Abraham v. Broaddus

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: December 8, 2022
• Docket: CUMcv-20-59
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-20-059

MEMANA ABRAHAM, and ALEYEMMA ABRAHAM

Plaintiffs ORDER V.

ANDREW BROADDUS

Defendant

This matter comes before the court on Defendant, Andrew Broaddus' Motion in limine to

Exclude the Expert Witness Testimony of Joseph Goodman. For the reasons stated herein, the

motion is DENIED.

I. Procedural Background

Defendant is an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Maine. Plaintiffs, Memana

and Aleyemma Abraham, hired the Defendant to represent the Plaintiffs in various property and

debt collection matters in September, 2015. The lawsuit alleged two counts seeking recovery

under theories of professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Each count was based on

three separate and distinct fact patterns. These matters included: (1) collection ofunpaid rent under

a commercial tenancy with Awakening Recovery Center; (2) exploration of legal remedies

stemming from the Plaintiffs' purchase of 94 Pierce St., Westbrook Maine, in 2010; and (3)

prosecuting a lawsuit against Viking Restoration LLC.

Defendant filed for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment with respect

to Awakening Recovery Center and Plaintiffs purchase of94 Pierce St. That summary judgment

1 included both the fiduciaiy duty and professional negligence counts with respect to those two fact

patterns. See, August 5, 2021 Order, p. 8 ("For the same reasons as the court granted summaiy

judgment on the professional negligence claim for the Awakening Recovery Center and the 94

Pierce St. issues and denied summary judgment on the Viking Restoration claim, the court dies

(sic) the same with the breach offiduciaiy duty claim.")

The court denied summary judgment on the Viking Restoration claim. Therefore, when

the court considers the motion to exclude expert testimony, the comi focuses on evidence

Goodman has to offer with respect to the Viking Restoration claim.

II. Goodman's qualifications.

Defendant challenges Goodman's qualifications to testify as an expert. The court addresses

the issue only with respectto the Viking Restoration claim. Goodman is a 1991 graduate ofSuffolk

Law School. He is licensed to practice law in Maine. He does bankruptcy, criminal defense, family

law and civil litigation. He does not practice any real estate law or do any closings. He has been a

solo practitioner since 1995. He is not a collection attorney. He testified as an expert witness in

one other matter. With respect to legal malpractice cases, he is taken continuing legal education,

has testified about the subject, and has read the Bar rules.

Viking Restoration matter involved a claim that the Defendant failed to file a motion for

prejudgment attachment when filing suit against Viking Restoration. Viking Restoration and the

Plaintiff had entered into a contract to rebuild the Defendant's apartment building after fire.

Plaintiff claimed Viking Restoration overcharged him. After Plaintiff filed suit, Viking Restoration

declared bankruptcy. Defendant then made a claim to the bankruptcy court on behalf of the

Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends he would have been in a better position had the attachment been

perfected prior to the bankruptcy.

2 To be admissible, "the expert must be able to provide some insight beyond the kind of

judgment an ordinarily intelligent juror can exert." Tolliver v. DOT, 2008 ME 83, Jr 28. With

respect to the availability and potential advantages of a motion for prejudgment attachment and

the impact of a bankruptcy declaration Goodman has sufficient knowledge to assist the jury on

that issue. Therefore, he is qualified to testify. Defendant's objections go to the weight of the

testimony as opposed to the admissibility.

III. Standard of care and causation.

The Defendant argues that the court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide the necessary

categories of expert testimony in his motion for summary judgment. That does not preclude the

Plaintiff from introducing properly designated expert testimony at trial.

The Defendant also argues that Goodman never outlined those opinions at his deposition.

Reviewing the testimony, the court concludes that he was never asked to describe or explain his

opinion. The Defendant did not extract the contours of Goodman's opinions. Compare, Corey v.

Norman, Hanson and Detroy, 1999 ME 196 Jr4 (expert specifically testified that he was not

offering an opinion with respect to proximate cause). The court also agrees with the Plaintiff that

the questioning at Goodman's deposition does not preclude Goodman from testifying regarding

the standard of care, the breach of the standard of care, or causation. Assuming Goodman was

designated 1 on those issues, he may offer those opinions at trial.

The entry is:

Defendant's Motion in Limine is DENIED.

1 The court cannot locate an expert designation in any of the motion papers or the exhibits to Goodman's

deposition.

3 This Order is incorporated on the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a). ,/7 / J~. -·-- A -\ J .-rJ

Thomas McKean Justice, Superior Court