Opinion
Civil Action CV-20-98
03-17-2021
MARGARET HANDLIN Plaintiff, v. BROADREACH PUBLIC RELATIONS, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
MARYGAY KENNEDY, JUSTICE MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Margaret Handlin's Motion for Relief from. Judgment, which seeks relief from the court's February 9, 2021 entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Broadreach Public Relations, LLC. Plaintiff requests relief pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(1), and in the alternative, pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(4).
M. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(1) provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment upon the basis of "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect." To obtain relief, the moving party must show both (1) a reasonable excuse that meets the standard of "excusable neglect," and (2) a meritorious defense to the underlying action. Butler v. D/Wave Seafood, 2002 ME 41, ¶ 17, 791 A.2d 928, 932. The court does not find that Plaintiff's Attorney Jeffrey Bennett's failure to see or read the electronic filing from Defendant in his email inbox meets the strict standard of "excusable neglect," nor has the Plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious defense addressing the basis of the holding discussed in the court's order on the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff also asks the court to rescind the order on the ground that the Defendant's use of electronic service rendered the judgment void pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(4). The court finds that the Defendant's use of electronic service was appropriate pursuant to M.R, Civ. P, Rule 5, and declines to set aside the judgment for voidness. Plaintiff misquoted Rule 5 in her motion for relief from judgment by excluding a portion of the sentence referring to electronic service of voluminous summary judgment filings. Rule 5 provides that "any record in support of summary judgment in excess of 50 pages . .. [is] not required to be produced or transmitted in electronic format. ..." M.R, Civ. P. 5(b)(2). Contrary to the Plaintiff's argument, this is a permissive rule. Moreover, Rule 5 further provides that "[electronic service shall be complete when transmitted, shall be presumed to have been received by the intended recipient, and shall have the same legal effect as the service of an original paper document." Id.
The entry is:
Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Judgment is denied.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).