Robert M.A. Nadeau v. Lynnann Frydrych
108 A.3d 1254
| Me. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Robert M.A. Nadeau (pro se) filed a complaint for protection from harassment against Lynnann Frydrych alleging multiple incidents after the end of their relationship; attached a 23‑page statement of incidents.
- Frydrych moved to dismiss under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Nadeau failed to plead legally sufficient harassment and did not attach a required notice to cease harassment; she also sought attorney fees as the complaint was frivolous.
- The District Court dismissed Nadeau’s complaint with prejudice, concluding the allegations did not meet the “three or more acts” harassment standard (5 M.R.S. § 4651(2)(A)), and awarded Frydrych $7,257.50 in attorney fees.
- Nadeau appealed; he expressly disclaimed a stalking theory on appeal, so that issue was not preserved.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the dismissal de novo, viewing the complaint’s allegations as true for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint alleged three or more acts of harassment under 5 M.R.S. § 4651(2)(A) | Nadeau: complaint alleges multiple incidents constituting three or more intentional acts of intimidation/harassment | Frydrych: alleged incidents are legally insufficient to state harassment | Court: Allegations, read favorably to plaintiff, are sufficient to survive 12(b)(6) — reasonable inference of three or more acts exists |
| Whether the conduct should be considered under the stalking/ single‑act theory (5 M.R.S. § 4651(2)(C)) | Nadeau: alternatively argued single act/ course of conduct could qualify (but on appeal he disclaimed stalking theory) | Frydrych: did not prevail on this preserved issue | Court: Not addressed on appeal because Nadeau disclaimed seeking relief on a stalking theory (issue unpreserved) |
| Validity of awarding attorney fees to defendant where complaint was dismissed | Nadeau: complaint was not frivolous; fees were erroneous and excessive | Frydrych: dismissal warranted and fees proper because complaint had no legal basis and contained unwarranted personal attacks | Court: Fee award vacated because dismissal was reversed on legal‑sufficiency ground; underlying basis for fees (that complaint lacked legal basis) was undermined |
| Effect of failing to attach a notice to cease harassment (17‑A M.R.S. § 506‑A / 5 M.R.S. § 4653(1)(B)) | Nadeau: did not attach a cease‑harassment notice; argued other matters (not fully developed on appeal) | Frydrych: relied on absence of required notice as ground to dismiss/deny temporary relief | Court: Declined to resolve fully on appeal; noted trial court denied temporary order for failure to attach notice and remand may address effect of missing notice on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramsey v. Baxter Title Co., 54 A.3d 710 (Maine 2012) (Rule 12(b)(6) review — view complaint in plaintiff’s favor and review legal sufficiency de novo)
- McCormick v. Crane, 37 A.3d 295 (Maine 2012) (complaint sufficiency analyzed for any legally cognizable cause of action)
- Saunders v. Tisher, 902 A.2d 830 (Maine 2006) (allegations evaluated to determine whether any cause of action may reasonably be inferred)
- Staples v. Michaud, 836 A.2d 1288 (Maine 2003) (non‑physical acts of intimidation may support harassment relief)
- Jefts v. Dennis, 931 A.2d 1055 (Maine 2007) (repeated emails and embarrassing communications can support protection from harassment)
- Berg v. Bragdon, 695 A.2d 1212 (Maine 1997) (issues not raised below are generally unpreserved on appeal)
Outcome: Judgment dismissing complaint and award of attorney fees vacated; case remanded for further proceedings on the merits.