Sprauve v. W. Indian Co.

Decision Date08 October 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 13-08 (SDW)
PartiesGERSHWAIN SPRAUVE, Plaintiff, v. THE WEST INDIAN COMPANY LIMITED, and JOSEPH BOSCHULTE in his personal capacity, the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WEST INDIAN COMPANY LIMITED, and JOSEPH BOSCHULTE, as PRESIDENT and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE WEST INDIAN COMPANY LIMITED, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Virgin Islands

GERSHWAIN SPRAUVE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE WEST INDIAN COMPANY LIMITED, and JOSEPH BOSCHULTE in his personal capacity,
the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WEST INDIAN COMPANY LIMITED,
and JOSEPH BOSCHULTE, as PRESIDENT and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF THE WEST INDIAN COMPANY LIMITED, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13-08 (SDW)

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

October 8, 2013


OPINION

WIGENTON, District Judge.

Before the Court is The West Indian Company Limited ("WICO") and Joseph Boschulte's ("Boschulte") (collectively "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Gershwain Sprauve's ("Plaintiff") Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and Defendants' Motion to Quash pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). This Court, having considered the parties' submissions, decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated below, this Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Quash.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 1, 1997, Plaintiff began working at WICO as the Manager of Mall Operations. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.) The WICO Board of Directors ("WICO Board") appointed Plaintiff to be the WICO Corporate Secretary. (Id. ¶ 14.) Throughout his career at WICO, Plaintiff received

Page 2

exemplary performance reviews and several raises, along with cash bonuses due to his performance. (Id. ¶ 15.)

In February 2010, Plaintiff applied for the position of WICO's President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")—a job opening that was not publicly advertised—as the presiding CEO was scheduled to retire on December 31, 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) On March 17, 2010, the WICO Board unanimously accepted Plaintiff's application for the position. (Id. ¶ 18.) The Board discussed a six-month transition period for Plaintiff and planned to have a draft contract by June 2010. (Id.) In the following months, no steps were initiated to transition Plaintiff into the President and CEO position, and no contract was drafted. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 23.)

On December 15, 2010, the WICO Board held a meeting and announced that WICO had not yet hired a replacement President and CEO, and they extended the outgoing President and CEO's contract. (Id. ¶ 20.) At this meeting, Plaintiff was asked to consider the newly-created Chief Operating Officer ("COO") position. (Id.) Two days later, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the WICO Board "express[ing] his frustration with the WICO Board's inability to act on the promises that were made to him at the March 2010-WICO Board meeting" and requesting further information about the COO position. (Id. ¶ 21.) On January 21, 2011, Plaintiff was informed by a WICO Board member that due to external factors, no new President and CEO had been selected and there was no guarantee that Plaintiff would be chosen for the position. (Id. ¶ 22.)

At a June 15, 2011 WICO Board meeting, Plaintiff was offered the Acting President position. (Id. ¶ 23.) On June 16, 2011, Plaintiff withdrew his application for WICO President and CEO. (Id.) On June 17, 2011, the outgoing President and CEO sent an email to the WICO Board recommending Plaintiff to be his successor. (Id.) On December 12, 2011, after the WICO President and CEO position was publicly advertised, Plaintiff resubmitted his application to be

Page 3

considered for the position. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff was interviewed for the position; however, he was not selected. (Id.) On March 13, 2012, the WICO Board announced that it had chosen Boschulte to be the new WICO President and CEO. (Id.)

On May 1, 2012, Boschulte began working in the capacity of President and CEO of WICO. (Id. ¶ 25.) Soon after, Plaintiff claims that he received "open hostility" from Boschulte. (Id.) For instance, in June 2012, Boschulte allegedly accused Plaintiff of not updating him about a paving project although Plaintiff had sent him a detailed report regarding the project hours before. (Id.) Additionally, at a July 25, 2012 WICO Board meeting, Boschulte allegedly accused Plaintiff of making permanent changes on the property without first consulting him. (Id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff claims that Boschulte accused him of "being insubordinate during the meeting" and "falsely noted in his written reprimand that Plaintiff refused to accept '[his] position that [if there are] any structural changes on the property, [he is to] be notified.'" (Id.)

