars the result must be the same (Id ) and (v) [T]his Court previously held [in
VIGOP e! a] v Ackle) eta!
SX 2022 CV 13]
Memorandum Opinion and Order
2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 7 01 I6
Canegata] that Plaintiffs showed a reasonable probability of success on
the merits in regard to
Defendants misappropriation of the [VIGOP 5] name as they have done
in the present matter
(Id)
‘ll 9 In order to show a reasonable probability of success on the merits [the moving
party does
not have to] show that [it] will actually prevail on the merits at trial or
that [its] success is more
likely than not only that [it] has a reasonable chance or probability of
winning Yusufv flamed
59 V I 841 849 (VI 2013) Under the sliding scale standard the Court
may grant an injunction
with an even weaker showing on the merits than that anioulated in Yusuf
if the Superior Court
concludes that the moving party has made a strong enough showing on
the other three factors to
nonetheless establish a clear showing that [it] is entitled to [injunctive]
relief 3RC & C0 63 V I
at 556 n 5 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted)
(ll 10 Here Plaintiffs essentially raised the following two claims in this
lawsuit (i) Defendants
use of the VIGOP 3 name in connection with the March 29 2022 caucus without
Plaintiffs consent
was a misapptopriation of the VIGOP 5 name and (ii) Defendant 5 use
of the national Republican
Party 5 (hereinafter GOP ) symbol emblem or insignia in connection
with the March 29 2022
caucus without Plaintiffs consent violated Title 18 V I C § 301(c)
1 In their complaint Plaintiffs
%
3 Title 18 V I C § 301 provides
(0) Whenever a political party in the Virgin Islands atliliates with
a national political party committee
convention or organization regardless of when such affiliation took
place no association group club
organization or instrumentalin shall use the symbol emblem or insignia
of the national political party
convention committee or organi7ation which has affiliated with a Virgin
Islands political party without the
express consent in writing from the chairman and secretary of the Virgin Islands
political party filed with the
Supervisor of Elections A petition for an injunction to restrain such
association club group or
instrumentalin from using such symbol emblem 0r insignia may be filed in the District
Court by the officers
of said attiliated political party and/or the Supervisor of Elections
Title18 V I C § 301(c)
In their motion Plaintitts appear to consider the VIGOP s symbol
emblem or insignia and the GOP s symbol
emblem 0r insignia as one and the same and theretore interchangeable
For example as to the first factor Plaintilts
argued that [p]ursuant to [Title] l8 V I C § 301(c) Detendants are neither
authorized to use nor have been given
VIGOP er a! t Ackle) e! a!
SX 2022 CV l3]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 8 of 16
alleged that VIGOP is the only recognized United States Virgin Islands affiliate of the national
Republican Party and that the individual plaintiffs are current officeholders of the VIGOP
(Comp! 1H 7 9 43 )This means that the VIGOP and those in control of the VIGOP may lawfully
prevent the misappropriation of the VIGOP’s name by Defendants who were not functioning
under the aegis of the VIGOP This also means that under Title 18 V IC § 30|(c) Defendants
were prohibited to use the GOP s symbol emblem or insignia ‘without the express consent in
writing from the chairman and secretary of the [VIGOP] As such the Court finds that Plaintiffs
have shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits of Plaintiffs claims See Yusuf 59
V l at 849 (noting that the moving party only [has to show} that [it] has a reasonable chance
or probability of winning ) Accordingly this factor weighs in favor of the issuance of a
temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from using the VIGOP s name and the GOP s
symbol emblem, or insignia
the express consent ol the VIGOP to use the symbol, emblem, or insignia of the national [Republican] Party and
therefore an injunction to restrain them trom such usage is necessary (Motion 4), but as to the second lactor
Plaintitts argugd that they will be irreparany harmed by Detendants continued usage of the VIGOP symbol,
emblem, and insignia (Id at 5) (emphasis added) In another example Plaintiffs argued that Detendants
have usurped the official USVI GOP name and symbol without authorization at the illegal March 29 2022
caucus when they improperly allixed the VIGOP name and symbol in relation to the unsatmtioned [sic] caucus
in an attempt to achieve some level 0t legitimacy ” (Id , at 2) but then requested the Court to “enioined trom lurther
using the VIGOP name and national [Republican] Party’s symbol tor the purpose oi holding elections or otherwise
(Id at p 3) (emphasis added ) However Plaintiffs themselves acknowledged that the VIGOP and the GOP each has
its own distinct symbol emblem 0r insignia to wit Plaintilfs described an eagle holding an olive branch and three
arrows as a VIGOP symbol and an elephant with three stars in the middle as a GOP symbol (Id )
This may be a nuanced distinction but it is an important distinction because arguably Plaintitfs may have intended to
raise a third claim as to Defendants use ot the VIGOP s symbol emblem or insignia in connection with the March
