Arundel Valley, LLC V. Peachey Builders, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STAH: OF MAINE BGSINESS AND CONSL'MER COURT Cumherland, ss. ARC NOEL VALLEY, LLC and KATE'S HOMEMADE BL'TTER, INC., Plaiutitfs Docket ~·o. BCD-CV-I.'I-15 . / PEACHEY BUILDERS, INC.; GARY R. PEACHEY; KEVIN BRUWN ARCHITECTURE, LLC: KEVIN BROWN; BRA:'\ICH RIVER PLASTICS, I!\ C.; ROBERT MAYO; HOGS£ & SI.JN, INC., and KEL HOUSE, Defendants DANIF.LJ. PATRY and KAREN I. PATHY, Third-Party Defendants CASE .MA~AGEMENT SCHlillULJNG ORDEH NO. s A &tatus conference was held in thi• case January 12, 20l.'i, with atwrneys Bryant and Piper repreo·enting the Plaintiffs; attQrney J)()l;gla> rrpre,;enting Defendant Branch River PlastJcs, Inc., and attorney \Villiams representing J{~vin Brown and Kevin Brown .'\1·chitcdure, TLC. As a result, it is ORDERED as f()llow;; Discovery i.< complete esc~pt with regard to two potentia) defetJS<" Larry Turner and Cra·,g· Barnrs. Branch River's counsel will advise Anmdcl Valley's counsel Ly January 20, 201~ whether eithrr witness w!ll be ca.ll~d, whether as a filet witness or expert witlle.<~ If either "1ll be called, Arundel VallC"y may take the deposi rions upon oral ~xammodon of that witness. J. Discovery: witn~sses. Q. Settling Defendants: The Ddcndant.< in this case other than Branch River and RoLerr Mayo ha\r reach~d a settlement wirh the Plaint1ffs. Parsuant to 14 M.R.S. § J(H, Branch Riwr has decteJ to hav<· the value of the coustrlcration obtained by Plaintiff< for the 'ettlemenr deducted ii"om th~ amount of any JUdgmC"nt rendered agaimt Branch H.ivcr. Branch Rivd s counsel has been made aware of the terms of the settlf'ment.;. The ,,ettling Defendants will be disrni>sed from this ca~e on morion, 3. Motion for Reconsideration: The Plainulfs ha\'C filed a .\1otion for ReconsiJer·ation of certoin rulir:gs m the .1\'own;ber :i, ~014 Order on Defendants' Motion for Sunm'ary Judgmrnt. The 1-'rim,Jr)' focus of the Morion to Recon,lider j,; Plaimi!Ts' roegligeu mJsreprcscntat;on claim_ PlainriO:S poin1 out th2t the negligent mi.<rfpresemarion on which they tdy preda~e> the onual purc),ase of ~he produ('t here, and that th<' mi;reprcsentation goes m rhe very nature of :he prnduc:, not mcr~ly to the qLmltty of the product 1 hc"e are distinctions ;vithout a ddference. Jn e"'ence, the princ-iple undctlymg the economi~ loos doctrine is that when the cbitll is that a product IS nor as pror>li&ed or wananted, and when there is no person"! inJury or property damage', the pl:u ntll1' s rcmed J li~s in the sphere of con•, r·,,ct and warranty, not in rorl recovery Ht'r~, the ~-'leiJtial d~im is thal Branch ll.iver sold a product that -was not what Branch River repnsented it lo be, and that rherefore was not mitaLle for Plaintiff ,\rundel Valley's purpose.< and had to be remo,ed_ Thuo, the cl~irn presents a cla.%ic breach ofexprc.% an<] lor implied warranty offitneS< for partiwlar pnrpns~. The murt remains p<·rwatled that the Law Court's deci.<Hm in Oaam,de M Pme Point Co?ldomi,ium Octmcn As<n- ''· Peachtree DoO!'S, 659 A 2d 267 (Me 199.0) precludes a negligeut mi.<rrpreoentatiou claim in an action for a dcf~nive or improper prodnu. not involving prrkonal injury or damage to other propnty. ·rhat said, the Plaint!I!S may ;till he able to prfsent the "ame evidence on the remaining warranty cleirns th"t they would have presented un a n~gligcnt misreprcH~ntation claim in terms of' both liability and damages_ Those issueo hav~ y~t to be deterrnin~d. Plaintiff> other contentions in their J\1otion to Reconsider do not nquire discus,ion herr. Plain tills' :>.lot ion for H econsid N~ tion is denied. 