Doyle V. Tolan

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-14-030 STAn; 01' MAINE CU::vfBERLAND, ss Nfi\-C#fY1-VkV3-IS MICHAEL DOYLE, ORDER ON DEFENDA '\JTS MO 110::-J POR JL'DGME!\T ON 1HF. PLEADINGS Plaintiff EDWARD TOLAN, C1uef, falmouth Police Department.. Defendant Udore the ('Ourt b defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings Defendant argues that plaintiff lacks standing, the complaint fails to state a claim, and the case is not ripe for jud1cial re~olution. For the following reasons, the mollon is granted. Plaintiff, a resident of the lawn of Falmouth, alleges that defendant has purchased pohce vehicles without following certain competitive biddmg procedures. (Compl. ":'lll-2.) He seeks an inJuncllon that regum'q defendant to solicit sealed bids from other dealers and open the bids m a supervJsed, public forum. (Com pl. '1[3.) DISCUSSION ----- A taxpayer of a town ha~ standing to seek preventative relief without showing a pa:rticulanzed mJury. Lehigh v. Pittston Co_, 456 A.2d 355, 358 (l\1e. 1983). In his complamt, plaintiff docs not allege a d1rect mjury and does not allege he is a taxpayer. "[T]he fonlure to allege taxpayer status depnves plaintiffs of the1r right to request even preventiw relief." 1:Jeald \'· Sch_ Admm. D1st. No. Z1, 387 A.2d 1, 4-5 (Me. 1:!78). A motion for judgment on the pleadings tesls tlw legal sufficiency of the complamt. Mon_o~ lnc. v_ i\ldri.Q1683 A.2d 506,510 ('de. IY96)_ Sunilar to a motion to d1smiss, th'-' court must dctennine whethL'I plainhff "alleges the elements of a cause of achon or fucts entitling the plamtiff to relief on some legal themy" Cunrungham v.Haza, 538 A.2d 265, 267 (Me. 1988). Plaintiff asks the court to require defendant to follow a specific set of competitive btdding procedures for the purchase of pollee vehicles. (CompL 9f 3_) The only authonty plamtiff relies on is a Town of falmouth document htled "Purchasing Gutdelines and Policy." 1 (Pl.'s Fx. A) It is unlikely these gu•delincs, unlike an ordinance, are judicially enforceable. Asswning that they are enforcl'able, however, pursuant to the fown Charter, '"the Town :'v!anager acts ab the Purchasing Agent (not Dtrector) for all departments of th<: rown, except tlw School Departm'-'nt." (Pl.'& Ex. A 1, 9[ 2.) The tcnn "Chief of Police" does not appear in the guidelines. 1 fhf court may conSider th1s document on a mot! on for judgment on the pleadings bccnuoe 1l" a pubhc document and appears central to plmntiif; claim. See ~oodv "Stale LHjuor & Lottery Comm~ 2004 ME 20, ":: 10, 843 A.2d 43. The document" not authent1cated and appears to be missing pages. 2 fmther, plamtiff does not allege any sp<:C"ific violation of the gwdelines and policy. (Compl. 'j[ 3.} purcha~ing Plamtiff point> to no provtswns that support plainb.ff" proposed requirementq. 3. Ripeness Pl~intiff event. aqks the court to impose specific procedureq on an unschcdui<Od L"nlike in other casl"S in which a plainUff was permitted to pursue prospective and preventative relief, there. i& no "genuine C"ontroversy between the parties that presents a concrete, certain, and immediate legal problem"' and no "concrete and specific" legal dispute with a "direct, immediate and continuing impact'" on the affected party in tl,is case. See lohnson v. City of Augusta, 2006 lvfE 92, 'j['j[ 7-8, 902 A 2d 855; sec also Lehigh. 456 A.2d at 359 (plaintiff sought to prevent future sak of an arrport based on option agreement and amendments previously signed}. CONCLUSION Plainhff lacks standing, has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and has not presented a genuine controversy. "!he defendant's motion is granted. The entry ts Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRA.:"\TJ"ED. Judgment is entered m f<~vor of Defendant and against Plaintilf on Plaintiffs Complaint. Dated: February 3. 2015 ncy Mills Justice, Superior Court 3 ;!"'~ !iooo oH 0:::01>1 """ ;§~ " '00 " "'"'t:J>': O_,.OOH ~~iE §m§~ ::.:~~;9 " 00 o..::§:;J .,.;.."''"' -·" :;><~ro 0 -J " " 0 " • " D 0 lj) ·~ 0 ~ ' ~ J ~ 0 ~ v• ' ]) 1j [ ~ ~. 0 '"" .

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.