29 2022 caucus without Plaintitfs consent However Title [8 V I C § 301(c) only specifically addresses the GOP s
symbol emblem or insignia and not the VIGOP s symbol emblem or insignia Furthermore Plaintifls did not set
torth any concise arguments as to a claim tor misappropriation of the VIGOP s symbol emblem 0r insignia, Plaintiffs
only stated in passing that this Court previously held [in Canegata] that Plaintitts showed a reasonable probability
of success on the merits in regard to Defendants misappropriation oi the [VIGOP 5] name as they have done in the
present matter (Motion 5) (emphasis added ) Plaintiffs cannot and should not expect the Court to make the argument
for them when they have failed to do so See Josepht Joseph 2015 V I LEXIS 4? *5 (V I Super Ct Apr 23 2015)
( [I]n general the Court will not make a movant s arguments for him when he has failed to do so ’ ) Thus the Court
will only address the two claims mentioned above and for the purposes 0t this motion any reference to Detendants
use ot the VIGOP s symbol, emblem 0r insignia will be considered to include the GOP s symbol, emblem or insignia
VIGOP er a1 \ Ackle) er a1
SX 2022 CV H]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 9 0f l6
b Whether Plaintiffs will be irreparably injured by denial of the relief
1111 As to the second factor Plaintiffs argued that they will be irreparany harmed by
Defendants continued usage of the VIGOP symbol emblem and insignia (Motion 5 ) Plaintiffs
made the following assertions in support of their argument (i) Defendants are not authorized to
use the symbol and their continued usage will cause confusion between the legitimate VIGOP and
the rogue individuals who are improperly portraying to this jurisdiction that they are in fact the
VIGOP (Id ), (ii)Defendants blatanttactic of using the VIGOP symbol,emblem and insignia
and purported the voters to be the leadership and that the [March 29 2022] caucus was
legitimate will almost certainly cause the VIGOP embarrassment and to lose their reputation and
credibility both locally and nationally (Id) and (iii) The Court previously held that the
plaintiffs in Canegata which are also similar Plaintiffs here, would face immediate, irreparable
harm if the danger of confusion is allowed to persist (Id )
(ll [2 ‘lrreparable harm is certain and imminent harm for which a monetary award does not
adequately compensate Ymuf 59 V I at 854 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
This test is satisfied if the moving party can demonstrate that its monetary damages are either
difficult to ascertain or are inadequate Id (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
Accordingly, when “the record indicates that [the moving partys loss] is a matter of simple
mathematic calculation [the moving party] fails to establish irreparable injury for preliminary
injunction purposes Id (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) Furthermore ‘ loss of
control of reputations and loss of good will are established grounds for irreparable injury See
6 g Canegam 64 V I at 264 65
VIGOP er a! 1 Acklet eta!
8X 2022 CV 11!
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page IO 0f [6
‘|[ 13 As noted above Plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that VIGOP is the only recognized
United States Virgin Islands affiliate of the national Republican Party and that the individual
plaintiffs are current officeholders of the VIGOP (Compl W 7 9 43 ) Thus having Defendants
use the VIGOP 3 name and the GOP s symbol emblem, or insignia will invariably create
confusion surrounding the VIGOP—citizens may approach Defendants rather than Plaintiffs, for
information regarding the VIGOP or citizens may receive conflicting information regarding the
VIGOP from Plaintiffs and Defendants and such confusion will certainly negatively impact the
VIGOP s reputation and credibility These harms are real but difficult to quantify and cannot be
adequately compensated by a monetary award However there is no indication that Plaintiffs will
suffer immediate harm to wit Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants used the VIGOP s name and the
GOP s symbol emblem or insignia namely, ‘ an elephant with three stars in connection with
the March 29 2022 caucus but Plaintiffs never alleged that Defendants are still currently using
the VIGOP 5 name and the GOP s symbol emblem or insignia or that Defendants are holding an
event soon where Defendants may use the VIGOP 8 name and the GOP s symbol, emblem or
insignia 4 See Yusuf 59 V I at 854 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) ( [rreparable
harm is certain and imminent harm for which a monetary award does not adequately
compensate ), cf Canegata 64VI at 265 66( Additionally given that the territorial convention
called by Defendants is scheduled to take place in a few days Plaintiffs will suffer immediate
irreparable harm if the danger of confusion is allowed to persist ) VI Conservation Soc } v
Golden Resorts LLLP 2010VI Supreme LEXIS 2| at *6(VI 2010) (acknowledging that [t]he
4 In the section discussing background in the complaint and the motion Plaintitts mentioned prior incidence 0t
improper use of the VIGOP 5 name and/or the GOP s symbol emblem, or insignia by Defendants and/or their
associates in 2016 and 2020 which have already been addressed in separate lawsuits
VIGOP e! a! I Acklet eta!
