Inhabitants & Registered Voters of Falmouth, ME v. Town of Falmouth, Me

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: January 6, 2015
• Docket: CUMap-14-20
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

[iiiTfR[D JAN I 4 ~ I uAW--CIM'Yl- 01-D0 i5 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION Docket No. AP-14-20

STATE OF MAINE_ INHABITANTS AND REGISTERED Cumberland. •. Clelt's 011:1 VOTERS OF FALMOUTH, MAINE, et al., JAN 07 2015 Plaintiffs RECEIVED v. ORDER

TOWN OF FALMOUTH,

Defendant

This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss

plaintiffs' complaint for judicial review under M.R. Civ. P. SOB. Defendant

Town of Falmouth argues that the complaint was untimely filed, that the

opposition was untimely, and that plaintiffs lack standing because they have

not suffered any particularized injury. The court concludes that plaintiffs'

complaint must be dismissed as untimely.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are 16 registered voters and inhabitants of Falmouth, Maine.

On March 24, 2014, the Falmouth town council voted, 5-2, to authorize the

town manger for Falmouth to enter into a contract with Cumberland County

for the county to provide tax-assessing services for the town. Falmouth's town

charter establishes a division of assessment in the town to be headed by the

town assessor. Plaintiffs complain that the town council's decision allowing the county to provide tax-assessing services violates certain provisions of the

town charter.

On April 22, 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for judicial review under

30-A M.R.S. § 210S, which relates to the process a Town must follow to

amend its town charter. Contemporaneous with that petition, plaintiffs also

filed a motion to enlarge the time to file an SOB complaint under M.R. Civ. P.

6(b)(1). Defendant moved to dismiss the petition, and on August 1S, 2014, the

court granted the motion to dismiss the petition under Rule 30-A M.R.S. §

210S, concluding that plaintiffs were not alleging that the town charter had

been improperly amended. The court also granted plaintiffs' motion to

enlarge the time to file an SOB complaint to allow plaintiffs to file within 10

days of the court's order. On August 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Rule SOB

complaint. The matter is fully briefed and ready for decision.

DISCUSSION

The court's order granting plaintiffs' motion to enlarge the time to file

under Rule SOB gave plaintiffs "ten (10) days from the date of this Order" to

file. The order is dated August 1S, 2014 and is stamped as received by the

clerk on August 1S, 2014. Plaintiffs did not file their SOB complaint until

August 29, 2014, 11 days after the court's order.

Plaintiffs argue that they were entitled to an additional three days to

file because they received notice of the court's order by mail. See M.R. Civ. P.

6(c) ("Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take

2 (

some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or

other paper upon the party and the notice or paper is served upon the party

by mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period."). The time period

allowed in the court's order, however, was not based on service but on the

date of the order. When a rule or order specifies that a party shall have a

prescribed period of time running from the date of an order, that party does

not receive an additional three days for service by mail. Scott Dugas Trucking

& Excavating, Inc. v. Homeplace Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 651 A.2d 327, 329

(Me. 1994). Plaintiffs' complaint was untimely filed and will therefore be

dismissed.

The entry is:

Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED.! Plaintiffs' Rule BOB complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Dated: January 6, 2015

Plaintiffs-Jonathan Berry Esq Defendant-David Sherman Esq/William Plouffe Esq

' The court will not address plaintiffs' motion for a trial and motion for specification of future course of proceedings because this matter is now dismissed.