Gene Carter

This case concerned a motion by insurer Executive Risk to withdraw the reference of its declaratory judgment action regarding coverage under a directors and officers policy from bankruptcy court to district court. The underlying dispute arose after the bankruptcy trustee for Jackson Brook Institute obtained a settlement judgment against insured Gary Brooks and assigned his indemnity claims to the estate. The district court denied the motion, holding that the action was at most non-core but related to the bankruptcy case because its outcome could affect the estate, and that no cause for withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) had been shown because the proceeding did not require substantial consideration of nonbankruptcy federal statutes or implicate a jury trial right. The court emphasized that withdrawal is an exception to the general rule referring bankruptcy matters to the bankruptcy court.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerns Enrique Reyes-Cabrera's fourth post-conviction filing challenging his 1999 federal drug conviction and sentence on grounds including lack of enhancement notice, incorrect drug quantity calculation, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the motion seeking a writ of coram nobis or Rule 35 sentence correction or reduction. It recharacterized the filing as a successive § 2255 petition that raised claims already rejected on the merits or that principally attacked the underlying conviction, for which the petitioner had not obtained required appellate authorization under AEDPA; the motion was also untimely under Rule 35 and ineligible for coram nobis relief because the petitioner remained in custody.

criminal lawprocedure

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Julie Collins's claim against MetLife and her employer for short-term disability benefits under a company health plan, alleging wrongful denial due to her fibromyalgia and depression preventing her from working as a buyer. The court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the administrative record, upholding the denial of benefits. The plan granted MetLife discretionary authority to interpret terms and determine eligibility, so the court reviewed the decision under an arbitrary and capricious standard. After reviewing the administrative record, including medical notes showing ongoing conditions but insufficient evidence of inability to perform her occupation, the court found no error in MetLife's conclusion that Collins was not disabled under the plan's definition.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

The case involved Abdul Azimi, a Muslim immigrant from Afghanistan, who sued his former employer, Jordan’s Meats, Inc., alleging racial, religious, or ethnic harassment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. After a jury trial found that the defendant had violated these statutes, Azimi received only declaratory relief stating that the violations occurred, with no compensatory damages, nominal damages, reinstatement, or other equitable relief awarded. The court denied Azimi’s motion for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, holding that he was not a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because the declaratory judgment alone did not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties or affect the defendant’s behavior toward the plaintiff in a way that provided enforceable relief. The decision relied on precedents requiring some relief on the merits that directly benefits the plaintiff for prevailing-party status, distinguishing cases where injunctions or other concrete outcomes accompanied declarations.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involves the United States Government seeking foreclosure on real estate mortgages securing loans made to Scottie L. Curtis and Julie M. Curtis in 1986 and 1987, which were later reamortized. After Scottie Curtis's death, Julie M. Curtis defaulted on payments of principal, interest, and taxes, prompting the government to pay taxes to protect its interest. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against parties-in-interest Maine State Housing Authority, Penobscot Bay Medical Center, and Harpster Receivables Management Corporation, establishing the priority of the government's liens over those subordinate recorded liens. The decision rests on the entry of default against the defendant, which establishes the facts of default and entitlement to foreclosure, combined with the lack of any disputed material facts regarding lien priority in the summary judgment record. The court ordered the plaintiff to file a proposed Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale within thirty days after attempting to agree on lien priorities and amounts with the parties-in-interest.

propertyprocedurefederal power

The case concerns a class action settlement over strip search practices at the Knox County Jail. The court approved the Third Final Settlement Agreement and issued a permanent injunction barring strip searches of individuals charged with crimes not involving weapons, violence, or controlled substances during the booking process unless officers have reasonable suspicion of contraband. The order requires jail officials to maintain a public log documenting each search, including the basis for reasonable suspicion, and retains court jurisdiction to enforce the agreement under the All Writs Act. The injunction is designed to align with Fourth Amendment requirements, with provisions for future modification if controlling case law changes.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case is a class action challenging strip searches of arrestees at the Knox County Jail as violations of the Fourth Amendment. The parties reached a Third Final Settlement Agreement that includes monetary relief for class members, a second opt-out opportunity, and agreed-upon terms for injunctive relief to ensure compliance with constitutional standards. The court preliminarily approved the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) to allow issuance of class-wide notice, approved the proposed notice and related exhibits, scheduled a final fairness hearing for April 23, 2007, and issued the permanent injunction as stipulated by the parties. The court emphasized that it was not making any preliminary fairness determination and would assess whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate only after the hearing and any objections.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Wild Willy's Holding Company, which owns a federal trademark for "Wild Willy's Burgers" used in family-style restaurants, suing William Palladino and related parties operating a bar called "Wild Willy's Ale Room" in Maine for trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal and state laws. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from using the similar name. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because there was little likelihood of public confusion between the marks, based on an analysis of factors such as the similarity of the marks, channels of trade, and the defendants' intent.

