202 A.3d 524
Me.2019Background
- Dubois and Fedder (pro se) sued the Town of Arundel and Planning Board members after the Planning Board denied renewal of a conditional use permit held by Dubois Livestock, Inc.
- Dubois and Fedder were not the listed applicant, property owner, or authorized agents on the permit application and did not attend or participate in the Planning Board hearing that denied the renewal.
- Plaintiffs alleged a town-planner memorandum prompted illegal executive session(s) in violation of the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), and sought relief in Superior Court following Rule 80B procedures.
- The Town moved to dismiss for lack of standing, untimeliness, and failure to state a FOAA claim; the Superior Court granted dismissal and imposed Rule 11 attorney-fee sanctions against Dubois and Fedder.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed dismissal (Rule 80B inapposite to FOAA; plaintiffs lacked Rule 80B standing; complaint failed to allege actionable FOAA conduct) but vacated the sanctions because plaintiffs were not given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and remanded on sanctions procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle for FOAA claim | FOAA claim can be pursued via Rule 80B | Rule 80B is not the proper mechanism for FOAA claims | Court: Rule 80B is inapposite to FOAA; dismissal proper |
| Rule 80B standing to challenge Planning Board decision | Dubois/Fedder could bring Rule 80B challenge | They lacked standing: not parties to administrative proceeding and no particularized injury | Court: No standing; Rule 80B dismissal affirmed |
| Sufficiency of FOAA pleadings | Complaint alleged illegal executive session caused by memo, so FOAA relief available | Complaint failed to allege that any action taken in executive session gave rise to FOAA remedies | Court: Complaint fails to plead actionable FOAA violation; dismissal proper |
| Imposition of Rule 11 sanctions | Sanctions were improper, imposed without adequate notice/hearing | Sanctions appropriate given litigation problems | Court: Sanctions vacated for lack of notice/opportunity; remand for proper procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubois v. Office of the Attorney General, 185 A.3d 734 (Me. 2018) (Rule 80C/80B inapplicability to FOAA claims)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Greenleaf, 124 A.3d 1122 (Me. 2015) (standing is threshold justiciability issue reviewed de novo)
- Norris Family Assocs., LLC v. Town of Phippsburg, 879 A.2d 1007 (Me. 2005) (Rule 80B standing requires party at administrative proceeding and particularized injury)
- Lewiston Daily Sun v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 43, 738 A.2d 1239 (Me. 1999) (FOAA remedies depend on actions taken during closed sessions)
- Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Cope, 158 A.3d 931 (Me. 2017) (procedural steps and notice requirements for imposing sanctions)