Opinion
Civil Action CV-2018-97
08-17-2020
Dale J. Holman, Plaintiff, v. STJ, Inc. and Gorham, Defendant,
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
MaryGay Kennedy, Justice
Dale Holman ("Plaintiff or "Holman"), by and through his attorney, asks the Court to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) and 52(a). The court finds as follows.
I. Findings of Fact
1. On October 29, 2019, the Court issued an order entitled "Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside the Court's Order and Defendants' Motion for Injunction."
2. The above order addressed three issues: 1) Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment; 2) Motion for Injunction Preventing Further Lawsuits; and 3) Attorney's Fees.
3. The first issue was decided against the Plaintiff because he failed to articulate any mistakes that would have justified setting aside the Court's order.
4. The Motion for Injunction Preventing Further Lawsuits was denied due to jurisdictional concerns.
5. The Court noted that "Plaintiff's litigious history and repetitive lawsuits suggest he should be enjoined from filing any further lawsuits against Defendants on this matter without Court permission. However, for the same jurisdictional concerns raised by Justice Warren in the third action, CV-18-302, Defendants' motion is denied." (Order on Pl's Mot. to Set Aside Court's Order and Def, s' Mot. for Injunction 3.)
6. In the above order the Court stated that it would consider the matter of attorney's fees pending the receipt of Attorney Hepler's affidavit.
7. On November 6, 2019, Attorney Hepler filed his affidavit concerning attorney's fees with the Court.
8. Attached to Attorney Hepler's affidavit was an invoice containing a description of the work he completed, the number of hours worked, and the date upon which each item of work was completed.
9. Attorney Hepler billed the Defendants for 23.4 hours at a rate of $300/hour for a final bill of $7, 020.00.
10. On two occasions-11/13/19 and 12/4/19-Plaintiff asked the Court to hold a 1-hour hearing on the issue of attorney's fees.
11. Defendants consented to a hearing on the issue so long as the Defendant could potentially be ordered to pay for any further fees the Defendant might have incurred related the hearing.
12. The Court declined to have a hearing.
13. Also on November 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a six-page motion entitled "Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Order or Hold a Hearing on Attorney's Fees" which discussed in depth his position on the issue of attorney's fees.
14. After reviewing Attorney Hepler's affidavit and the Plaintiffs 11/13/19 motion, the Court declined to award 8.7 of the 23.4 billed hours due to the fact that "Attorney Hepler had previously filed a similar motion for a Spickler order, [therefore] little additional heavy lifting was needed to be done . ..." (Order on Pl's Mot. to Amend Order or Hold a Hearing on Attorney's Fees 2.)
15. The Court deemed the remaining 14.7 hours reasonable and awarded Defendants $4, 400 in attorney's fees.
II. Conclusions of Law
1. "Maine's trial courts may sanction parties for various types of pretrial misconduct.. . and among the sanctions that courts are authorized to impose are reasonable attorney fees and expenses pursuant to Rule 11." Dubois v. Town of Arundel, 2019 ME 21, ¶ 13, 202 A.3d 524. The Law Court has outlined "procedural steps that courts should follow when determining whether to impose sanctions."' Id. (citing Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Cope, 2017 ME 68, 33 19-22, 158 A.3d 931) (emphasis added). According to the Law Court, the steps include "adequate notice to the opposing party and an opportunity for that party to be heard before the court considers the imposition of sanctions. Dubois, 2019 ME 21, ¶ 13, 202 A.3d 524. Further, the Law Court clarified that "[t]he opportunity to be heard may, but need not be, a full evidentiary hearing. For example, a court may simply invite the plaintiff to submit an affidavit.. .." Id.
2. The implication that the Plaintiff was not put on adequate notice and was not given the chance to be heard on the matter is puzzling. At the latest, the Plaintiff was on notice that the Court was considering awarding attorney's fees against him on October 30, 2019 when the Court explicitly told the parties that it would consider the issue once Attorney Hepler presented the Court with his affidavit. Next, on November 13, 2019, the Plaintiff The Plaintiff used the word "must" when citing this case in his argument that the Court did not follow the necessary procedural steps before imposing sanctions. The Court will generously chalk this discrepancy up to nothing more than a typeo. submitted a six-page motion directly discussing the exact issue he now claims he has not been afforded the opportunity to be heard on. The Court is well aware of the Plaintiff's position on the issue of attorney's fees in this action-as well as all of the other actions he has filed against the Defendants-and nonetheless has decided that a hearing was not, and still is not, necessary to determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees.
3. The Court believes, pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Dubois v. Town of Arundel, 2019 ME 21, that the Plaintiff was put on adequate notice and was in fact heard on the issue of attorney's fees and the amount of $4, 400 is reasonable under the circumstances.
The entiy is:
1. The foregoing shall be entered as additional findings of facts and conclusions of law.
Pursuant to M, R. Civ. P. 79{a) the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this Order by reference in the docket.