1· . .Judicially Assisted Settlement Conference: ,\s the initial Case :vfanagement Schedlliing Order indicated might occut, the cr>urt IS sch~d1Uing a judicially assi"ted settlement conference Lefore anoth~r judge l_;nless specifically CX~l!sed fi'Oln attending m advance by thr presiding judge, at least one officer of ~ad1 Plaintiff and of Branch Hiver arc hereby ordered attend throughom, in person, ond an adjuster for any insurn who might be liable to indenmif)' Branch Riwr will abo att~nd in person Ltnless exctLsPd in advance. The Judicial Scheduling Secretary \VIi] contact counsel regarding dates for the ronJerenc(_ 5. Trial Venue and Oates: The parties hmT agreed to a transfer of venue to Cumberland County for purposes of jury trial, in light of the likdy delay associated with och~cluling a jury tnal in York County. See llCD Standing Order On Transfer of Venue http://vJ:J.rw.courts. mainf.guv/rules_udmmonien/adminorders/m_JR-07 -1 .html Trial ts h~_reby schedule-d as follows: Jury selection ;vith trial to follow immediately at ll:.'IO a.m., Monday, June 22, 2015 at the Cumberland County Court Honse. The court is al!ocating five days for trial. Conference of Parties and Joint Final Pretrial Statement: On or hdOre June 17, 2015, the r<u'tJes shall file a Joint Fimli Pretnal Statement. La.<cd on a conferenc~ LFt:ween the pclrtieo, which ohall comply in all respects with M.R. Civ. P. Jj5_ CounsFI for the Plaintiff sh~Il have primary responsibility for coordinating the conference and filmg the Jomt Fmal Pretrial Stotement ~nd related matrriaL If counsel for the Plaintiff is unable tJmdy to comply with this rFrplirement, coun.<d shaH notd)' the court in writing of the r~_asons therefor ar.d rrquest a status conferencr. 6, Exchange of\Vitncss and Exhibit Lists. (a} At or before the confe-rence of the par"':ies. thr partie.< shall meet to mark all e"-hibits to b~ oHered at trial, ~nd to i!ttempt to .<tipulatc w the authenticity of exhibits w1thout waivillg objedions to their admissibJ!Ity at trial, and >hall inspect ond attrmpt to ~gree to all exhibits w b~ used os demonstrali\r or \isHal aids ·;L; Tile P"''ties "hall each subm'1t a ]j&t ofv,itne>se; and exhibits with the Joint Final l'retrial Statenwnt. Exhibits not pre-marke-d and included on the exhib1t list are oubJeCt to eAdudon upon objection or the court's own motion. B. Pretrial Conference: 1he pretnal cont'ercnce will be hdd at 1 p.tn. ThuNday, June l!l, 2015 at the Cumberland Coutlty Court House. i\1 the pretrial confertn~~. all parties must lw prepar·cd and au(hori7,~d to discuss the matters 1dentified in M.R. Ov_ P. !.% alld 1n tbe Joint Final Prcrrial Statement. ~- Pre~ious pr~~-jou.< Cas~ Orders: Except to the eAten! iHconsistem; with this Order, the Management Schedulmg Orders in this ca'e rcm~m in effCct. Pursuanc to M.R. Civ P. by reference in tile docket_ DatedJ~nuary 13, ZOJ5 ~Y(a), the clerk" hereby directed w incorporate this order c-cf # d@:ai;_ cc Ju.<tice, Bnsine" and Consumer Com·t Arundel Valley, LLC and Kate's Homemade Butter, Inc., Daniel f. Patry and Karen I. Patry v. Peachey Builders, Inc.; Gary R. Peachey; Kevin Brown Architecture, LLC; Kevin Brown; Branch River Plastics, Inc.; Robert Mayo; House & Sun, Inc., and Kel House BCD-CV-13-15 Arundel Valley, LLC and Kate's Homemade Butter, Inc. Daniel J. Patry and Karen I. Patry Plaintiffs j 3rd Party Plaintiffs Counsd: Timothy Bryant, Esq. One City Center PO Box 'f546 PorLland, Ml:: 04112-9S46 Peachey Builders, Inc. and Gary R. Peachey Defendant Counsel: David Ray, Esq. 100 Middle St PO Box 9729 Portland, ME 04104-5029 Kevin Brown Architecture, LLC and Kevin Brown Defendant Counsel: Rebecca Farnum. Esq. Three Canal Plaza PO Box 1630 Portland. ME 04112-4630 Branch River Plastics, Inc. and Robert Mayo Defendant Counsd: Martica Douglas. Esq. 103 Exchange St. PO 8ox 710fl Portland, ME 04112-7108 House & Sun, Inc., and Kel House, Defendant Counsel: L. ). Topchick, Esq. 477 Congress St SL" Floor Portland, ME 04101

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.