Coast to Coast Eng'g Servs., Inc. v. Evans Eng'rs, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

..( ,. . . . . . STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss . _. ~ : . . . , . . - , . : SUPERIOR COURT .Civil Action Docket No. CV-:0 6 - 1 5 9 -t-&:;,. . -" .. . , . 1 . : , I . , !') . , COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER D O N A L D L. GARBRECHT LAW LIBRARY EVANS ENGINEERS, LLC and JOHN M. EVANS, OCT 2 7 2006 Defendants I. BEFORE THE COURT Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 11. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND The plaintiff's complaint asserts that this case arose in a dispute between parties to a franchse agreement that was signed in Portland, Maine on June 14, 1990. The defendant traveled to Maine on two occasions to execute the agreement, for training and to attend a franchise conference. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant breached a non-compete provision of the agreement by continuing to provide services in the same area after termination of the agreement. The plaintiff filed suit in this court accompanied by a motion for a preliminary injunction. With the court's permission, the defendant filed a late response to the complaint in the form of a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 111. DISCUSSION Under Maine's long arm statute, 14 M.R.S.A. 704-A (2005), and due process requirements, this state may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the court finds: "(1)Maine has a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the litigation; (2) the defendant, by his or her own conduct, reasonably could have anticipated litigation in Maine; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction by Maine's courts comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Commerce Bank 6 Trust Co. v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142, q[ 14,861 A.2d 662,666 (citations omitted). After the plaintiff proves the first two prongs, the burden shfts to the defendant to prove that by exercising personal jurisdiction, the court is violating traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Id. "The record is construed in the manner most favorable to the plaintiff." Bickford v. Onslow Mem'l Hosp. Fund, 2004 ME 111, 91 10, 855 A.2d 1150,1155. The state has "an interest in regulating and/or sanctioning parties who reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationshps and obligations with Maine citizens' for the consequences of their activities." Elec. Media lnt'l v. Pioneer Commtinications, 586 A.2d 1256, 1259 (Me. 199l)(citations omitted). "To reasonably anticipate litigation in a particular jurisdiction, one must purposefully avail oneself of the privilege of conducting activities within the jurisdiction and benefit from the protection of its laws." Commerce Bank 6 Trust Co. v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142, ¶ 16, 861 A.2d 662, 667 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, (1985). "Due process demands that the defendant have sufficient contact with Maine to 'make it reasonable ... to require the [defendant] to defend the particular suit which is brought [here].' " (citing Interstate Food Processing Corp. v. Pellerito Foods, Inc., 622 A.2d 1189, 1192 (Me. 1993) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945)). A defendant may waive personal jurisdiction by consenting to the jurisdiction of the court. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. at 473 (1985). (such as a stipulation in advance to submit controversies to a particular jurisdiction). Here, the defendant entered into a contract while he was in Maine on June 14, 1990. The contract specifically states that the agreement "shall be interpreted and governed by the laws and construed under the laws" of the State of Maine.' Pl.'s Opp'n Mem. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Ex. A at 20. Considering that tlus case concerns an action alleging breach of the contract executed here, Maine is the appropriate jurisdiction in whch to bring tlus suit. By signing the agreement the defendant consented to be bound by the laws of Maine regarding litigation arising from this contract. Furthermore, Maine has an interest in this case because the plaintiff is a Maine corporation and the defendant sought out and continued a fifteen-year relationship with the plaintiff. Compl. at q[ 8 & 13. The defendant came to Maine to enter the relationship, which entailed ongoing obligations resulting from a contract the two parties executed in Maine in 1990. Id. Therefore, Maine has a h g h interest in regulating the parties regarding that relationshp. The defendant reasonably could have anticipated litigation in Maine due to his conducting business with a Maine corporation, executing a contract in Maine, and agreeing in a contract to be bound by Maine law and continuing the