Federal National Mortgage Association v. Bellino

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: April 17, 2020
• Docket: CUMre-19-222
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

(

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE 19-222

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOC

v. ORDER

JOHN BELLINO, et. al.

Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Retain Matter on the Docket. The

Complaint was docketed on November 12, 2019. After more than 90 days had passed

without filing of a return of service, the Court ordered on March 2, 2020 that the case will

be dismissed without prejudice without further notice without a motion to retain on the

docket. On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to retain on the docket and allow

additional time to complete service.

Plaintiff has 90 days to file a return of service. M.R.Civ.P. 3. The Plaintiff's

motion comes after the expiration of the deadline. Therefore, in order to extend the

deadline, the plaintiff must show "excusable neglect." Dyer, Goodall & Federle, LLC v.

Proctor, 2007 ME 145, 'l[ 17. Excusable neglect requires a showing of "extraordinary

circumstances that work an injustice." Id. 'lI 18. A mistake by a law firm does not

constitute excusable neglect. Gregory v. City ofCalais, 2001 ME 82, 'l[ 8; Oppenheim v.

Hutchinson, 2007 ME 73, 'll'll 2-3.

Here, there is no claim of illness or a death in the family as in Gregory or

Solomon's Rock Trust v. Davis, 675 A.2d 506,509 (Me. 1996). Instead, the deadline to file

a return of service was lost in the transition of staff. Although there is no prejudice to

the Defendant, there is also not a showing of "extraordinary circumstances that work an

injustice."

1 for Plaintiff:James Garnet, Esq. Defendant(s): Pro-Se Litigants (

Therefore, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Retain Matter on the Docket and Enlarge Time to File Return

of Service is DENIED.

2. Pursuant to the Court's Order dated March 2, 2020, Plaintiff's Complaint is

dismissed without prejudice.

This Order is incorporated on the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).

JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT