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