Case Caption: In Re: SIXTEEN PLUS CORPORATION et al Case Number: SCT-Civ-2025-0012Date: 08/26/2025Author: Per CuriamCitation: 2025 VI 17Summary: This Court possesses original jurisdiction over proceedings for a writ of prohibition, see 4 V.I.C. § 32(b), and to determine whether issuance of such a writ is appropriate, applies the same test used to determine whether a party is entitled to a writ of mandamus; this is a drastic remedy and should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances: the petitioner must establish that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable and that he has no other adequate means to attain the desired relief. In addition, even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Here, the petitioners have met none of these prerequisites. First and foremost, the petitioners fail to present any arguments regarding any of these factors. While consideration could end here as a result of that deficiency, the merits are nevertheless considered due to the complex and ongoing nature of these proceedings, in the interests of judicial economy. In this case the petitioner has not established that its right to the writ is clear and indisputable, and it has other adequate means to attain the desired relief. Further, granting a petition for writ of prohibition is not appropriate in this case. Even if petitioners had met the burden of establishing that the right to the writ is clear and indisputable and that theyt have no other adequate means to attain the desired relief, the decision to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition ultimately lies within the discretion of this Court. To determine whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate under the circumstances, factors considered include, but are not limited to, the public interest, the importance or unimportance of the question presented, and equity and justice. Additionally, the Court considers whether judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate for or against issuing the writ. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its docket is within its discretion, and it is questionable whether this Court should issue a petition for prohibition solely directed to a Special Master that was appointed for the purpose of managing the trial judge’s docket. While this Court will not make such a ruling, in this particular matter, the Court nevertheless concludes that the petitioners have not shown that judicial economy and sound judicial administration militates in favor of issuing the writ. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of prohibition directing the Special Master that that he cannot hear either the Rule 12 or Rule 56 motions in these consolidated cases is denied, and the motion to stay proceedings before the Nominal Respondent is denied as moot.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion