Plante V. Long

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SUPERIOR COURT OVIL AO'lON DOCKt:TNO. CV-13-148 STATE OF M_AINE YORK, ss. BRUCE PLANTE and DENNIS PlANTE, Plaintiffs ORDER RO~ALD P. LO~G, Defendant The defendant has filed a special motion to dismiss the complamt in its entirety pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §556 unci a motion to dismiss. Those motions have been briefed and were argued WJth skill and careful preparation. l1w mohons v.ill be denied for two reasons. In 1995 Maine enacted an anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Partic1pation statute at 14 M.R.S. §556. Its history and proviswns have most recently been discussed in Tawn of i\1adm.vaska v. Caycr, 2014 ME 121. The statute provides that, ''The spec1al motion to dismiss may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later lime upon terms the court determines proper." Here the defendant, who initially was without counsel, filed the motion some 161 days after service of the complaint and more than 60 days after counsel entered the case. There are no sufficient reasons to extend the 60-day period. The second reason for denying the motion, beyond its being untimely, is that the facts are not yet dear enough lo decide whether this was an improper attempt by public officials to muzzle criticism or a proper suit by unjustly maligned and defamed individuals. See generally Nader v. lHaine Demor:mh( Party (Nader IT), 2013 !viE 51. The parties did agree that Counts I and Count VII of the complaint should be dism1ssed. A stipulatton of dismissal was pr~viously entered disrmssmg those two C0UJ1[S. The entry is: Defendant Ronald P. Long's motion to dismiss and special motion to dismiss are denied. Dated: December 4, 2014 Paul A. Fritzsche Justice, Superior Court 2 CV-13-!48 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAL'ITTFFS· GENE LIBBY TYLER SMITH LffiBY O'HRTEN KINGSLEY & CHAMPIONLLC 62 PORTLAND RD UNIT 17 KENNEBUNK "ME 04043 A TIORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT.; JO"'ATHAN BROGAN JOHN A THAN G NA THANS NORMAN HA."'SON & DETROY LLC PO HOX 4600 PORTLAND ME 04112

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.