SX 2022 CV HI
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page ll 0f 16
Superior Court initially denied the motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO ) finding that
construction did not appear imminent [but] after VICS asserted that Golden had brought earth
moving equipment to the construction site the trial court issued a TRO’ ) Accordingly this factor
weighs against the issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from using the
VIGOP 3 name and the GOP s symbol emblem 0r insignia
c Whether granting preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to
Defendants
(ll 14 As to the third factor Plaintiffs argued that [a] preliminary injunction will not result in
any harm to the non moving party as they have no claim to any interest in the [VIGOP] name or
the symbol emblem, 0r insignia that they have used to the tout the illegal 2022 caucus and gain
votes to overthrow the current leadership (Motion 6 ) Plaintiffs made the following assertion in
support of their argument “In the similar 2016 action[ Canegata,] this Court held that this factor
also weighed in favor of a temporary restraining order where the improper use of the VIGOP
symbol emblem and insignia by the rogue individuals would cause potential confusion 5 (Id )
‘H 15 The Virgin Islands Supreme Court instructed that [i]n determining whether Yusuf and
United will be harmed by the injunction the Superior Court was required to examine whether and
to what extent[ ] the [the nonmoving parties] will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary
injunction is issued Yusuf. 59 V I at 856 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
‘11 16 Here there is no indication that Defendants will suffer irreparable harm by the issuance of
a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from using the VIGOP 5 name or the GOP s
5 The Court must note at the outset that contrary to unlike what Plaintifls claimed the Canegata court did not address
the improper use of the VIGOP s symbol emblem or insignia [n Canegata the court weighed the four factors and
issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from using the Republican Party ot the U 8 Virgin Islands”
name and the symbol emblem or insignia of the Republican National Committee, namely the red white and blue
elephant logo upholding stars across its back ” 64 V l at 268
VIGOP era! 1 Ackle) er a!
9X 2022 CV 13]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 12 of [6
symbol, emblem or insignia none of which Defendants are entitled to use without Plaintiffs
consent Like the Canegata court the Court similarly emphasizes that the Court is not commenting
on Defendants right to espouse their cause or vigorous opposition to the present party leadership
and that Defendants may continue to advocate for their cause The only issue before the Court
concerns Defendants use of the VIGOP 5 name and the GOP s symbol, emblem, or insignia If
after weighing the four factors the Court issues a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants
from using the VIGOP 5 name and the GOP s symbol, emblem or insignia the order would not
enjoin Defendants from advocating their cause Accordingly this factor weighs in favor of the
issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from using the VIGOP 8 name and
the GOP s symbol emblem 0r insignia
d Whether granting the preliminary relief will be in the public interest
(ll 17 For the last factor Plaintiffs argued that [g]ranting the requested injunction is in the public
interest as it is in direct support of the law of this jurisdiction [Title 18 V I C § 30] and reinforces
the important principle that individuals cannot improperly assume the identity of a political party
without consequences (Motion 6) Plaintiffs made the following assertions in support of their
argument (i) To allow Defendants to use the VIGOP 5 name and the GOP s symbol emblem, or
insignia ‘only leads to chaos and confusion necessitating the grant of preliminary relief here
(Id ) (ii) In the identical 2016 action[ Canegata ] this Court held that ‘[i]t is also in the public 5
interest to protect against confusion regarding the [VIGOP] (Id ) and (iii) Defendants [sic]
holding themselves out to be the VIGOP leadership and holding an improper election caucus in
hopes of actually becoming the next leadership will certainly cause public confusion [and] [i]n
VIGOP era! l Ackle) e! a]
SK 2022 CV HI
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 13 of 16
fact, voters have reported confusion and intimidation at the bogus caucus sites caused by
Defendants and their associates (Id )
(ll 18 In considering the public interest courts should seek to prevent the parties from halting
specific acts presumptively benefiting the public until the merits [can] be reached and a
determination made as to whatjustice require[s] Yusuf 59 V I at 857 58 Public interest can be
defined a number of ways Id 59 V I at 858
9| [9 Here it is clearly in the public 5 interest to protect against potential confusion surrounding
the VIGOP caused by having two groups Plaintiffs and Defendants use the VIGOP 3 name and
the GOP s symbol emblem or insignia Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of the issuance
of a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from using the VIGOP 3 name and the
GOP s symbol, emblem 0r insignia
