SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS



DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN



FELIX WILLIE, )

)

Plaintiff/Respondent )

On Review. )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. ST-11-SM-110

NANDI SEKOU, )

)

Defendant/Petitioner )

On Review, )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION



Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition for review. For the following



reasons, Petitioner’s petition will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY



On March 4, 2011, Respondent filed a small claims complaint against Petitioner in

the Magistrate Division of the Superior Court. The Magistrate held a hearing on the matter

on September 6, 2011, September 13, 2011, and October 3, 2011. The Magistrate made an

oral ruling on October 3, 2011, in favor of Respondent in the amount of Four Thousand

Eight Hundred Eighty-Five Dollars ($4,885.00) plus post judgment interest at the rate of

four percent (4%) per annum and ninety dollars ($90.00) in court costs.' Petitioner timely

filed a petition for review on October 12, 2011.



On November 29, 2011, the Clerk of Court issued a letter to Petitioner instructing

her that, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 322.1, she must pay for the transcript of the



proceedings before the Magistrate or obtain a waiver of the requirement. On March 7, 2012,



‘The Magistrate issued a written judgment on November 16, 2011.

Nandi Sekou v. Felix Willie

Case No. ST-11-SM-110

Memorandum Opinion, September 19, 2016

Page 2 of 4

the Court ordered Petitioner to make financial arrangements for payment of the transcript

fees by March 23, 2012, failing which her petition would be dismissed. Petitioner filed a

partial transcript of the proceedings below on March 15, 2012, and an appellate brief on

May 8, 2012. The Court issued an Order on July 25, 2012, granting Petitioner a thirty day

extension to “file evidence that she ordered the entire transcript” and to “file evidence that

she has tendered payment for the entire transcript.” The Court indicated that failure to

comply with the Order would result in dismissal. Petitioner filed a motion for waiver of

transcript on August 14, 2012, which this Court denied on December 11, 2012. The Court

granted Petitioner an additional thirty days to “file evidence that she has ordered the entire

transcript” of the proceedings before the Magistrate, noting that failure to comply with the

Order’s deadlines would result in dismissal.2 On March 7, 2013, Petitioner ordered the

transcript, but failed to make financial arrangements to pay for it. On January 20, 2015, the

Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Petitioner filed

a motion to set aside the dismissal Order, to reopen the case, and for an emergency hearing

on February 11, 2015. The Court issued an Order on February 19, 2015, permitting

Petitioner to file a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5,681.70 so that her vehicle, which

was seized by the Marshal’s Office, could be released. Petitioner filed a bond with the

Court in the amount of $5,681.70 on February 24, 2015.



STANDARD



The Appellate Division of the Superior Court “has jurisdiction to review judgments



and orders issued by a Magistrate, as a result of the Magistrate[] exercising [his or her]



* December 11, 2012, Order.

Nandi Sekou v. Felix Willie

Case No. ST-11-SM-110

Memorandum Opinion, September 19, 2016

Page 3 of 4

original jurisdiction as provided for at 4 V.I.C. § 123.3 The Superior Court reviews a

Magistrate’s factual determinations for “clear error” and legal findings are “afforded

plenary review.”

ANALYSIS



V.I. Super. Ct. Rule 322.1(h) establishes that “[u]nless the need for a transcript is

waived by the Court, it is the duty of the petitioner in each instance to request a transcript

of proceedings upon filing of a petition for review, by completing the "Request for

Transcript" ("RFT") form provided by the Court.” “Failure to request the transcript and

submit evidence of payment therefor, within ten days (10) after filing of the petition for

review, shall be cause for dismissal of the petition for review for failure to prosecute,

without any further notice to the petitioner.”*



To date, Petitioner has failed to submit evidence to the Court that she has made

financial arrangements to pay for the entire transcript. Petitioner has displayed a pattern of

dilatoriness in prosecuting her appeal, having ignored many of the Court’s orders, which

amounts to willful conduct. Any additional extension of time “would reward [Petitioner’s]



blatant failure to comply with this Court's orders.”® As a result, Petitioner’s petition will be



dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.



3 Payne v. Lehtonen, 55 V.|. 286, 289 (Sup. Ct. 2011).



4 Super. Ct. R. 322.3(b). Plenary review is a full or complete review. See Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth

Edition.



5 td.



© See Prosser v. Springel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142911, *16, 2013 WL 5432316 (D.V.I. Sept. 27, 2013).

Nandi Sekou v. Felix Willie



Case No. ST-11-SM-110



Memorandum Opinion, September 19, 2016



Page 4 of 4



An Order consistent with this- Opinion s



shall, follow.



_/



( 2



fi



Dated: scp 2016



Kk



ALT.



HON



NEEG



BS CARTY



ATTEST: Estrella H. George



JU



= OF THE



PERIOR COURT



‘BA o



a s Clerk 0 LD. wena. | 1E VIRGIN ISLANDS



wre Ly’ Donovan



Court Clerk Supervisor



Tid |b