Market Caf, Inc. v. City of Old Town
This text of Market Caf, Inc. v. City of Old Town (Market Caf, Inc. v. City of Old Town) 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 SUPERIOR COURT
PENOBSCOT, SS. Docket No. AP/01-27 a JK - fEN- fale
Market Cafe, Inc., )
Plaintiff )
)
Vv ) ORDER
City of Old Town, )
Defendant )
Pending before the court is, among other matters, the defendant's motion to strike. In that motion, ‘the defendant argues that submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff should be stricken because they were not filed by a licensed attorney. See 4 M.RS.A. § 807.
This action is an appeal pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80B from a - municipality's decision not to renew the plaintiff's victualer's license.
To address the defendant's motion, it must first be determined if the plaintiff is a corporation. The present record demonstrates that this is the case. The defendant's motion is accompanied by a certification from the Secretary of State attesting to the corporate nature of the plaintiff. Further, the caption of the complaint identifies the plaintiff as "Market Cafe, Inc." The complaint is signed in the following way:
Market Cafe, Inc. Claudia Lowd-Dimoulas Clerk
The caption of the complaint identifies corporate entity as the plaintiff. In
the complaint, it is alleged that the plaintiff is a restaurant. Therefore, there is no suggestion that the plaintiff is a proprietorship, and the complaint is signed in a way that indicates that the individual signatory 1S a representative of the corporation, rather than a person signing in her individual capacity. Further, the plaintiff's objection to the motion at bar does not contest the defendant's suggestion that the plaintiff is a corporate entity; indeed, that response appears to confirm that the plaintiff is a corporation. Based on these factors, the court concludes that "Market Cafe, Inc." is in fact a corporate entity. This triggers the provisions of section 807.
Section 807 permits persons. other than licensed attorneys to represent corporate ‘entities only in limited, well-defined circumstances. The present proceeding does not fall into any of those exceptions to the general prohibition against representation of corporations by non-lawyers. See 4 M.R.S.A. §§ 807(3)(C), (J). Consequently, that general prohibition created in section 807(1) applies here. Because Claudia Lowd-Dimoulas is not permitted or authorized to sign or file pleadings and other legal submissions in this case on behalf of the corporation, the complaint and
those other submissions must be stricken. See Haynes v. Jackson, 2000 ME
11, ¢ 15, 744 A.2d 1050, 1054.
The entry shall be:
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to strike is granted. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Dated: November 6, 2001 chi ia
TusticeY eo [Superior Court
\ . deer?
Date Filed 8/8/2001 PENOBSCOT Docket No. AP-2001—27
County Action _80B APPEAL COUNTERCLAIM ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE JEFFREY L. HJELM MARKET CAFE INC. . , Vs CITY OF OLD TOWN
Plaintiffs Attorney Defendant’s Attorney
MARKET CAFE INC. Robert Es Miller, Esq.
CLAUDIA LOWD-DIMOULAS, CLERK P O Box 414
P O BOX 252 - 827 Stillwater Avenue Old Town ME 04468-0414
STILLWATER, ME 04489
Date of
Entry
8/7/01 Complaint Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B filed.
8/7/01 Motion for Stay and Accompanying Memorandum Pursuant to Rule 80B(b) filed by Plaintiff.
8/9/01 Notice and Briefing Schedule - 80B Appeal of Governmental Actions - form forwarded to Claudia Lowd-Dimoulas, Plaintiff and to City of Old Town.
8/20/01 Entry of Apperance by Robert E. Miller, Esq. on behalf of Defendant City of Old Town filed. Copy of Briefing Notice forwarded to Robert Miller, Esq. 7 -. m,
8/30/01 Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, Answer and Counterclaim filed.
8/30/01 Defendant's Objectiom to Plaintiff's Motion for a Stay filed.
8/30/01 Affidavit of Patricia Ramsey (Attachment A) filed by Defendant.
(Exhibits A, B, B-l, B-2, B-3, C, D, E & F attached) , 9/7/2001 File presented to Justice Hjelm for review. 9/13/01 Plaintiff's Brief pursuant to Rule 80B filed. Exhibit A ~ D attached. 9/13/01 Answer of Counterclaim Defendants filed.
9/14/01 File returned by Justice Hjelm, order issued.
9/14/01 Order filed. Pending before the court is the plaintiff/appellant's motion to stay, filed pursuant to MRCivP 80B(b). The defendant has objected to a stay. The court has considered the parties’ submissions on the motion. The defendant's opposition to the plaintiff's motion includes a sworn statement that the plaintiff has engaged in various acts of self-help. In light of this suggestion and of the nature of the alleged violations, the court denies the motion to stay the defendant's denial or revocation of the victualer's license and license renewql. ray @im, J. Copy forwarded to Plaintiff, Pro Se and to Defendant's counsel.
eee
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Market Caf, Inc. v. City of Old Town, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/market-caf-inc-v-city-of-old-town-mesuperct-2001.