Opinion
Civil Action CV-16-265
08-16-2017
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT JUDGE ROBERT NADEAU AND ROBERT M.A. NADEAU, Plaintiffs v. TRAVIS LOVEJOY, Defendant.
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS: ROBERT NADEAU NADEAU LEGAL PLLC ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: GENE LIBBEY TYLER SMITH LIBBEY OBRIEN KTNGSLEY & CHAMPION LLC
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS: ROBERT NADEAU NADEAU LEGAL PLLC
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: GENE LIBBEY TYLER SMITH LIBBEY O"BRIEN KTNGSLEY & CHAMPION LLC
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Lance E. Walker Justice
Before the Court is Defendant Travis Lovejoy's motion for summary judgment. Based on the following, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Committee to Re-elect Judge Robert Nadeau and Robert M.A. Nadeau bring this action seeking relief for the alleged taking and vandalism of campaign signs by Defendant Lovejoy. Plaintiffs contend that Travis Lovejoy was responsible for posting signs in public roadways advocating against Nadeau's re-election without the sponsor, contact information or posting duration; adding the word "suspended" to signs promoting Nadeau's re-election; and removing and causing injury to signs for Nadeau's re-election from public roadways.
Defendant moves the Court to enter summary judgment in his favor as to the only remaining cause of action; to wit, trespass to chattels.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate if, based on the parties' statements of material fact and the cited record, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Dyer v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 106, ¶ 14, 951 A.2d 821. "A material fact is one that can affect the outcome of the case. A genuine issue of material fact exists when the fact finder must choose between compering versions of the truth." Dyer, 2008 ME 106, ¶ 14, 951 A.2d 821 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
If the moving party's motion for summary judgment is properly supported, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to respond with specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial in order to avoid summary judgment. M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). When a defendant moves for summary judgment, the plaintiff must respond with evidence establishing a prima facie case for each element of their cause of action. Watt v. UniFirst Corp., 2009 ME 47, ¶ 21, 969 A.2d 897 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The evidence proffered by the plaintiff "need not be persuasive at that stage, but the evidence must be sufficient to allow a fact-finder to make a factual determination without speculating." Estate of Smith v. Cumberland Cnty., 2013 ME 13, ¶ 19, 60 A.3d 759. If a plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence on the essential elements, then the defendant is entitled to a summary judgment. Watt, 2009 ME 47, ¶ 21, 969 A.2d 897. Mere possibility of causation is not enough, and "when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or even if the probabilities are evenly balanced, a defendant is entitled to a judgment." Crowe v. Shaw, 2000 ME 136, ¶ 10, 755 A.2d 509.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Trespass to Chattels
Defendant asserts two grounds for summary judgment, neither of which is convincing when viewed against the backdrop of the present summary judgment record. Defendant argues that the summary judgment record does not establish a prima facie case for trespass to chattels, insofar as the fact finder would be left only with conjecture in order to establish that it was Defendant who intentionally caused the dispossession or intermeddling with Plaintiffs' campaign signs.
Although the court concedes that the disparate collection of circumstantial evidence is anemic, taken together it is sufficient to allow the case to proceed to a fact finder for evaluation. The court is mindful that Defendant's expressions of opposition to Plaintiff Nadeau's candidacy represents the most fundamental category of speech protected against a state actor under the United States and Maine Constitutions. However, Defendant's open and robust opposition to Nadeau may also inform a fact finder, along with the albeit imperfect eyewitness accounts, as to whether it was Defendant who was responsible for the damage to Plaintiffs' signs. It is not for the court at the summary judgment stage to evaluate the relative credibility of those witnesses, whose accounts may be substantially undermined in the eyes of a fact finder.
Defendant also contends that Nadeau's claim fails because he lacked a possessory interest in the signs at the time of the damage to them. The summary judgment record does not favor Defendant on this point. At the very least there is a factual issue regarding possessory rights and whether those rights were relinquished based upon Plaintiffs' description of how the signs (both the smaller signs and larger signs) were purchased and utilized before and after the alleged damage to the signs occurred.
IV. Conclusion
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
The Clerk is directed to enter this Order on the civil docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).