Seaco Ins. Co. v. Havey

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: September 20, 2005
• Docket: CUMcv-05-039
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ,,

CUMBERLAND, SS DOCKET NO. CV-05-039 . (

.,'( : , i . 1.' . .- * '? /,' , , 1 . \,,;.-:.!;. J -. - I - .. , ( . ' .. ' . I , ..' C ' ,

SEACO INS. CO.,

Plaintiff

vs. ORDER ON DEFENDANT MATT HAVEY'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETER V. MAGGIO, 111, ANGEL0 M. FALUCCI, MATT HAVEY, RICK A. DIDONATO and SEAN A. SAC0

Defendants

Before the court is defendant Matt Havey's ("Mr. Havey") motion to

dismiss Plaintiff Seaco Insurance Company's ("Seaco") complaint against h m .

At oral argument, Seaco requested a continuance on the scheduled damages

hearing, which request was unopposed. Defendant Matt Havey did not appear

at oral argument in support of h s motion to dismiss.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2003, Seaco paid an insurance claim to OIConnor GMC, Inc. for losses

occasioned by theft by deception or false pretenses. Through this payment,

Seaco subrogated to all of OIConnor GMC's claims against the six defendants

named in the complaint, and filed this complaint on January 18, 2005. The

complaint alleges a scheme of fraudulent conduct by the defendants whereby

they obtained loans through OIConnor GMC, a truck dealership, which loans covered not only the purchase price of certain heavy-duty trucks but also the

~ u r c h a s eprice of accessory equipment to be installed on the trucks. According

to the complaint, the equipment was never installed, and the defendants

defaulted on their loans. Seaco alleges that O'Connor GMC sustained losses in

excess of $300,000 as a result of its duty to reimburse the financing companies

with respect to 17 of these transactions.

Mr. Havey filed an answer and motion to dismiss the complaint against

him on June 6, 2005. In the motion to dismiss, Mr. Havey claims (1)that he was

discharged in bankruptcy on June 6,2001, and (2) that Maine Courts do not have

personal jurisdiction over h m .

DISCUSSION

I. Bankruptcv Discharge

Mr. Havey's claim that he is not liable to Seaco in the present matter due

to h s discharge in bankruptcy is a claim under M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)to dismiss for

failure to state a claim upon whch relief can be granted. When a court decides a

motion to dismiss made pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the material

allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted. Moody v. State Liquor &

Lottery Com'n, 2004 ME 20, q[ 7, 843 A.2d 43, 47. A dismissal should only occur

when it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set

of facts that he might prove in support of his claim. Id.

Although Mr. Havey attached a copy of the order granting him a

discharge in bankruptcy, he did not include the § 521 schedule listing the debts

from which he was discharged. See 11U.S.C. § 521. Seaco rightly points out that

a discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy does not apply to debts that are not listed

in the bankruptcy case. Thus, M. Havey has failed to show that the debt arising from the transactions described in the Complaint was discharged, and he has

failed to meet his burden of proving that Seaco is entitled to no relief under any

set of facts that it might prove in support of its claim. See Moody v. State Liquor &

Lottery Com'n, 2004 ME 20 at ¶ 7

XI. Personal Turisdiction Mr. Havey claims that the Maine Courts do not have personal jurisdiction

over him because the parties to the action are domiciled in Massachusetts and

there is no relationship to the State of Maine other than O'Connor GMC being

located in Maine.

Seaco alleges in its complaint that Mr. Havey entered into transactions with

O'Connor GMC for the sale of a heavy-duty truck with improvements, and that

the fraud and other misconduct for which it seeks recovery occurred at

O'Connor GMC's place of business in Westbrook, Maine. These allegations in

the complaint, construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, establish

minimum contacts on Mr. Haveys's part with Maine sufficient for Maine courts

to exercise jurisdiction over h m . See Suttie v. Sloan Sales, 1998 ME 121, ¶ 4.

Under Maine's long-arm statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 704-A, the exercise of personal jurisdiction is permissible as long as it is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution, and therefore when applying the statute a court need only consider whether due process requirements have been satisfied. In order for Maine to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, due process requires that (1)Maine have a legitimate interest in the subject matter of [the] litigation: (2) the defendant, by his conduct, reasonably could have anticipated litigation In Maine; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction by Maine's courts comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. A plaintiff has the burden of establishing the first two prongs of the test. Ths showing must be based on specific facts set forth in the record, and the record should be construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Once he makes this requisite showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that asserting jurisdiction does not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

~uttie,1998 ME 121 at 41 4 (internal quotations omitted.)

Seaco has made the requisite showing, by claiming injury to a Maine

corporation, occurring in the State of Maine, that Maine has a legitimate interest

in the subject matter of the litigation. See Harriman v. Demoulas Supermarkets, Inc.,

518 A.2d 1035, 1036 (Me. 1986); Caluri v. Rypkema, 570 A.2d 830, 832 (Me. 1990).

Second, Seaco has made the requisite showing that Mr. Havey, through his

conduct, could reasonably have anticipated litigation in Maine. In purchasing a

truck from OfConnor GMC in Maine, and applying for financing through

O'Connor GMC in Maine, Mr. Seavey purposefully directed his activities at a

Maine business, and thus could reasonably have anticipated be haled into court

for those activities. See id. Mr. Seavey has not alleged, much less met the heavy

burden of claiming that the exercise of jurisdiction over his person does not

comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Suttie,

1998 ME 121 at 41 5.

The order is:

Defendant Matt Haveyfsmotion to dismiss is DENIED.

Plaintiff Seaco's motion to continue the damages hearing

Dated: September 20 , 2005 ' COURTS nd County 3x 287 le 041 12-0287

MARSHALL TINKLE ESQ PO BOX 15060 P\ PORTLAND ME 0 4 1 1 2 \

IF COURTS and County Box 287 line 041 12-0287

MATT HAVEY 130 RUSSELL STREET # 3 MALDEN MA 0 2 1 4 8