relationship for well over a decdade. Id. at ¶ 2, 6 & 8. Given the ongoing relationship that defendant solicited and maintained with a Maine company, the defendant could have reasonably anticipated that any litigation arising from the relationship would occur in Maine. The defendant has failed to provide a reason, other than inconvenience to him and his company, why Maine courts exercising jurisdiction in tlus case violates 1 Paragraph 19 of the agreement states: This Agreement was accepted i n the State of Maine and shall be interpreted and governed by the laws and construed under the laws thereof except to the extend governed by the United States Trademark act of 1946, as amended, and unless inconsistent with any specific state law applicable to franchisee concerning termination, non-renewal or other material aspects of the relationship, in which such state law shall control. (emphasis added) traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. As a result of this relationshp, the defendant has had sufficient contact with the plaintiff in Maine to make it reasonable for tlus court to retain jurisdiction. IV. DECISION AND ORDER The clerk will make the following entries as the Decision and Order of the court: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. SO ORDERED. Dated: (%&~k b b 13, Thomas E. Delahanty 1f Justice, Superior court . COPrPT TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC - PLAINTIFF Attorney for: COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC TIMOTHY BRYANT - RETAINED 03/13/2006 PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS & HALEY ONE CITY CENTER PO BOX 9546 PORTLAND ME 04112-9546 SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. Docket No PORSC-CV-2006-00159 DOCKET RECORD Attorney for: COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC JAMES C BUSH - RETAINED 03/13/2006 PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS & HALEY ONE CITY CENTER PO BOX 9546 PORTLAND ME 04112-9546 vs EVANS ENGINEERS LLC - DEFENDANT Attorney for: EVANS ENGINEERS LLC CHRISTOPHER B BRANSON - RETAINED 04/27/2006 MURRAY PLUMB & MURRAY 75 PEARL STREET PO BOX 9785 PORTLAND ME 04104-5085 Attorney for: EVANS ENGINEERS LLC KELLY MCDONALD - RETAINED 04/27/2006 MURRAY PLUMB & MURRAY 75 PEARL STREET PO BOX 9785 PORTLAND ME 04104-5085 JOHN M EVANS - DEFENDANT Attorney for: JOHN M EVANS CHRISTOPHER B BRANSON - RETAINED 04/27/2006 MURRAY PLUMB & MURRAY 75 PEARL STREET PO BOX 9785 PORTLAND ME 04104-5085 Attorney for: JOHN M EVANS KELLY MCDONALD - RETAINED 04/27/2006 MURRAY PLUMB & MURRAY 75 PEARL STREET PO BOX 9785 PORTLAND ME 04104-5085 Filing Document: COMPLAINT Filing Date: 03/13/2006 Minor Case Type: CONTRACT D o c k e t Events: 03/13/2006 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 03/13/2006 Page 1 of 4 Printed on: 10/16/2006 PORSC-CV-2006-00159 DOCKET RECORD 4-10-06 EXHIBIT SUMMARY SHEET. AD A (GM) 03/14/2006 Party(s): COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 03/13/2006 Plaintiff's Attorney: TIMOTHY BRYANT 03/14/2006 Party(s): COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 03/13/2006 Plaintiff's Attorney: JAMES C BUSH 03/14/2006 Party(s): COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC MOTION - MOTION PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FILED ON 03/13/2006 OF PLAINTIFF'S; AFFIDAVIT OF PETER HOLLANDER; REQUEST FOR HEARING; PROPOSED ORDER. AD 04/25/2006 Party(s): COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 04/25/2006 04/25/2006 Party(s): COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 04/03/2006 UPON DEFENDANT JOHN EVANS AS REGISTERED AGENT FOR EVANS ENGINEERS, LLC. (DY) 04/28/2006 Party (s): EVANS ENGINEERS LLC MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 04/28/2006 OF DEFENDANTS' IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND MOTION (GM) 04/28/2006 Party(s) : EVANS ENGINEERS LLC ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 04/27/2006 Defendant's Attorney: CHRISTOPHER B BRANSON Party (s): JOHN M EVANS ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 04/27/2006 Defendant's Attorney: CHRISTOPHER B BRANSON 04/28/2006 Party (s): EVANS ENGINEERS LLC ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 04/27/2006 Defendant's Attorney: KELLY MCDONALD Party ( s) : JOHN M EVANS ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 04/27/2006 Defendant's Attorney: KELLY MCDONALD 05/04/2006 Party(s): COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC MOTION - AFFID & REQUEST DEFAULT/JUDG FILED ON 05/03/2006 AGAINST DEFENDANTS, EVANS ENGINEERS, LLC AND JOHN M. EVANS (GM) DEFENDANTS GIVEN LEAVE TO ANSWER BY 6-26-06 (GM) NOT ENTERED AS 05/04/2006 Party (s): EVANS ENGINEERS LLC MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 05/04/2006 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE MOTION TO ENLARGE TO 5-26-06 IS GRANTED. 