Opinion
RE-13-133
12-10-2015
JAMIE L. BROWN, Personal Representative Of the Estate of Shirley Gauthier Plaintiff, [1] v. JOSEPH LENKOWSKI, ESQ., Successor Trustee of the Roland E. Gerrish East Side Trust and JACQUELINE E. GERRISH, and GERRISH CORPORATION, and JULIE B. GERRISH, Defendants.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: KENNETH D KEATING JAMES J SHIRLEY ROBERTS & SHIRLEY PRO SE DEFENDANT: JOSEPH LENKOWSKI, ESQ., SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE ROLAND E GERRISH EAST SIDE TRUST ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS: PAMELA LEGAL GROUP
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: KENNETH D KEATING JAMES J SHIRLEY ROBERTS & SHIRLEY
PRO SE DEFENDANT: JOSEPH LENKOWSKI, ESQ., SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE ROLAND E GERRISH EAST SIDE TRUST
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS: PAMELA LEGAL GROUP
ORDER AFTER STATUS CONFERENCE
Wayne R.. Douglas Justice, Superior Court
Earlier this year the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated a judgment by default issued by this court on August 25, 2014. See Gauthier v. Gerrish, 2015 ME 60. A status conference was held on December 7, 2015 to address how this matter should proceed in light of the Law Court's ruling and remand. James J. Shirley, Esq., appeared representing plaintiff. Pamela S. Holmes, Esq., appeared representing defendants Jacqueline E. Gerrish, Gerrish Corporation and Julie B. Gerrish.
The Law Court determined that, contrary to this court's ruling, Julie B. Gerrish was a necessary party to this action. Although the Law Court did not overturn the defaults entered against Jacqueline Gerrish and Gerrish Corporation, it did vacate the default judgment and remand for a hearing if necessary "to craft a specific, enforceable remedy after the entry of a default." Id. at ¶ 15. The Law Court further suggested that defendants may wish to ask for reconsideration of the sanction that was the basis for the defaults entered against Jacqueline Gerrish and Gerrish Corporation.
In the interests of expediting matters to see if all parties can reach a settlement, counsel agreed generally to the process set out below. It calls for a brief period of discovery, ADR and, if necessary, a follow-up status conference with the court and a period for filing any appropriate motions.
Therefore, in accordance with the conference, it is hereby ORDERED as follows.
1. Joinder.
Julie B. Gerrish is joined as a party defendant in this action.
2. Discovery.
Unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown, discovery shall be completed not later than April 1, 2016. Discovery shall be initiated so as to enable the opposing party to serve a response within the period allowed by the rules but in advance of this deadline. No extensions of the discovery period will be granted except on motion demonstrating good cause and that discovery was timely and diligently conducted in good faith. Counsel shall not assume that agreements to conduct discovery beyond this deadline will be accepted by the court. Such agreements shall not delay trial.
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution.
The provisions of Rule 16B shall apply. The parties shall confer promptly to choose an ADR process and neutral third party to conduct the ADR process. Not later than 60 days after the date of this order, plaintiff shall notify the court of the ADR process selected, the name of the neutral and the time and place tor the ADR conference. If the parties are unable to agree on either the process or the neutral, they shall notify the court promptly in writing. Unless all parties agree in writing as provided in M.R. Civ. P. 16(B)(a), the ADR conference shall be held and completed not later than May 15, 2016. A report of the ADR conference shall be filed by the neutral or the parties not later than 10 days after the completion of the ADR conference.
4. Motions.
All motions, including without limitation a motion to reconsider the sanction / defaults but excluding motions in limine or those affecting the conduct of trial, shall be filed pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 7 not later than the status conference referenced in paragraph 5, below.
5- Status Conference.
The clerk shall set this matter for a status conference before this judge on the first available date after June 15, 2016, unless the matter has been resolved by ADR.
6. Sanctions.
Failure to comply with deadlines as ordered may result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to M.R.Civ, F 16(a)(1).
The clerk may incorporate this order upon the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.