Town of Madawaska v. Richard Cayer
103 A.3d 547
| Me. | 2014Background
- Town of Madawaska filed land-use enforcement against Richard and Ann Cayer for shoreland violations; initial violation involved adding two travel trailers without permit.
- Town Board of Selectmen found violations and required removal of trailer, civil penalty, and consent agreement in June 2010; Cayers did not appeal to Superior Court under Rule 80B.
- August 2010: Town filed land use citation and complaint; Cayers timely requested removal to Superior Court for jury trial under Rule 38.
- November 2012: Town amended complaint adding a new violation; January 2013: court granted amendment under Rule 15(a).
- March 2013: Cayers filed a special motion to dismiss under 14 M.R.S. § 556 (anti-SLAPP); filed 131 days after amendment but no leave sought beyond 60-day limit.
- January 7, 2014: trial court denied motion as untimely; Cayers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anti-SLAPP applies to a government enforcement action | Cayers argue the Town's enforcement action is retaliatory against petitioning activity | Town contends anti-SLAPP not appropriate in this enforcement context | Anti-SLAPP does not apply to this enforcement action |
| timeliness of filing anti-SLAPP motion | Cayers relied on 60-day limit but did not obtain leave | Town amended pleadings and related back; motion outside period | Court did not reach timeliness on the merits; affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether moving party can show that claim is based solely on petitioning activity | Cayers cite prior disputes to show retaliatory motive | Claims were based on enforcement of shoreland ordinance, not solely petitioning activity | Not reached; analysis limited to applicability of anti-SLAPP in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Nader v. Maine Democratic Party, 2013 ME 51 (Me. 2013) (two-step anti-SLAPP analysis; first step requires showing claim based on petitioning)
- Nader v. Me. Democratic Party (Nader I), 2012 ME 57 (Me. 2012) (establishes step-one burden and limitations on application)
- Bradbury v. City of Eastport, 2013 ME 72 (Me. 2013) (limits on timely filing and relation back for anti-SLAPP motions)
- Morse Bros., Inc. v. Webster, 2001 ME 70 (Me. 2001) (anti-SLAPP context in zoning-related disputes)
- Schelling v. Lindell, 2008 ME 59 (Me. 2008) (definition of right to petition under anti-SLAPP)
- Driscoll v. Mains, 2005 ME 52 (Me. 2005) (plain meaning construction; relevance to anti-SLAPP scope)
- Cutting v. City of Portland, No. 2:13-CV-359-025, 2014 WL 580155 (D. Me. 2014) (recourse if petition rights allegedly suppressed)
- Bradbury v. City of Eastport, 2013 ME 72 (Me. 2013) (noting limitations on applicability of anti-SLAPP to enforcement actions)