ST. CROIX — Days after the V.I. Department of Health shut down Prosperity Farms’ bar, food-service and event operations, the businesses behind the Estate Prosperity venture are asking Superior Court to review and overturn a separate administrative decision by the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs, alleging that DLCA denied them due process during the proceedings that determined those activities fell outside the scope of their commercial farming license.
Last Saturday’s physical shutdown of the public-facing operations was carried out after DOH found that Prosperity Farms lacked a required health permit, while officials also cited the absence of necessary Fire/EMS approval. The enforcement action involved both DOH and DLCA, but DLCA Commissioner Nathalie Hodge previously told The Consortium that her agency cannot simply close an establishment without completing the required administrative process.
DLCA’s role in the dispute predates that shutdown. The agency has repeatedly cited Prosperity Farms and RaisingCane over activities it says exceed the authority granted by the property’s commercial farming license, including operating a bar, serving alcohol and hosting events. Ms. Hodge has maintained that those activities require additional licenses and approvals.
It is that administrative licensing determination — and the process by which DLCA reached it — that Prosperity Farms and RaisingCane are now challenging in Superior Court.
In their petition for writ of review, filed Thursday, the businesses say the December 2025 proceeding relied upon by DLCA was presented to them as only the first step of the administrative process. “It was noticed as a Preliminary Hearing, on four business days’ notice,” the petition states. Because of that designation, representatives from Prosperity Farms “appeared without witnesses, without exhibits, and without briefing, because the notice they received did not tell them a dispositional hearing was about to occur.”
The petition argues that DLCA’s own rules initially established a two-tier process. Those rules were attached to a citation received by RaisingCane and, according to the businesses, “made it clear that there would be two distinct proceedings with two distinct burdens of proof.”
Under the procedures cited in the petition, the first hearing would function similarly to a probable-cause proceeding, followed by a “full administrative hearing” at which the ultimate disposition would be determined. The businesses say other provisions establishing briefing deadlines and allowing participants to request a full administrative hearing at various stages further reinforced that understanding.
The first hearing was initially scheduled for August 26, 2025, before being postponed to November 18. During that period, DLCA allegedly issued additional citations, at least three of which were paid “under protest.” Prosperity Farms contends those citations were never adjudicated.
Illness among Prosperity Farms representatives resulted in the November hearing being postponed again, this time to December 2. According to the petition, that proceeding was still noticed as a preliminary hearing, but the rules accompanying the new notice differed materially from those previously provided.
“The two-tier burden of proof was deleted,” the petition alleges. Instead of referring to a “preliminary administrative hearing,” the revised rules described an “adjudication administrative hearing.” Other provisions characterized the proceeding as dispositional and no longer provided for a second hearing before a decision could be issued.
The businesses also accuse DLCA of violating its own notice requirements. According to the petition, the agency issued a summons giving RaisingCane and Prosperity Farms 20 days to answer but conducted the December 2 hearing only seven days into that response period.
The proceeding therefore occurred “fourteen days before the deadline the Department itself had set for Appellants to state their defenses,” the petition argues. “The dispositional hearing was conducted before the pleadings the Department demanded were due.”
Prosperity Farms further contends that the compressed timeline made compliance with evidence-submission requirements impossible. The lack of witnesses and exhibits at the proceeding, the petition says, should therefore not be interpreted as a decision by the businesses not to defend themselves.
“It is not the record of a party that declined to defend itself,” the petition states. “It is the record of a party given seven days’ notice of a proceeding it was told was preliminary, under rules that barred it from introducing any document it had not served four business days earlier.”
The petition characterizes the process as an improper attempt to “convert a preliminary probable-cause proceeding into a dispositional adjudication.”
The businesses also raise an allegation involving one of the citations issued by DLCA. According to the petition, a June 30 citation initially alleged only one violation, but more than four months later a version carrying the same citation number, date, time and officer’s signature contained a second alleged violation.
“A charge was added to a served citation after service, without notice to Appellants, without reissuance, and without any indication on the face of the document that it had been amended,” the petition alleges, calling the purported alteration “egregious.”
Prosperity Farms and RaisingCane are also renewing their substantive argument that DLCA incorrectly interpreted the territory’s agriculture and zoning laws in determining the limits of the commercial farming license. They further contend that the agency’s cease-and-desist directive reached activities that had never been included in the citations issued against them.
Those licensing questions are separate from the health and safety deficiencies cited during last weekend’s enforcement action. DOH Commissioner Justa Encarnacion confirmed to The Consortium that Prosperity Farms did not have the required health permit, while the operation also lacked Fire/EMS approval. She drew a distinction between those health requirements and the broader licensing dispute being handled by DLCA.
The farm’s agricultural operation itself was not ordered closed. The enforcement action targeted the bar, food-service and event operations, while Prosperity Farms’ commercial farming license remains in effect.
Prosperity Farms and RaisingCane are now asking Superior Court to reverse DLCA’s administrative decision and require the agency to conduct further proceedings consistent with the legal arguments raised in their appeal.
The petition contains the businesses’ allegations about how DLCA handled the administrative case. The Superior Court has not yet ruled on those claims.
