Evergreen Mountain Enterprises, LLC v. Oxford Casino

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 1, 2017
• Docket: OXFcv-15-73
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT OXFORD, SS. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-15-73

EVERGREEN MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES, LLC and SETH CAREY, ORDER ON MOTION OF Plaintiffs J. PETER MARTIN AND ANTHONYPALMINTERIFOR v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OXFORD CASINO, et al.,

Defendants

A motion to dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs in this case was granted on

the basis of those claims being untimely, except for one claim made by plaintiffs

against defendants Oxford Casino, J. Peter Martin, and Anthony Palminteri. That

claim is for invasion of privacy/intrusion on seclusion. That cause of action is

based on the claim of plaintiffs that the defendants tapped plaintiff Seth Carey's

telephone. 1

Defendants Martin and Palminteri contend that the tapping of a telephone

does not constitute an "invasion of privacy/intrusion or seclusion." Defendants I

contend that the tapping of a telephone is not an intentional physical intrusion upon

premises occupied privately by a plaintiff for purposes of seclusion and not "highly

1 Defendant Olympia's motion for summary judgment h~s been granted. Plaintiffs presented no evidence to link Olympia to any tapping of any telephone. offensive to a reasonable person." The court disagrees, however, and concludes

that the tapping of a phone or computer device can constitute an invasion of

privacy/intrusion or seclusion.

Nevertheless, the allegations relied on by plaintiffs are insufficient as a

matter of law to survive the motion of defendants Martin and Palminteri for

summary judgment on the invasion of privacy claim.

Plaintiffs allege that Carey's grandmother's house in Florida was

burglarized; that Carey had a telephone conversation with defendant Martin in

2010, and shortly after that conversation, Carey's phone began making clicking or

static noises nearly every time he used the phone, no matter where it was used.

Carey asserts that his friend told him he believes the phone has been tapped.

Plaintiffs contend that this is sufficient to show that Carey's cell phone has been

tapped, and that defendants were responsible .

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must present

sufficient admissible evidence to prevent a defendant from being entitled to a

directed verdict, and to support a fact finder finding in favor of the plaintiff. Bell v.

Dawson 2013 ME I 08, ,r 16, 82 A2d 827, H.E.P. Development Group, Inc.

v.Nelson 606 A.2d 774,775 (Me. 1992)

2 Here, plaintiffs have presented nothing mme than unsupported allegations

that Carey's telephone was tapped. They have not designated an expert to present

evidence to establish that his phone was in fact tapped, or how it was tapped, see

United States v. Lopez-Lopez, 282 F.3rd 1,14,15 (1st Cir. 2009) Nor have they

presented admissible evidence that either defendant was in any way responsible for

tapping the cell phone, or for the burglaiy of the grandmother's Florida home.

Accordingly, even though the tapping of a telephone or other such device

could constitute an invasion of privacy/intrusion on seclusion, the evidence

presented by the plaintiffs of that occurring here, or that defendants were

responsible for same, is woefully inadequate. If the evidence relied on by plaintiffs

for the purpose of this motion was the evidence they would present at a trial, the

defendants would be entitled to a directed verdict in their favor.

Accordingly, defendants Martin and Palminteri are entitled to a summary

judgment.

The ent1y is:

Motion for summary judgment of defendants Martin and Palminteri is GRANTED.

JUDGMENT for defendants Martin and Palminteri on plaintiffs SECOND AND THIRD CLAIMS FOR RELIEF and on ALL CLAWS FOR RELIEF.

3 DATED: f i,btuad'( ) :7p/1­ I

~ rx~ke::~e.cL ~ - ­ I ;1 1;;_

4 ( (

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT OXFORD, ss. CMLACTION Docket No. CV-15-73 EVERGREEN MOUNTAIN ) ENTERPRISES, ) LLC and SETH CAREY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT OXFORD ) CASINO'S MOTION FOR V. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) OXFORD CASINO, ET AL., ) ) Defendants. )

After consideration of Defendant Oxford Casino's Motion for Summary

.Judgment and any opposition thereto, Defendant's motion is hereby GRANTED.

Plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that ,vould present a

triable issue regarding ,,vhether, how, or by ,,vhom Seth Carey's cell phone was tapped.

Plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case for the elements of the claim of

invasion of privacy/intmsion on seclusion, which requires an allegation of physical

intrusion upon premises privately occupied. See) e.g., Estate ofBe1'thiaume v. Pratt,

365 A.2d 792,795 (Me. 1976); Lougee Conservancy v. CitiMol'tgage) Inc., 2012 ME 103,

~ 16, 48 A.3d 774,781; Nelson v. Maine Times, 373 A.2d 1221, 1223 (Me. 1977).

Moreover, even if the act oftapping a cell phone rose to the level of the tort of

invasion of privacy, the plaintiffs have failed to produce admissible evidence sufficient to

survive a claim for directed verdict, and summary judgment should be granted.

Judgment shall enter for Defendant Oxford Casino on Plaintiffs' claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion on seclusion.

In accordance ,vith prior orders in this case, all counts asserted in the Plaintiffs' Complaint or Amended Complaint are hereby dismissed.

DEC 13 2016 ( (

Defendant Oxford Casino shall submit an affidavit of attorney's fees v,.~thin 14 days of the docketing of this Order.

Justice, Superior Court