Smiling Hill Farm, Inc. v. Robertson

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: June 12, 2020
• Docket: CUMcv-20-003
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

( (

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-20-003

SMILING HILL FARM, INC.,

Plaintiff V. ORDER

JAMES ROBERTSON, et al.,

Defendants

Plaintiff Smiling Hill Farm Inc. is seeking the entry of defaults. -~-.-_:, _.­

Defendants James and Heather Robertson appeared and filed a motion on March 2, 2020

seeking an extension to move or answer until March 24. That motion was overtaken by the

pandemic orders and was never acted on by the court. Assuming that the motion had been granted,

however, the Robertsons would have had a 49 day extension until May 12, 2020 to serve a response

to the complaint. However, given the pandemic and the fact that their motion for extension had

never been acted on, it is not umeasonable that Robertsons were uncertain what deadline was in

effect.

Smiling Hill sought an entry of default on May 13, only one day after the Robertsons' time

would have expired. 1 However, Smiling Hill did not file original affidavits in compliance with the

Service Members Civil Relief Act until May 18 and May 28. A week later, before any defaults had

been entered, the Robertsons filed answers and requested that the court accept those answers and

allow them to litigate the case.

1 In the event that defendants had served answers by rnai I on May 12, plaintiff would have jumped the gun. (

Given the difficulties and confusion caused by the pandemic and the various pandemic

management orders, the court is not prepared to enter defaults against the Robertsons on this

record. Indeed, the Law Court has suggested that, when a party has already appeared and is

prepared to litigate the issues, only "serious instances of noncompliance with pretrial procedures"

should lead to a default. Design Build ofMaine v. Paul, 601 A.2d 1089, 1091 (Me. 1992). The

Robertsons' relatively short delay in filing answers in this case does not constitute a serious

instance of noncompliance.

The entry shall be:

Plaintiffs requests for entries of default are denied, and the answers filed by defendants on June 4, 2020 are accepted. Scheduling order to issue. The clerk shall incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79( a).

Dated: June__L_b 2020

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

Entered on the Docket: oGµ·~tzz

Plaintiff-Jason Theobald, Esq. Defendants-Pro Se