After the meeting, Plaintiff provided a memorandum to the WICO Board complaining about his unpleasant encounter with Boschulte. (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff stated that Boschulte's unprofessional attitude and his use of inappropriate language to staff created a hostile work environment. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the WICO Board reprimanded him for drafting the memorandum and not following WICO's Employee Handbook that required any concerns to be reported to the WICO Human Resources Office. (Id. ¶ 30.)

In August 2012, Boschulte sent an email to Plaintiff requesting him to prepare materials related to a hearing before the Virgin Islands Legislature's Committee on Finance, but Plaintiff was not asked to attend the meeting. (Id. ¶ 31.) On August 31, 2012, Boschulte sent Plaintiff a letter terminating his position as COO effective immediately for failure to attend the hearing and "failure to perform the duties expected in [his] position at WICO," among other things. (Id. ¶ 32.)

Page 4

Plaintiff alleges that WICO did not hold a hearing before terminating him and that he was not aware of the accusations against him until he received the termination letter. (Id. ¶ 32.)

Less than one week after Plaintiff was terminated, he was removed from WICO's group health insurance program and Plaintiff was not given his last paycheck until approximately one month post-termination. (Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against by Boschulte for reporting his inappropriate language at work. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff further alleges he was "singled out and terminated for allegedly failing to attend the hearing." (Id. ¶ 36.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed an appeal of discrimination under 3 V.I.C. § 531 with the Government of the Virgin Islands, Public Employees Relations Board ("PERB") against WICO. Sprauve v. WICO, PERB-GSA-13-01T, at 1 (Apr. 24, 2013), (Defs.' Exh. 3). On November 20, 2012, PERB issued an Order of Referral to Mediation to the parties. Id. Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 5.

On January 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court alleging the following counts: (I) First Amendment Claim; (II) Fourteenth Amendment Claim; (III) Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Claim; (IV) Breach of Contract Claim; (V) Defamation Claim; (VI) Prima Facie Torts Claim; (VII) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim; (VIII) Tortious Interference with Contract Claim; (IX) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim; (X) Negligent Hiring and Supervision Claim; (XI) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claim; (XII) Civil Conspiracy; (XIII) Misrepresentation and Fraud Claim; (XIV) Failure to Promote Claim; (XV) Equal Protection Claim; (XVI) 42 U.S.C. 1983 Equal Protection Claim; and (XVII) Violation of Employee Handbook Claim. (Dkt. No. 1.) On March 11, 2013, WICO and Boschulte—in both his personal and official capacity as CEO of WICO—filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 14.)

Page 5

Plaintiff opposed the Motion on April 18, 2013, and Defendants—and Boschulte in his personal capacity—replied on May 9, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 21, 22.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1)

A defendant may move to dismiss claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(1). See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). In a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, no presumption of truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's claims, and disputed material facts will not preclude the court from evaluating the merits of jurisdictional claims. See Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). The plaintiff bears the burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936)).

Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(4)

A defendant may move to dismiss for "insufficient process" pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(4). FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(4). When considering a 12(b)(4) motion to dismiss,"[d]istrict courts possess broad discretion." Jarvis v. Gov't of V.I., No. 07-117, 2009 WL 367727, at *3 (D.V.I. Feb. 12, 2009) (citing Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25, 30-31 (3d Cir. 1992)). If a summons fails to properly name the parties pursuant to Rule 4(a), it is void. See Ayres v. Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., 99 F.3d 565, 569 (3d Cir. 1996) (explaining that a mistake in the use of Rule 4 "'can be fatal'" (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 4 cmt. C4-1)). "[T]he failure of a plaintiff to obtain valid process from the court to provide it with personal jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is fatal to the plaintiff's case." Ackerman v. Beth Isr. Cemetery Ass'n, No. 09-1097, 2010 WL 2651299, at *3...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT