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

Opinion

..( ,. . . . _.~

.

STATE OF MAINE .

. .

: . . .

: SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss ,, .Civil Action Docket No. CV-

-- .

-t-&:;,.

06-159 .

. .- . .

" :I . , .- !')

. 1 .

, , :

COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING , SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff

DECISION AND ORDER D O N A L D L. GARBRECHT EVANS ENGINEERS, LLC and LAW LIBRARY JOHN M. EVANS,

Defendants OCT 2 7 2006

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 SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss.

Attorney for: COAST TO COAST ENGINEERING SERVICES INC Docket No PORSC-CV-2006-00159 TIMOTHY BRYANT - RETAINED 03/13/2006 PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS & HALEY ONE CITY CENTER DOCKET RECORD PO BOX 9546 PORTLAND ME 04112-9546

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 Minor Case Type: CONTRACT Filing Date: 03/13/2006

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

SUMMARY SHEET. AD 4-10-06 EXHIBIT 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) NOT ENTERED AS DEFENDANTS GIVEN LEAVE TO ANSWER BY 6-26-06 (GM)

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 08- 30-06 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