business & regulatory

This case is a class action challenging the constitutionality of strip searches conducted on arrestees at the Knox County Jail. The parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement for court approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The court declined to approve the settlement or direct class-wide notice unless the agreement is revised to provide all putative class members a renewed opportunity to opt out and to include specific language waiving any right to appeal the court's entry of an amended permanent injunction. The court reasoned that multiple factors, including the substitution of the class representative, objections to the settlement terms, the breadth of claims released, and the allocation of recovery, warranted a second opt-out opportunity under Rule 23(e)(3). If the parties file a compliant revised agreement, the court will schedule further proceedings including a fairness hearing.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute between internet service provider GWI and Verizon over whether Verizon breached their 2001 Interconnection Agreement by refusing to provide line sharing arrangements at agreed TELRIC rates starting in October 2004. Verizon moved to enforce an arbitration agreement and dismiss the complaint, citing a later Vista Agreement effective February 1, 2005, that superseded the prior agreement and included arbitration provisions. The court enforced arbitration for claims arising after February 1, 2005, based on the integration clause in the Vista Agreement making it the governing contract for that period, stayed the earlier claims pending arbitration, and denied the motion to dismiss.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves pretrial disputes in Tardiff v. Knox County over compliance with court orders for exhibit preparation ahead of an October 2006 trial. The court struck all previously filed exhibit lists (including multiple original, supplemental, and amended versions totaling over 30 pages and hundreds of exhibits) because counsel failed to jointly prepare and submit a single consolidated exhibit list as required by the pretrial orders. The orders mandated that the parties meet to describe exhibits, identify sponsoring parties, note objections, and provide one unified list to facilitate notice, potential stipulations, and efficient trial proceedings. The court reasoned that the repetitive filings created confusion and inefficiency, directly violating the orders' goals of orderly preparation and reducing delays, and warned that non-compliance could affect exhibit admissibility at trial.

procedure

This case involves a motion by defendants in Tardiff v. Knox County seeking certification for an interlocutory appeal of the district court's prior orders granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on certain liability claims and denying reconsideration of that ruling. The court denied the motion, finding that the orders did not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for immediate appeal because they contained no certification by the judge that they involved a controlling question of law with substantial grounds for disagreement and that an appeal would materially advance the litigation's end. The judge noted that neither order included such a certification at the time they were issued, that reversal would merely reinstate claims for trial without resolving the case overall given the remaining claims and defenses, and that the parties' positions indicated they would proceed to trial regardless, making an early appeal unlikely to speed resolution.

procedure

The case involved plaintiff Melissa Shattuck, a former USPS employee, who alleged in Count V of her amended complaint that she suffered adverse employment actions in retaliation for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. The defendant, Postmaster General John Potter, moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the speech was not protected and did not motivate any adverse actions. The court reviewed the record, including instances of speech such as a letter on workplace security, development of a sexual harassment protocol, and emails criticizing her supervisor's handling of investigations. Applying the balancing test for public employee speech, the court concluded that the USPS's interests in efficient operations outweighed the plaintiff's interests, rendering the speech unprotected, and that no evidence linked the speech to subsequent adverse actions. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on Count V.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

This case involved two motion picture studios suing an individual defendant for copyright infringement after he allegedly made digital copies of the films Coach Carter and Half Baked available for download on peer-to-peer networks. The defendant did not respond to discovery requests, including requests for admissions, which under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 were deemed admitted and conclusively established the facts of unauthorized reproduction and distribution. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on that basis, awarding $6,000 in statutory damages, $349.15 in costs, and a permanent injunction against further infringement of the specified copyrights. The decision relied on the admitted facts showing the plaintiffs held valid copyrights and that the defendant had violated their exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106 without any response or opposition from the defendant.

