BANKERS BANK NORTHEAST V. AYER et al, No. 1:2012cv00127 - Document 151 (D. Me. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying 83 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 135 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 143 Report and Recommendations. ; denying 148 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing; denying 149 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc) Modified on 9/4/2012 to create relationship to motion #83 for summary judgment(lrc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine BANKERS BANK NORTHEAST, Plaintiff v. EVERETT L. AYER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:12-cv-00127-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on July 17, 2012, her Recommended Decision (ECF No. 143). Defendants Ayer, Goodwin, Graceffa, Heselton, Hollingdale, Lacasse, McClay, and Rizzo ( the Former Directors ) filed their Objections to the Recommended Decision regarding their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 146) on August 10, 2012. Defendant Arthur C. Markos filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision on his renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 147) on August 10, 2012. Plaintiff filed its Response to Defendants Objections to the Magistrate Judge s Recommended Decision Regarding Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 150) on August 27, 2012. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff s claims of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to Defendant Markos and the Directors Defendants are DISMISSED. 3. It is ORDERED that Defendant Markos s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 135) is DENIED. 4. It is ORDERED that the Directors Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83) as to the remaining claims of negligent misrepresentation is DENIED. 5. It is ORDERED that Defendant Markos s Motion for Oral Argument (ECF No. 148) is DENIED. 6. It is ORDERED that Directors Defendants Motion for Oral Argument (ECF No. 149) is DENIED. /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 4th day of September, 2012.
]]>
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.
