SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
GLENDA AYALA
PLAINTIFF, SX 20 CV 728
v ACTION FOR DAMAGES
WORLD FRESH MARKET LLC D/B/A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PUEBLO SUPERMARKET
CITED AS 2021 VI SUPER 15U
DEFENDANT
Appearances
Lee J Rohn
l 108 King Street Suite 3
‘36 King Street Third Floor
Christiansted St Croix, V100820
F0; Plaumfi‘
Michael L Sheesley, P C
P O Box 307728
St Thomas V100803
For Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
‘1[ Willocks, Presiding Judge
‘][1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on World Fresh Market LLC d/b/a Pueblo Supermarket
(hereinafter Defendant ) Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings filed
on October 19
2020 Glenda Ayala (hereinafter Plaintiff )filed an Opposition Motion on October 29 2020
A Reply
to Opposition motion was filed by Defendant on November 4 2020 Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Leave
to file Sur Reply and Exhibit on November 9 2020 A Response in Opposition to
Motion for Leave
to file Sur Reply was filed on November 10 2020 by Defendant Plaintiff filed a Reply
to Opposition
on November 24 2020
2021 VI SUPER 15U
Glenda A\(Il(l v World Fred? Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supelmarket
SX 20 CV 728
Order
Page 2 of 6
‘112 The Court will GRANT Defendant 5 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings for
the reasons stated herein The Court will DENY Plaintiff 3 Motion to file a Sur Reply The Court will
ORDER this matter is stayed until arbitration is complete
I Jurisdiction
‘H3 The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has found that the FAA is applicable through the Commerce
Clause a contract comes within the purview of the FAA if an interstate nexus is shown ' Whvte t
Bockmo 69 V I 749 760 (V I 20]8)(Citing Hendm ks t Pmnac 1e Sen 1c es LLC 72 V I 630 (Super
Ct 2020) Thus a party seeking to compel arbitration must not only show that an agreement exists
but also show that the contract evidences an interstate nexus Id However the burden on the
compelling party to show that a contract evidences an intetstate nexus is relatively low Id at 761
The contract need only affect interstate commerce and need not be in interstate commerce nor have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce Id
(K4 It is apparent then that the FAA applies to the Virgin Islands when an interstate nexus can be
demonstrated In Hendricks t Pmmu [e Se: 1 a es LLC we found in reviewing a Motion for Summary
Judgment that the parties should not have to file another brief regalding the interstate nature of the
business due to further briefing being a waste of judicial resources Hendnc As 1 Pmnat [e Serums
LLC 72 V I 630 (Super Ct 2020) We determined that the Oil Refinery had been engaged in interstate
commerce because it makes oil shipments [(1
‘][5 In Whyte L Bockmo the employment contract at issue was between Whyte :1 St Croix
Resident and Pueblo a limited liability company organized and doing business under the laws of the
United States Virgin Islands Whyte t Bockmo 69 VI 749 (VI 2018) The employment contract
required that Whyte send any notices to Pueblo to an address that the company maintains in Chicago
Illinois The Court held that this provision regulating an important aspect of the parties’ agreement is
sufficient to establish an interstate nexus [d The Court further held that Whyte as an assistant
store
2021 VI SUPER 15U
Glenda Ayala t Wmld Fres}: Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supermarket
SX 20 CV 728
Order
Page 3 0f 6
manager and later a store manager for a business that receives its goods from interstate
commerce
had managerial control over products Pueblo imports which arrive to St Croix via
container ship ’
Id Therefore the Court held that this employment contract affects interstate commerce’
as even the
slightest nexus is sufficient Id at [0 Thus Pueblo sufficiently met its burden to establish
an interstate
nexus Id
[1 Analysis
‘l[6 First and foremost the Court finds that a valid contract exists because Plaintiff and
Defendant
signed the employment contract on December 3 2018 and it is valid on its face (Defendant
5 Motion
to Compel Arbitration Ex I ) The employment contract between Plaintiff and Defendant
was for the
purpose of Plaintiff performing employment as a grocery clerk for Pueblo Supermarket
owned by
World Fresh Market LLC (Id ) Accordingly Article V of the employment contract presents
the
Dispute Resolution provision (Id ) Defendant asserts that the plain language of the provision
in the
employment contract requiies arbitration of Plaintiff 8 claims against Defendant
and covers alt
disputes against Defendant as an employer (Defendant 3 Motion to Compel page 5)
Therefore the
Court agrees that this proxision was enteied into by both parties and was within its scope in
terms of
arbitration between Plaintiff and Defendant
‘fi7 Second the contract between the parties needs to affect interstate commerce Whvte t BO(
kmo
69 V I 749 (VI 2018) There are characteristics that make this matter different than the
interstate
commerce issue in Winte v Bockmo For instance there is no provision in the contract that
require
notices to Pueblo at an address in Chicago Illinois Further Defendant held employment
as a grocery
clerk versus a managerial position like in Whtte nevertheless the Court finds this to be quite
similar
to it’s ruling in Whvte v Bockmo
‘][8 Working at Pueblo (owned and Operated by World Fresh Market LLC) affects interstate
commerce because the goods received are imported to the Virgin Islands like the Court found in
White
2021 VI SUPER ISU
Glenda Amla v World Fresh Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supermarket
SX 20 CV 728
Order
Page 4 of 6
(See Defendant’s Motion to Compel) The reason the Court will find similarly to Whvte
even with
some distinguishable characteristics is because employment at Pueblo is very
different than
employment at a local grocery store only situated in the Virgin Islands
‘][9 The burden on the compelling party is relatively low and the Defendant has met
their burden
to show that the Pueblo grocery stores affect interstate commerce because their
produce has to travel
by plane and boat from all ovei the United States and from international destinations (See Defendant
3
Motion to Compel p 7) The Defendant further contends that Plaintiff 5 position required
her to stock
and handle grocery items that were not produced or manufactured in the Virgin Islands
and are shipped
in interstate commerce to the Virgin Islands (Id ) Thus the Court finds that Defendant
has met their
burden to prove the contract between the parties affected interstate commerce
(Ill!) Plaintiff s main argument is that the arbitration provision was presented on a take
it or leave it
basis and Plaintiff had no choice but to sign it (See Plaintiff 5 Opposition to Motion
to Compel p 3)
The Court is also aware of Plaintiff s argument that the validity of arbitration
clauses for
unconscionability is Allen v Hatensa Allen t Hmensa LLC 59 V I 430
436 (V I 2013)
(fill These arguments can be quickly done away with The Court in Allen t Hownsa held
that the
dispute resolution provision was not unconscionable Id The mere fact that a contract is
adhesive does
not without more render it unconscionable Id (citing Nmo L Jewelry Exchange Inc 609 F 3d
191 201 53 V I 901 (3d Ciro 2010)) A party challenging a contract on unconscionability
grounds
must also show that the contract is substantively unconscionable by demonstrating
that the contract
contains terms unreasonably favorable to the stronger party Id at l l
‘fl12 In Plaintiff 3 Opposition Plaintiff discusses that there was no choice but to sign the defendant
5
arbitration provision However like Defendant 5 pointed out the Plaintiff’s Opposition
contains no
factual allegations of fraud in the formation of the arbitration agreement (See Plaintiff’s
Opposition
2021 VI SUPER lSU
Glenda Ayala 1 World Fres/z Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supermarket
8X 20 CV 728
Order
Page 5 of 6
l 2) There was also no present evidence that Plaintiff was forced to take the job at Pueblo
(See
Defendant 5 Reply p 17)
‘][13 The Court agrees with Defendant that there was no evidence presented Plaintiff was
forced to
work at Pueblo or had no other options Further Plaintiff alleged that as a grocery clerk the arbitration
would be expensive Again Defendant 5 point out that there is no evidence that the costs would
be
prohibitively expensive pursuant to the standard that was set out in Allen Therefore the Court
cannot
evaluate Plaintiff’s arguments thoroughly without any evidence that what they present
in their
opposition is true
III Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur Reply
$14 As with surrespomes and surreplies which are generally disfavored because parties are
expected to fully and expeditiously address all matters raised in the original motion in their responses
courts do not grant leave to further respond or reply when it will aid the court by addressing
relevant
issues including issues that might otherwise be waived if not timely raised Augustin t Hess 01/
Vugm Ivlandc Corp 67 VI 488 (Super Ct 2017) (citing De; Wee! 1 Hess 011V]
Corp 64 VI at
122))
(Ills The Court finds that because Plaintiff filed their sur reply without first obtaining leave to file
the filing is technically in violation for V I R Civ P 6 He) and this Court has the authority
to strike
the document from the record United States VI Econ Dew Auth V Hypolzte 2019
VI LEXIS 10
(Super Ct 2019) Therefore the Court will disregard Plaintiff s filing because it was not
properly
before the Court pursuant to the rules The Court at this time will not sanction the Plaintiff however
the Court will strictly adhere to the Virgin Ielands Civil Procedure Rules and expects
all counsel to do
the same Thus Plaintiff‘s Motion for Leave to File Sur Reply is DENIED
2021 VI SUPER 15U
Glenda Ayala v World Flesh Market LCC d/b/a Pueblo Supermmlxet
SX 20 CV 728
Order
Page 6 of 6
Accordingly it is hereby
ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED
ORDERED Plaintiff 5 Motion to file a Sur Reply is DENIED
ORDERED arbitration of all claims contained in the Complaint and stay proceedings in their
entirety pending the outcome of arbitration
3x
DONE and so ORDERED this 50 day of 3 aim n :5» 913021
HAROLD W L WILLOCKS ;
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court