Opinion
CV-19-327
12-15-2020
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Plaintiff v. MAINE AMMO COMPANY and ELIAS BASSILE, Defendants
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Harold Stewart, II, Justice
Defendants Maine Ammo Company and Elias Bassile have filed two Motions to Dismiss, the first filed October 19, 2020, and the second filed October 20, 2020, Although it is not clear from the motions themselves what rule or law the motions are pursuant to, the court will view them both as motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to M.R, Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court views the "facts alleged in the complaint as if they were admitted," Nadeau v. Frydrych, 2014 ME 154, ¶ 5, 108 A, 3d 1254 (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted), A complaint must set forth the "elements of a cause of action or allege[] facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." Id. Facts are read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id., "Dismissal is warranted only when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any set of facts that might be proved in support of the claim," Halco v, Davey, 2007 ME 48, ¶ 6, 919 A.2d 626 (quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, "a party may not... proceed on a cause of action if that party's complaint has failed to allege facts that if proved, would satisfy the elements of the cause of action," Burns v. Architectural Doors and Windows, 2011 ME 61, ¶ 17, 19A.3d 823.
Rule 8 requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is . entitled to relief." M.R. Civ, P. 8(a). "Notice pleading requirements are forgiving; the plaintiff need only give fair notice of the cause of action by providing a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Desjardins v. Reynolds, 2017 ME 99, ¶ 17, 162 A.3d 228 (quotation marks omitted).
Upon reviewing Plaintiff's complaint, and for the purposes of this motion accepting the allegations therein as true, the complaint clearly sets forth cognizable claims against Maine Ammo Company, and also against Elias Baasile on a piercing the corporate veil theory, Defendants challenges to jurisdiction or venue are also without merit, the Sheriff's Office being located in Cumberland County. The court also notes the Defendants' motions arc untimely, Both motions must be denied.
As dismissed at the Discovery Dispute Conference held December 15, 2020. and as ordered in the Conference Record of the same date, the piercing the corporate veil claim against Elias Bassile is bifurcated from the claims against Maine Ammo Company, and will be addressed, if necessary, if liability is established against Maine Ammo Company.
The entry is
Defendants Maine Ammo Company and Elias Bassile's Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed October 19, 2020 and October 20, 2020 are Denied.
The Clerk is directed to enter tins order into the docket by reference, pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).