5-4-06 COPY MAILED TO TIMOTHY BRYANT AND CHRISTOPHER BRANSON ESQS Page 2 of 4 Printed on: 10/16/2006 PORSC-CV-2006-00159 DOCKET RECORD 05/30/2006 Party(s): EVANS ENGINEERS LLC,JOHN M EVANS MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS FILED WITH AFFIDAVIT ON 05/26/2006 OF DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION UNDER RULE 12(B) (2) WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW, FAXED AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN EVANS, PROPOSED ORDER AND REQUEST FOR HEARING (DC) 05/30/2006 Party(s): EVANS ENGINEERS LLC,JOHN M EVANS MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 05/26/2006 OF DEFENDANTS (AGREED-TO)WITH PROPOSED ORDER (DC) 05/31/2006 Party (s): EVANS ENGINEERS LLC,JOHN M EVANS MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 05/31/2006 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT DEFS JOHN M EVANS AND EVANS ENGINEERING LLC SHALL HAVE 21 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF A RULING BY THIS ORDER ON THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION TO FILE ANY OPPOSING TO PLAINT IFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. COPIES MAILED TIMOTHY BRYANT, ESQ, JAMES BUSH, ESQ, KELLY MCDONALD ESQ AND CHRISTOPHER BRANSON ESQ ON 5-31-06 (DC) 06/01/2006 Party(s): JOHN M EVANS OTHER FILING - AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 06/01/2006 OF JOHN M. EVANS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (GM) 06/16/2006 Party(s): COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 06/15/2006 OF PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WITH EXHIBITS A & B (GM) 06/20/2006 ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 06/20/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE 06/26/2006 Party(s): EVANS ENGINEERS LLC,JOHN M EVANS OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 06/23/2006 OF DEFENDANTS JOHN EVANS AND EVANS ENGINEERS, LLC IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. (DY) 08/29/2006 Party(s1 : EVANS ENGINEERS LLC,JOHN M EVANS MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED ON 08/29/2006 OF DEFENDANTS' CONSENTED TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING. AD 08/30/2006 Party(s) : EVANS ENGINEERS LLC,JOHN M EVANS MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 08/30/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE HEARING ON THE PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS IN THIS CASE BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE NEXT AVAILABLE HEARING DATE--OCTOBER 12, 2006. AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT, THIS ORDER SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DOCKET BY REFERENCE. RULE 79(A). ON 0830-06 COPIES MAILED TO TIMOTHY BRYANT, CHRISTOPHER BRANSON AND JAMES BUSH, ESQS. AD 09/01/2006 Party(s):' COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC LETTER - FROM PARTY FILED ON 08/30/2006 FROM TIMOTHY BRYANT, ESQ. ENCLOSING A CERTIFIED COPY OF A RECENT DECISION FROM HONORABLE ROLAND COLE. AD Page 3 of 4 Printed on: 10/16/2006 PORSC-CV-2006-00159 DOCKET RECORD 09/18/2006 Party(s): COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED ON 09/14/2006 OF PLAINTIFF, COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. D/B/A CRITERIUM ENGINEERS. AD 09/19/2006 Partyts): COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 09/14/2005 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMIS IS RESCHEDULED TO OCTOBER 10, 2006 AT 10:45 A.M. ON 09-14-06 COPIES MAILED TO JAMES BUSH, TIMOTHY BRYANT, KELLY MCDONALD AND CHRISTOPHER BRANSON, ESQS. AD 10/12/2006 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS HELD ON 10/10/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE Defendant's Attorney: CHRISTOPHER B BRANSON Plaintiff's Attorney: TIMOTHY BRYANT HEARING HELD ON DEFENDANTS, EVANS ENGINEERING, LLC AND JOHN M. EVANS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. 10/12/2006 Party(s) : EVANS ENGINEERS LLC,JOHN M EVANS MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 10/10/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE Defendant's Attorney: LOUIS BUTTERFIELD Plaintiff's Attorney: BRENDAN RIELLY COURT TAKES MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT. NO RECORD MADE. 10/16/2006 Party(s): EVANS ENGINEERS LLC,JOHN M EVANS MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED ON 10/13/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE THE CLERK WILL MAKE THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES AS THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ON GROUNDS OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICITON IS DENIED. SO ORDERED. ON 10-16-06 COPIES MAILED TO JAMES BUSH, TIMOTHY BRYANT, CHRISTOPHER BRANSON AND KELLY MCDONALD, ESQS., MS DEBORAH FIRESTONE, GOSS MIMEOGRAPH, THE DONALD GARBRECHT LAW LIBRARY AND LOISLAW. COM INC. AD Page 4 of 4 Printed on: 10/16/2006

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.