Speedway Holdings Assocs., LP v. Bahre

Maine Superior

Speedway Holdings Assocs., LP v. Bahre

DecidedJune 21, 2001

DocketCUMcv-00-501

StatusUnpublished

This text of Speedway Holdings Assocs., LP v. Bahre (Speedway Holdings Assocs., LP v. Bahre) 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.

Bluebook

Speedway Holdings Assocs., LP v. Bahre, (Me. Super. Ct. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE OB eae SUPERIOR COURT

CUMBERLAND, ss Ce CIVIL ACTION PATA Sees DOCKET NO. CV-00-501 - : Viel wore EL ee iv 13 ih a3 ag Wee SPEEDWAY HOLDINGS ASSOCIATES, LP, et als. Plaintiffs ORDER ON DEFENDANT NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING, INC.’S MOTION TO © ROBERT H. BAHRE, et al., DISMISS

Defendants

Defendant National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. (NASCAR) moves pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss count II (fraud), count III (interference with advantageous relationships), count IV (civil conspiracy), count VII (promissory estoppel), and count VII (negligent misrepresentation). For the following reasons, the defendant NASCAR's motion is denied.

On this Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint is reviewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs to determine whether the complaint sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief pursuant to some legal theory. See In re Wage Payment Litig., 2000 ME 162, ¥ 3, 759 A.2d 217, 220. A complaint is dismissed only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiffs are entitled to no relief under any facts they might prove to support their claim. See id. Count Il; Fraud

Fraud requires (1) a false representation, (2) of a material fact, (3) made with

knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its falsity, (4) for the purpose of

inducing another to act or refrain from acting, and (5) the plaintiff justifiably relied upon the representation and acted to his detriment. Francis v. Stinson, 2000 ME 173, q 38, 760 A.2d 209, 217. The plaintiffs have stated a claim for fraud. See, eg, Complaint 71 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 52, 56, 84. Count ILI: Interference with Advantageous Relationships

Interference with advantageous relationships requires (1) a valid contract or prospective economic advantage; (2) interference through fraud or intimidation; and (3) damages proximately caused by the interference. Petit v. Key Bank of Maine, 688 A.2d 427, 430 (Me. 1996). The plaintiffs have stated a claim for interference with advantageous relationships. See Complaint {{ 32, 88, 90, 91, 92.

nt IV: Civil Conspir To state a claim for civil conspiracy, the plaintiffs must allege that the

defendants conspired to commit a tort and that acts were taken in furtherance of the

conspiracy. See Cohen v. Bowdoin, 288 A.2d 106, 112 (Me. 1972); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 876 (1977). Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort. Potter,

Prescott, Jamieson & Nelson, P.A. v. Campbell, 1998 ME 70, 7 8, 708 A.2d 283, 286.

The plaintiffs have stated a claim for civil conspiracy. See Complaint 7] 94-97. Count VII: Promissory Estoppel

Promissory estoppel requires a promise that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action and which does induce action on the part of the promisee.

Tarbuck v. Jaeckel, 2000 ME 105, J 16, 752 A.2d 176, 180-81. The plaintiffs have stated

a claim for promissory estoppel. See Complaint 7 32, 33.

Count VIII: Negligent Misrepresentation A defendant is liable under a theory of negligent misrepresentation if (1) he supplied false information, (2) for the guidance of the plaintiffs in their business transactions, (3) the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information, and (4) the plaintiffs justifiably relied

upon the information. Chapman v. Rideout, 568 A.2d 829, 830 (Me. 1990). The

plaintiffs have stated a claim for negligent misrepresentation. See Complaint {{ 32, 33. The entry is

The Defendant NASCAR’s Motjon to Dismiss is DEN

Date: June 18, 2001

Nakey Mills Justice, Superior Cour Date Filed __08-22-00 CUMBERLAND

Docket No. __CV_00-501

County

Action DAMAGES

SPEEDWAY HOLDINGS ASSOCIATES, LP OXFORD SPEEDWAY, INC.

