Dineen v. MSAD 35
This text of Dineen v. MSAD 35 (Dineen v. MSAD 35) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE YORK, SS.
JAMES M. DINEEN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ORDER ) MSAD 35, et al. ) ) Defendants. )
Before the Court is Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Maine School Administrative District 35
and Richard Buzzell for defamation and tortious interference. Plaintiff filed the complaint with
the court within the statutory period, but failed to file a return of service within 90 days pursuant
to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 3. M.R. Civ. P. 3. Rule 3 states that where the return of service
is not filed within 90 days, the action may be dismissed upon motion or notice. Additionally, as a
result ofPlaintiff's failure to comply with M.R. Civ. P. 3, the Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over Defendants in this matter. See Fries v. Carpenter, 567 A.2d 437, 439 (Me.
1989) ("We hold that because the plaintiffs failed to make a timely service of process on the
defendants personal jurisdiction of the defendants was never secured.") Plaintiff has not offered
good cause for the delay, nor did Plaintiff request an extension in order to serve Defendants. The
Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
DATE: John O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court PLAINTIFF PRO SE: JAMES M DINEEN POBOX324 KITTERY ME 03 904
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS : MICHAEL BUESCHER 84 MARGINAL WAY SUITE 600 PORTLAND ME 04101
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dineen v. MSAD 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dineen-v-msad-35-mesuperct-2014.