Carey v. Maine Board of Overseers of Bar
| Decision Date | 25 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | CV-17-17 |
| Parties | SETH T. CAREY, Plaintiff, v. MAINE BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF THE BAR, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | Superior Court of Maine |
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS & M.R. CIV. P. SOC APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Contents of Order
i. Jurist Defendants (Judge Nancy Carlson, Judge Maria Woodman, Justice Lance Walker)...................................................................26
ii. Administrative Defendants (Elizabeth Maddaus, Laureen Pratt, Darlene Richards)............................................................................30
1. MUTPA and RICO...................................................................................................41
2. Plaintiffs M.R. Civ. P. 80C Appeal of Administrative Action................................46
3. Counts XXIII and XXIV (Requests for Declaratory Judgment)..............................49
1. Counts That Clearly Do Not Apply to the Journal...................................................58
a. Negligence, Defamation and Violation of Privacy...............................................59
i. Negligence and Defamation..............................................................................59
ii. Violation of Privacy..........................................................................................60
3. RICO.........................................................................................................................61
OrderPresently before the Court in this matter are the Motions to Dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b) filed by the following parties: (1) the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar ("BBO"), Bar Counsel J. Scott Davis, Deputy Bar Counsel Aria Eee, and Jacqueline M. Rogers (collectively, the "BBO Defendants"); (2) Judge Maria Woodman, Judge Nancy Carlson, Justice Lance Walker, the Maine District Court, the Office of Clerk of Courts, the Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services ("MCILS"), Clerk Darlene Richards, Clerk Laureen Pratt, Director John Pelletier, and Manager Elizabeth Maddaus (collectively, the "Judicial/MCILS Defendants"); (3) Matthew Donovan, M.D. ("Dr. Donovan"); and (4) the Lewiston Sun Journal (the "Journal"). Dr. Donovan also filed a Special Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 556. Separately, Plaintiff filed a M.R. Civ. P. 80C Appeal of Administrative Action.
Plaintiff Seth T. Carey-a licensed member of the Maine Bar-filed a complaint on January 17, 2017, against the Defendants listed above. Before any parties filed responsive pleadings, and in conformity with M.R. Civ. P. 15(a), Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on February 3, 2017. The claims in Plaintiffs FAC generally arise out of the Defendants' involvement in relation to a November 21 2016, disciplinary Order-and the various interactions and stages of the BBO proceedings leading up to it-issued by a single Justice appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court pursuant to M. Bar R. 13(g) regarding Plaintiffs conduct as an attorney.
Plaintiff asserts the following claims in his FAC: Count I (Negligence); Count II (Negligence); Count III (Negligence & Abuse of Process); Count IV (Invasion of Privacy & Disclosure); Count V (Defamation & False Light); Count VI (Malicious Prosecution); Count VII[1] (Malicious Prosecution & Abuse of Process); Count VIII (Fraud Upon the Court); Count IX (Misrepresentation); Count X (Conspiracy); Count XI (Malicious Prosecution, Negligence, Abuse of Process); Count XII (Tortious Interference with Prospective and Actual Economic Advantage, Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations); Count XIII (Violation of Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act ("MUTPA")); Count IXX[2] [sic] (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress); Count XX (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress); Count XXI[3] (Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")); Count XXII (M.R. Civ. P. 80C Appeal of Administrative Action); Count XXIII (Declaratory Judgment); Count XXIV (Declaratory Judgment); Count XXV (Invasion of Privacy-False Light); Count XXVI (Punative [sic] Damages); Count XXVII (Retraining [sic] Order); and, Count XXVIII (Attorneys [sic] Fees).
On an initial note, Plaintiffs Counts XXVI (Punative [sic] Damages) and XXVII (Attorneys [sic] Fees) are not substantive but are properly brought as part of a damages request. These counts are dismissed. Further, Plaintiffs Count XXVII (Retraining [sic] Order) is discussed in Motions to Dismiss Section III(B)(4), infra, because it is clear from Plaintiffs FAC that Count XXVII is directed solely at the Journal and does not apply to other Defendants. Although Count XXII does not necessarily specify which Defendants it is pleaded against in the way that other Counts do, it is clear Count XXII deals solely with MCILS' affirmation of John Pelletier's decision to remove Plaintiff from the MCILS' roster of attorneys. Thus, Count XXII is not considered against other Defendants because it clearly does not apply to them. The specific Counts addressed in this paragraph are not discussed in this Order with respect to Defendants they clearly do not apply to, except to the extent necessary to clarify any aspect of the Order.
All Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs FAC. The BBO Defendants and Judicial/MCILS Defendants based their respective Motions to Dismiss on both governmental immunity provided by the Maine Tort Claims Act ("MTCA"), 14 M.R.S. §§ 8101-8118 (2016), and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.[4] Plaintiff has not objected to the assertion of governmental immunity at this stage and has instead addressed the issue on the merits. Because Plaintiffs FAC is rich with factual detail describing what the BBO Defendants, Judicial Defendants, and MCILS Defendants allegedly did to harm Plaintiff, the Court finds this to be one of the rare instances in which it is appropriate to address the issue of governmental immunity at the M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) stage. See Bussell v. City of Portland, 1999 ME 103, ¶ 2, 731 A.2d862.
All told, due to the number of Defendants and the number of civil claims for damages asserted against each Defendant, Plaintiffs FAC contains 224 individual counts which the Court must address in this Order.
I. Timeline of Underlying Disciplinary Proceedings Against Plaintiff[5]
Because Plaintiffs FAC does not provide a coherent chronology of the events complained of, the Court has constructed this timeline based on Plaintiffs FAC and the various orders issued...
To continue reading
Request your trial