Preview:

STATE OF MAINE -SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. a --CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-05-307 /
Plaintiff
v. ORDER ON THIRD- PARTY DEFEhDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
SHAWN and KRISTEN
WALKER
Defendants/
Thrd-party plaintiffs

v.
TODD ERICKSON Thrd-party defendant
Before the court is third party defendant Todd Erickson's ("hfr. Erickson") motion to dismiss Defendant/ Third Party Plaintiffs Shawn and Kristen Walker's ("the Walkers") claims against hm in hs individual capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In late September, 2004, Utopian Homes, hc. ("Utopian") was engaged by the Walkers to perform substantial renovations to their home. At some point in January or February of 2005, the relationship between the parties broke down, and work on the house stopped.
On February 4, 2005, Utopian filed a mechanic's lien on the Walkers' house. Thereafter, on May 25, 2005, Utopian filed a 12-count complaint against the Walkers, including claims for breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, slander and libel, interference with advantageous business
relations, unfair and deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, and quantum
meruit.
The Walkers answered Utopian's complaint on June 6, 2005 and included with their answer an eight-count counterclaim against Utopian and a separate third-party complaint against Mr. Erickson individually, who is the principal of Utopian.' The Walkers claim breach of contract, and violations of the Home Construction Contract Act against Utopian alone, but they claim negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act and trespass against both Utopian and Mr. Erickson.
On July 12, 2005, Mr. Erickson filed a motion to dismiss the Walkers' third-party claims against him in his individual capacity, asserting that he has no personal interest in this matter. On July 26, 2005, the Walkers filed a memorandum in opposition, arguing that the claims against Mr. Erickson allege personal tortious conduct for which the Walkers can hold him personally liable, and that Mr. Erickson's motion to dismiss disputes only the factual allegations in their thrd-party complaint, not their legal sufficiency.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a court decides a motion to dismiss made pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted. Moody v. State Liquor G. Lottery Comf7z, 2004 ME 20,

Download CUMcv-05-307.pdf

Maine Law