Davis v. Princeton Properties

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: January 23, 2012
• Docket: CUMcv-11-0182
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. Docket No. CV-11-0182 ,.J AvJ . ~: ',A;: t· l ' .: ~):.:: :' .. I

BETH ANN DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

PRINCETON PROPERTIES/ "PINES".

Defendants ::: (': EI\ t•;= D ~---J 6 -'-

This court has before it defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On April 21, 2011,

plaintiff filed a ten-page complaint that consists of a hodge-podge of

unnumbered averments complaining of defendant's wrongdoings, alleging, inter

alia, "unhealthy indoor air quality, failure to maintain residential property,

negligence and poor management practices of Princeton Properties

Management." The defendant's motion seeks at a minimum that the court strike

the complaint and order the plaintiff to file a new complaint consisting of short

and concise statements in numbered paragraphs and conforming with the

requirements of Rules 8(a) and 10(b) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.

According to Rule 8 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint

must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief, and ... a demand for judgment." M.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The Law

Court has recognized that the purpose of Rule 8(a) is to provide the opposing

party with "fair notice of the claim." Polk v. Town of Lubec, 2000 ME 152, CJI 18, 756

A. 2d 510, 514 (quoting E.N. Nason, Inc. v. Land-Ho Dev. Corp., 403 A. 2d 1173,

1177 (Me. 1979). The complaint filed by the plaintiff contains ten pages of rambling

allegations not made in numbered paragraphs as required by Rule S(a). Many of

her averments are immaterial and irrelevant. The complaint also mixes up bases

for seeking relief and alleges matters relating to other people. In the interest of

fair notice to the defendants, as well as judicial economy, the complaint should

be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may either file a new complaint pro se

or through an attorney. Regardless, she must do so in accordance with Rule S(a)

of the Maine Civil Rules of Procedure. Although the court is not directing the

plaintiff to file a new complaint, she will in the future be held to the same

standard as she would be if she obtains counsel. Maine law is clear that a pro se

party is subject to the same standards as a party represented by counsel,

"particularly in areas so fundamental as ... the statement of a claim." Uotinen v.

Hall, 636 A. 2d 991, 992 (Me. 1994).

Accordingly, the Order and Entry shall be:

The Complaint in its entirety is hereby dismissed without prejudice due to

a failure to comply with M.R.Civ.P. 8(a).

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference

pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Dated: January 20, 2012, 2012 ~Wheeler Superior Court Justice