(ll 20 In considering and weighing the four factors under a sliding scale standard the Court finds
that Plaintiffs have made a strong enough showing on the three factors in favor of the issuance of
a temporary restraining order to establish a clear showing that they are entitled to injunctive relief
in the form of a temporary restraining order Furthermore a clear showing of immediate and
irreparable injury, loss or damage is not required for the issuance of the temporary restraining
order in this instance because Defendants had written notice of this motion See V I R Clv P
65(b)( l)(A) ( The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice
to the adverse party or its attorney only if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint
clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury loss or damage will result to the movant before
the adverse party can be heard in opposition and (B) the movant s attorney certifies in writing any
effons made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required )
VIGOP er a1 1 Acklet er «I
SX 2022 CV HI
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page [4 of 16
11 Security Bond
‘|[ 21 In their motion Plaintiffs failed to address the issue of security V I R CIV P 65(c)( The
court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives
security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by
any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained ) The Virgin Islands Supreme
Court explained that [t]he purpose of this security is to guarantee that the enjoined party will be
compensated for the expenses of complying with an erroneously issued injunction as well as
placing the moving party on notice of the maximum amount of compensation it could be forced to
pay and instructed that ‘[b]ecause [i]t is generally settled that with rare exceptions a defendant
wrongfully enjoined has recourse only against the bond courts should err on the high side in setting
the amount of security Yusuf, 59 V I at 860 Therefore Plaintiffs will be required to post security
in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1 000 00) with the Clerk of the Court an amount that the
Court finds reasonable under the circumstances There is no indication that Plaintiffs suffer from
financial hardship and will be unable to post such a bond
CONCLUSION
‘II 22 Based on the foregoing, the Court will grant Plaintiffs motion as to their request for a
temporary restraining order issue a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants from using
the VIGOP 5 name and the GOP s symbol, emblem or insignia order Plaintiffs to post security
schedule a preliminary injunction hearing for Plaintiffs motion as to their request for preliminary
VIGOP e! a! v Ackley e! a!
SX 2022 CV 13]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 15 of 16
injunction, and consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits pursuant
to Rule 65(a)(2) 6 Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs April 8, 2022 motion as to their request for a temporary
restraining order is GRANTED It is further
ORDERED that Defendants are enjoined from using the ‘ Republican Party of the U S
Virgin Islands” name and the GOP’s symbol, emblem, or insignia It is further
ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered, the temporary restraining order enjoining
Defendants from using the ‘ Republican Party of the U S Virgin Islands” name and the GOP’s
symbol, emblem, 0r insignia shall EXPIRE at the conclusion of the preliminary injunction
hearing It is further
ORDERED that, within one (1) day from the date of entry of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of one thousand dollars
($1 000 00) with the Clerk of the Court and file proof thereof It is further
ORDERED that a preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for May 6, 2022, at 9 30
a m , in person in Courtroom 206, for Plaintiffs’ April 8 2022 motion as to their request for
preliminary injunction It is further
ORDERED that the preliminary injunction hearing shall be CONSOLIDATED with the
trial on the merits It is further
ORDERED that copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be served on Yohana
Manning, Esq electronically And it is further
° Rule 65(a)(2) provides that “[b]efore or afler the beginning a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction the
coun may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing ’ V I R CIV P 65(a)(2)
VIGOP er a] t Anklet e! a!
SX 2022 CV HI
Memorandum Opinion and Order 2022 VI SUPER 49
Page 16 0t l6
ORDERED that within three (3) days from the date of entry of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon
Defendants and file the proofs of service thereto 7
DONE and so ORDERED this J day of May 2022
ATTEST MM
Tamara Charles HAROLD W L WILLOCKS
Clerk of the C rt Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
By
urt Clerk Superwsor
Dated %43, M
’ Plaintiffs tailed to include any contact information tor Dctendants Neverthclcss it appears that Plaintitfs have
Defendants addresses and the ability to serve Detendants since Plaintiffs counsel Yohana Manning Esq personally
served Defendants with a copy of this instant motion (Manning Atf '1 2 ) As such the Court will entrust Plaintitfs
with the duty 0t serving this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon Defendants