propertyprocedure

This case involved Verizon challenging orders from the Maine Public Utilities Commission that required Verizon to include rates for certain unbundled network elements under Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act in its wholesale tariff and to provide them at TELRIC rates temporarily. The court granted summary judgment to the PUC and denied Verizon's motion, finding that the PUC had authority to regulate these elements based on Verizon's prior commitments and federal law. The core reasoning was that federal law did not preempt the PUC's actions, the PUC correctly interpreted the scope of Section 271, and Verizon's interconnection agreement supported the rate requirements.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a dispute between adjacent oceanfront property owners in Maine over an easement for use of a wharf structure, including related maintenance obligations. Plaintiff William Grace sought a declaratory judgment extinguishing the easement reserved in a 1982 deed from Defendant Jean Yarnall's late husband, along with injunctive relief and damages for the defendant's alleged failure to pay a proportionate share of wharf upkeep costs. After a bench trial, the court detailed findings of fact on the deed's creation of the easement appurtenant, seasonal use of the wharf by both families from 1982 to 2004, and the plaintiff's exclusive payment of all maintenance expenses such as float removal, storage, and structural repairs. The core reasoning centered on interpreting the deed's language reserving common use rights and the undefined "proportionate share" maintenance clause, while addressing issues of successor liability and the scope of historical usage.

property

This case involves a rear-end automobile collision in Sanford, Maine, on June 2, 1999, in which plaintiff Cathleen Woltersdorf claimed injuries to her left sternoclavicular joint and shoulder, along with her husband’s loss-of-consortium claim. After a three-day bench trial, the court found that the defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff’s truck while both were stopped, causing initial soft-tissue injuries including a cervical strain and sternoclavicular sprain that required some treatment. The court determined that later shoulder problems and associated medical expenses after April 2002 were not causally connected to the accident, based on medical records, imaging results, and expert testimony showing resolution of accident-related symptoms and pre-existing or unrelated conditions. It therefore limited recoverable damages to earlier treatment costs and disallowed claims for subsequent care, including certain chiropractic, social-work, and TMJ services. The decision rested on the plaintiffs’ failure to prove ongoing causation by a preponderance of the evidence.

torts & liability

The case concerned a promissory note for $315,000 that required defendants to make fixed monthly payments of $6,163.36, with any remaining principal, interest, and late fees due in a final balloon payment on March 1, 2009. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were in default because, after an earlier default, their monthly payments did not include accrued default interest at 12% or 5% late fees. The court had granted summary judgment to defendants on this claim and now denies plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. It reasoned that the note's unambiguous terms do not require those additional amounts to be paid monthly and instead direct them to the final payment, so plaintiffs failed to show any obligation that defendants breached.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Tardiff v. Knox County, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of strip searches performed on misdemeanor detainees at the Knox County Jail without reasonable suspicion. The court had granted partial summary judgment finding municipal liability for these searches, and defendants sought reconsideration arguing issues with the evidence and scope. The court denied the motion for reconsideration but clarified that its finding of liability applies only to class members strip searched from November 20, 1996, through August 2002, as the record evidence, including booking logs and jail inspection reports, demonstrated an unconstitutional custom only during that period. The court reasoned that plaintiffs established the required elements of municipal liability based on the undisputed evidence of the practice attributable to the municipality.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

David J. Oakes pled guilty to knowingly receiving child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and was sentenced to 54 months in prison. After the Supreme Court decided Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which struck down two definitions of child pornography in the CPPA as unconstitutionally overbroad for covering virtual images, Oakes filed a pro se § 2255 motion arguing his plea was not knowing or voluntary because he did not understand the government had to prove the images depicted actual children. The court denied the motion, holding that Oakes procedurally defaulted the claim by not raising it on direct appeal and could not excuse the default through cause and prejudice (including ineffective assistance of appellate counsel) or actual innocence, as his plea admissions established the images involved real children. The court found no need for additional government evidence and denied relief on that basis.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure