Opinion
Civil Action CV-2021-377
05-03-2023
RUSSELL B. LAMER and LYDIA KLENOVA, individually and on behalf of D.L., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN A. RUBINSTEIN, Defendant.
Plaintiffs represented by Alexis Garmey Chardon, Esq. of Garmey Law Defendant represented by Laura A. Maher, Esq. of Monaghan Leahy
Plaintiffs represented by Alexis Garmey Chardon, Esq. of Garmey Law
Defendant represented by Laura A. Maher, Esq. of Monaghan Leahy
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND LIFT THE ORDER TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDING
MaryGay Kennedy, Justice
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider and Lift the Order to Stay Civil Proceeding. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
In this case, Plaintiffs Russell B. Lamer and Lydia Klenova allege that they were kayaking with their child, D.L., when Defendant John A. Rubinstein's boat suddenly collided with them. A criminal matter arising from the same incident is pending in Kennebec County, docket number CR-2019-2289, in which Mr. Rubinstein is charged with Reckless Conduct with a Dangerous Weapon, Criminal Mischief, and Operating a Watercraft to Endanger.
On February 24, 2022, the Court granted a stay of the civil proceedings until resolution of the parallel criminal proceedings. The Court weighed the Plaintiffs' interest in a speedy resolution of their claims and the potential for prejudice to Mr. Rubinstein and concluded that a stay would promote the interests of justice. See Soc'y of Lloyd's v. Baker, 673 A.2d 1336, 1340 (Me. 1996) ("The grant or denial of the stay rests in the sound discretion of the court. It will only be granted when the court is satisfied that justice will thereby be promoted." (quoting Cutler Assocs., Inc. v. Merrill Tr. Co., 395 A.2d 453, 456 (Me. 1978))); Microfinancial, Inc. v. Premier Holidays Int'l, Inc., 385 F.3d 72,78 (1st Cir. 2004) (listing factors federal district courts should consider when deciding whether to grant a stay). Plaintiffs now request that the Court lift the stay because the criminal matter has not yet gone to trial, over a year later.
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any prejudice that has or will result from a continued stay. The potential for hardship to Mr. Rubinstein is unchanged. See, e.g., M.R. Evid. 513(b). Although Plaintiffs are correct that Mr. Rubinstein is not constitutionally entitled to a stay, the balance of all relevant factors continues to weigh in favor of a stay. See Sea Salt, LLC v. Bellerose, No. 2:18-cv-00413-JAW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84075, at *4-5 (D. Me. May 13, 2020) (stay of civil proceedings is most likely to be granted when a parallel criminal proceeding involves the same underlying facts); SEC v. Liberty, No. 2:18-cv-00139-JDL, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133505, at *5-6 (D. Me. Aug. 8, 2019) ("The stay of a civil proceeding pending the completion of a closely connected criminal case is necessary where there is substantial overlap between the subject matter of the two proceedings." (quotation marks omitted)).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion. The stay of this matter will continue until resolution of the parallel criminal proceeding.
The entry is:
Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider and Lift the Order to Stay Civil Proceeding is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).