Phyllis Bradbury v. City of Eastport, 2013 ME 72

The City of Eastport voted in public meetings in Sept. 2011 to sell a 17-acre property (“Boat School”) to First Perry Realty and CPM; closing was planned for Oct. 28, 2011.
Plaintiffs Bradbury and Gholson sued in Oct. 2011 seeking a declaratory judgment that the sale was invalid for lack of required "advertising," and sought a TRO; TRO denied; City conveyed the property Dec. 1, 2011.
Plaintiffs recorded a lis pendens in Jan. 2012. Defendants filed counterclaims alleging slander of title and tortious interference based on plaintiffs’ complaint, lis pendens, and extra-judicial statements.
Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment (May 22, 2012); defendants opposed and submitted evidence of other statements; while summary-judgment motions were pending, plaintiffs filed an anti‑SLAPP special motion to dismiss the counterclaims on Aug. 30, 2012—more than 60 days after service of the counterclaims.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the declaratory claim and granted plaintiffs summary judgment dismissing the tortious‑interference counterclaim (privileged lis pendens); it denied consideration of the late anti‑SLAPP motion, citing lack of excuse for delay, failure to seek leave, procedural posture (other motions pending), and potential discovery stay. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court must permit an anti‑SLAPP special motion filed after the 60‑day statutory window absent prejudice or lack of merit	Bradbury: Court should allow late filing unless respondent shows prejudice or the motion is meritless	Defendants: Court has discretion to deny untimely motions; late filing can be denied based on case posture and potential for abuse	Court: Statute gives broad discretion; court need not consider merits or require showing of prejudice when denying late motion
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider the untimely anti‑SLAPP motion	Bradbury: Trial court abused discretion because plaintiffs explained delay and asked court to accept the late filing; the motion was timely relative to affidavits	Defendants: Plaintiffs provided no valid reason; motion filed after extensive litigation and discovery; accepting it would improperly stay discovery	Court: No abuse of discretion—findings that plaintiffs offered no valid excuse, failed to seek leave, filed after major motions, and that accepting the motion would stay discovery were reasonable

Nader v. Me. Democratic Party (Nader II), 66 A.3d 571 (Me. 2013) (anti‑SLAPP statute purpose and interlocutory appeal rule)
Nader v. Me. Democratic Party (Nader I), 41 A.3d 551 (Me. 2012) (interpretation principles for anti‑SLAPP statute)
Morse Bros. v. Webster, 772 A.2d 842 (Me. 2001) (background on SLAPPs and purpose of anti‑SLAPP relief)
Maietta Constr., Inc. v. Wainwright, 847 A.2d 1169 (Me. 2004) (statutory purpose to protect citizen speech on development projects)
Olsen v. Harbison, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 909 (Ct. App. 2005) (recognizing potential tactical manipulation of anti‑SLAPP procedures)