Holman v. STJ, Inc.

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 20, 2019
• Docket: CUMcv-18-302
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

( (

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-18-302

DALE HOLMAN,

Plaintiff

v. ORDER

STJ, INC., et al.,

Defendants

Before the court is a motion by defendants STJ Inc. and Gorham Sand & Gravel Inc.

(GSG) for a Spickler order 1 against plaintiff Dale Holman and a cross-motion by Holman, who is

representing himself in this action, contending that defendants are in contempt of court.

At the outset, Holman's cross-motion for contempt against defendants is frivolous.

Holman does not claim that defendants have violated any court order, nor is there any possible

basis for a claim that defendants have engaged in any disorderly or insolent behavior that has

obstructed the administration of justice or diminished the court's authority.

Defendants' request for a Spickler order initially raises the question whether, given the ' entry of final judgment on November 14, 2018, the court retains jurisdiction to consider

defendants' motion. Assuming that the court does have jurisdiction, the appropriateness of a

Spickler order in this case presents a close question.

Holman's claims against STJ and GSG in this action were dismissed by order dated

November 9, 2018 and docketed November 14, 2018. The dismissal was based in part on

Holman's failure to oppose defendants' motion to dismiss, in part on the fact that most of the

allegations related to actions that had occurred more than 10 years earlier, and in part on the fact

that this appeared to be repetitive litigation on issues that had already been decided.

1 See Spickler v. Key Bank, 618 A.2d 204 (Me. 1992); Spickler v. Dube, 644 A.2d 465 (Me. 1994).

Plaintiff-Pro Se Defendants STJ and GSG­ Bruce Hepler, Esq. ( (

Specifically, Holman, who was at that time represented by counsel, had filed a lawsuit

against STJ and GSG in 2007 that sought damages and injunctive relief based essentially on the

same allegations in his complaint in this action. That action was dismissed with prejudice by

stipulation on April 15, 2008. Holman v. STJ Inc. et al., RE-07-188 (Superior Court

Cumberland).

Approximately 10 years later, in January 2018, Holman served a complaint on STJ and

GSG containing allegations that were in many respects the same as those in his 2007 complaint.

Holman v. STJ Inc. et al., CV-18-97 (Superior Court Cumberland). In May 2018 that complaint

was dismissed pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 3 because, although served, the complaint was never filed.

In addition, attorney's fees were assessed against Holman because the court (Walker, J.) found

that Holman did not intend to file the complaint and the action was therefore "vexatiously

commenced. " 2

Having failed to file the complaint in CV-18-97, Holman then turned around and on July

2, 2018 filed the complaint in this case, along with a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Holman has thus commenced three actions against STJ and GSG on essentially the same

claims. The first, RE-07-188, resulted in a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, although the

court does not know whether that was part of a settlement. The second was dismissed on

procedural grounds with a finding of vexatiousness. This action was resolved against Holman on

the merits based on an unopposed motion to dismiss.

STJ and GSG have also offered evidence that Holman has made threats to file criminal

complaints against defendants and threats to file further litigation against them, most recently by

email on November 2, 2018. He has filed a bar complaint against defendant's counsel and has

threatened to bring litigation against defendants' law firm. He has also sued neighboring

property owners on related claims involving the alleged diversion of water onto his property.

Holman v. Johnson, CV-18-68 and CV-18-143 (Superior Court Cumberland). The latter cases

2 Holman's appeal from the imposition of attorney's fees was thereafter dismissed by the Law Court because Holman did not file a brief. Holman v. STJ Inc., Docket No. Cum-18-316 (order dated November 6, 2018).

2 (

were settled and a Spickler order was included in the settlement precluding Holman from suing the neighboring property owners without first petitioning the court for approval. However, the Spickler order in Holman v. Johnson was entered by agreement.

Holman's position is not helped by the fact that in several instances, after commencing

legal action, he has been apparently unwilling to litigate on the merits (failing to file the

complaint in CV-18-97, failing to brief his appeal in Cum-18-316, and failing to oppose the

motion to dismiss in this action). This tends to support an inference that Holman's litigiousness

does not constitute a good faith assertion of what he believes to be his legal rights but is instead

intended as a form of harassment or protest. On this record the court cannot conclude that

Holman's 2007 action was frivolous, but his two attempted reiterations of that action in 2018

(the complaint not filed and the complaint dismissed in this case) and the other behavior outlined

above begin to approach the pattern of abusive and frivolous litigation necessary to justify a

Spickler order.

Because the court concludes that jurisdiction to issue a Spickler order may be lacking in

this case, it will dismiss defendants' motion. Given Holman's repetitive lawsuits, Justice

Walker's finding that Holman's action in CV-18-97 was vexatiously commenced, and the other

points noted above, Holman is on notice that any future similar behavior on his part could result

in the imposition of a Spickler injunction against him.

The entry shall be:

The court doubts that it has jurisdiction to consider defendants' motion for a Spickler order, and accordingly that motion is dismissed. Plaintiff's cross-motion for contempt is denied. The clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).

Dated: February '2-Z> , 2019 Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

Entered on the Docket:~ / YlJl,C