187 A.3d 609
Me.2018Background
- Four LLCs owning property in Wiscasset challenged the Maine Department of Transportation’s Wiscasset Downtown Improvement Project (Route 1 widening), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The amended complaint advanced nine counts; Count 1 alleged violation of the Sensible Transportation Policy Act (STPA), 23 M.R.S. § 73, for failing to provide public participation in planning and design.
- The Department moved for judgment on the pleadings under M.R. Civ. P. 12(c); the Superior Court granted the motion, concluding the STPA affords no private right of action and entering judgment for the Department on all counts.
- The LLCs appealed only the ruling that the STPA provides no private right of action and challenged the denial of reconsideration; they also sought a preliminary injunction during appeal, which was denied.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed statutory interpretation and legislative history de novo and analyzed whether the STPA created an express or implied private right of action enforceable in court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the STPA creates a private right of action | LLCs: STPA implies a private right to enforce public participation and other policies; otherwise STPA would be a nullity | DOT: STPA contains no express enforcement provision and its broad policy language does not imply a private cause of action; enforcement through agency rulemaking and executive authority suffices | The STPA provides no express or implied private right of action; plaintiffs cannot sue to enforce the STPA |
| Whether statutory words like "must" or "shall" imply private enforcement | LLCs: mandatory language shows intent to create enforceable duties | DOT: mandatory phrasing alone does not create a private remedy absent legislative intent | Court: presence of "must"/"shall" is insufficient to imply a private right; legislative intent controls |
| Whether legislative history of the citizen initiative indicates a private remedy | LLCs: testimony and debate raised litigation concerns and public participation focus supports implied enforcement | DOT: history shows focus on preventing Turnpike widening and setting policy goals, not creating private enforcement | Court: legislative history centered on Turnpike and broad policy; no indication voters intended an implied private right of action |
| Whether agency authority and rulemaking alter analysis | LLCs: agency rules require public participation — suggest enforceability | DOT: STPA and implementing rules place implementation and discretion with DOT and MTA as executive functions | Court: STPA must be read consistent with DOT’s broad delegated highway authority; enforcement is not through private suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Cunningham v. Haza, 538 A.2d 265 (Me. 1988) (motions for judgment on the pleadings test legal sufficiency of complaint)
- Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, Inc., 486 A.2d 97 (Me. 1984) (legislature ordinarily expresses intent to create private right of action expressly)
- In re Wage Payment Litig., 759 A.2d 217 (Me. 2000) (when Legislature intends private remedy it typically states one explicitly)
- Faith Temple v. DiPietro, 130 A.3d 368 (Me. 2015) (de novo review of judgment on pleadings)
- Opinion of the Justices, 162 A.3d 188 (Me. 2017) (citizen initiatives construed like statutes; ascertain the will of the people)
- Barbuto v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, 78 N.E.3d 37 (Mass. 2017) (declining to imply private right where statute lacks guidance on contours of such a remedy)
Judgment affirmed.