First Tracks Investments, LLC v. Murray, Plumb & Murray, 121 A.3d 1279

First Tracks Investments, LLC sued Murray, Plumb & Murray (MPM) and two attorneys for wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process following MPM’s litigation activities.
The Business and Consumer Docket entered summary judgment for MPM.
On appeal, First Tracks challenged the grant of summary judgment, arguing it had established prima facie elements of both torts.
The trial court evaluated the summary judgment record under the usual light-most-favorable-to-plaintiff standard and found First Tracks failed to prove each element of either cause of action.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, concluding First Tracks did not present a prima facie case for wrongful use of civil proceedings or abuse of process.
The Court also criticized both parties’ excessive, disorganized, and noncompliant Rule 56(h) statements of material facts, noting the trial court could have sanctioned or disposed of the motion on that basis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether First Tracks established wrongful use of civil proceedings	First Tracks argued the prior litigation was brought without probable cause and with malice, satisfying elements for wrongful use	MPM argued the record lacked evidence of an absence of probable cause and malice; litigation was proper	Court held First Tracks failed to establish each required element and affirmed summary judgment for MPM
Whether First Tracks established abuse of process	First Tracks contended MPM used legal process for an ulterior purpose and caused damage	MPM contended there was no clear misuse of process or evidence of an ulterior motive/damages	Court held First Tracks failed to prove abuse of process and affirmed summary judgment
Whether parties’ Rule 56(h) practices affected summary judgment	First Tracks relied on voluminous facts to oppose summary judgment	MPM filed extensive statements as well; both parties submitted repetitive, inflammatory, and disorganized facts	Court admonished the parties for noncompliance, noting the trial court could have denied or granted summary judgment based solely on Rule 56(h) failures but ultimately affirmed on merits

Jennings v. MacLean, 114 A.3d 667 (Me. 2015) (standard for reviewing summary judgment view of record in plaintiff's favor)
Stanley v. Hancock County Commissioners, 864 A.2d 169 (Me. 2004) (requirements and proper organization of statements of material facts under Rule 56(h))