OXFORD PLAINS SPEEDWAY ASSOCIATES, LP OXFORD SPEEDWAY MANAGEMENT CORP. MICHAEL A. LIBERTY

VS.

ROBERT P. BAHRE NEW HAMPSHIRE SPEEDWAY, INC.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING, INC.

Plaintiff's Attorney

DANIEL G. LILLEY ESQ 774-6206 PO BOX 4803, PORTLAND ME 04112

Michael Waxman, Esq. (772-9558) PO Box 375, Portland ME 04112

Date of Entry

‘Defendant’s Attorn

GENE LIBBY Bsqeeet93

DANIEL DRISCOLL ESQ

403-404 Lafayette Center

PO BOX 147, Kennebunk Me 04043-0147

DAVID WEBBERT ESQ 623-5110

160 Capitol St. POBOX 79 Augusta Me 04332-0079 (Natl. Stock Car)

aan STATE OF MAINE “| 4 a= 240) SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss wie vO CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-00-501

LF ASV boudoe te fF oT we -

SPEEDWAY HOLDINGS

ASSOCIATES, LP, et al., Plaintiffs ORDER ON DEFENDANTS BAHRE AND NEW Vv. HAMPSHIRE SPEEDWAY,

INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS ROBERT P. BAHRE, et al.,

y

Defendants Bahre and New Hampshire Speedway, Inc. (NHSI) move pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the following counts of the plaintiffs’ complaint: count I (fraud), count III (interference with advantageous relationships), count IV (civil conspiracy), count V (breach of contract, brokering agreements against defendant Bahre only), count VI (breach of contract, non-competition agreement), count VII (promissory estoppel), count VIII (negligent misrepresentation against Bahre only), and count IX (breach of fiduciary duty against Bahre only). For the following reasons, defendants Bahre and NHSI's motion is

granted. Counts I & VIII: Fraud (Bahre and NHSI) and Negligent Misrepresentation (Bahre)

Claim preclusion bars the relitigation of a claim if (1) the same parties are

involved in both actions, (2) a valid final judgment was entered in the prior action, and (3) the matters presented for decision in the second action were, or might have

been, litigated in the first action. In re Kaleb D., 2001 ME 55, { 8, 769 A.2d 179, 183;

Town of Ogunquit v. Cliff House & Motels, Inc., 2000 ME 169, {| 10, 759 A.2d 731, 735;

see also Bahre v. Liberty Group, Inc., 2000 ME 75, 750 A.2d 558. This case involves the same parties or their privies. See Spickler v. Dube, 644

A.2d 465, 467-68 (Me. 1994); Northeast Harbor Golf Club, Inc. v. Town of Mount

Desert, 618 A.2d 225, 227 (Me. 1992); Complaint {{ 4-8, 15-17; see also Liberty v.

Bahre, 00-CV-117 (D. Me. 2000) {4 4-8, 19-21; Affidavit of Michael Liberty dated 4/28/99, 11 6, 12.

The plaintiffs can not relitigate the allegation that Liberty was induced to enter, and honor the terms of, the 7/31/96 agreement. See Bahre, 2000 ME 75, { 15, 750 A.2d at 562: Complaint 7 39, 41-44, 47-49, 59-60, 66-69. The 7/31/96 agreement bars all claims based upon any facts, state of facts, circumstances or events existing on or before 7/31/96 or based on any acts or omissions occurring before 7/31/96. See 7/31/96 Agreement, | 5; Complaint 1 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42.

The allegations of fraud could have been litigated in the earlier case, in which a final judgment was entered. See Bahre, 2000 ME 75, 7 10, 750 A.2d at 560; Affidavit of Michael Liberty dated 4/28/99, 1 8, 9, 12, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,

32, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42; Bartlett v. Pullen, 586 A.2d 1263, 1265 (Me. 1991).

Count III: Interference with Advantageous Relationships (Bahre and NHSI)

This claim is barred. See M.R. Civ P. 13(a); Liberty v. Bahre, 00-CV-117, (| 15

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI