Tirey v. Oxendine
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SONYA MELISSA TIREY AS PR OF THE ESTATE OF TONYA TIREY CIANCHETTE, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES OXENDINE, ET AL., Defendants. BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT DOCKET NO. BCD-CV-2022-00036 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. However, the case has followed an unusual procedural path. Defendants first filed a Motion to Dismiss, and then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment without waiting for the Court to decide their Motion to Dismiss. The Court has not yet even been able to issue a scheduling order in this case and discovery has not closed. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is based on a solo affidavit that does not comply with M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). See Bahre v. Liberty Group, Inc., 2000 ME 75, ¶ 12, 750 A.2d 558. Even if it did so comply, it does not technically support multiple Statements of Material Fact. See Flannery v. Lajoie, No. BCD-CV-11-34, 2012 Me. Bus. & Consumer LEXIS 20, at *2. Plaintiff opposes the Motion for Summary Judgment on several grounds, one of which is that the Motion is premature because it has been filed before the end of discovery. The Court agrees that the Motion is premature. M.R. Civ. P. 56(f) provides that a party opposing summary judgment must be allowed adequate opportunity to conduct discovery or otherwise develop evidence in opposition to the summary judgment motion. Angell v. Hallee, 2012 ME 10, ¶ 13, 36 A.3d 922. In this case, it appears that Plaintiff has conducted some discovery, but Plaintiff has a 1 plausible basis for requesting time to complete discovery. See Bay View Bank, NA. v. Highland Golf Mortgagees Realty Tr., 2002 ME 178, ,r 22, 814 A.2d 449 (reviewing factors helpful in evaluating a Rule 56(f) request). Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, the Court denies without prejudice Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will convene a telephonic conference for the purpose of discussing and issuing a scheduling order. Defendants can re-file for summary judgment after the close of discovery, provided the parties have first participated in a M.R. Civ. P. 134(b) conference, all in compliance with the soon to be issued scheduling order. So Ordered. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is instructed to incorporate this Order by reference on the docket for this case. Dated: 10/04/2022 Michael A. Duddy Judge, Business and Consumer Court Entered on the docket: 10/04/2022 2 BCD-CIV-2022-00036 SONYA MELISSA TIEREY, AS P.R. OF ESTATE OF TONYA TIERY CIANCHETTE Plaintiff(s) v. CHARLES OXENDINE, ET AL Defendant(s) Party Name: Plaintiff: Sonya Melissa Tierey, as P.R. of Estate of Tonya Tiery Cianchette Defendants: Frederick H. Hart, III Seafari Charters, LLC Charles Oxendine PS Dive Shop, LLC Attorney Name: Steven Sillin, Esq Berman Simmons PA 129 Lisbon Street PO Box 961 Lewiston, ME 04243-0961 Seth Holbrook, Esq Holbrook & Murphy 238 Lewis Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Elizabeth Stouder Richardson Whitman Large Badger PO Box 9545 Portland, ME 04112-9545
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.
