The case involved Ann Gove suing Career Systems Development Corporation for not hiring her due to her pregnancy, claiming violations of the Maine Human Rights Act and Title VII. The defendant moved to dismiss or stay the case and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration agreement referenced in Gove's employment application. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding it had jurisdiction and the complaint stated a plausible claim. It also denied the motion to compel arbitration because the language in the application was ambiguous as to whether it covered pre-employment disputes for applicants who were not hired, and such ambiguity was construed against the defendant as the drafter.
This case involves a third-party dispute between Fairbank Farms and Greater Omaha Packing Company (GOPAC) arising from a contract for the supply of raw beef products that allegedly contained E. coli, leading to product liability settlements with injured parties. The court addressed GOPAC's motion on choice of law and Fairbank's motion to exclude evidence of comparative negligence. Applying Maine's conflict-of-laws rules based on the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws and the most significant contacts test, the court determined that New York had the strongest connections due to the place of contract performance and delivery of the subject matter. As a result, the court ruled that New York law governs the remaining claims and granted in part the motion to exclude comparative negligence evidence under that state's rules on express warranties and consequential damages.
This case involves elected officers of a local union lodge suing their international union and its officers under Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) for bringing disciplinary charges against them. The plaintiffs alleged the charges were retaliatory, stemming from their criticism of union leadership and refusal to contribute local funds to a voluntary political education fund. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Applying the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal, the court granted the motion in part by dismissing claims against defendant Rudis for lack of sufficient factual allegations but denied it as to the remaining defendants, allowing the case to proceed.
In Jewell v. Lincare, Inc., the plaintiff, a former service technician, alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting his supervisor's forgery of client signatures and backdating of documents submitted for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, claiming a violation of the False Claims Act's anti-retaliation provision under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The defendant moved to dismiss this count, arguing that the complaint failed to sufficiently plead protected conduct, the employer's knowledge of such conduct, and causation for the termination. The court denied the partial motion to dismiss, holding that the allegations met the plausibility standard by describing investigative activity concerning fraudulent billing practices submitted to the government, internal reports that put the employer on notice, and a temporal link plus pretext suggesting retaliatory motive.
This case concerns a motion for preliminary injunction filed by environmental plaintiffs challenging the use of emergency consultation procedures under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service in connection with urgent repairs to an aging spillway at the privately owned Worumbo hydroelectric dam on the Androscoggin River in Maine, which lies within the critical habitat of the endangered Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon. The court denied the motion after an expedited hearing. The decision rested on the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, because the record supported NMFS's determination that an emergency existed based on representations from FERC and the dam operator regarding the risk of dam failure, and the potential for irreparable harm was not sufficiently demonstrated beyond conjecture.
The United States sued former contractor employee Belanger in a civil action alleging unjust enrichment and conversion after he allegedly removed and sold scrap metal from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard without authorization, seeking recovery of the metal's value. Belanger denied the claims, asserted a counterclaim for unjust enrichment against the government, and moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 to join his former supervisor and co-worker as required parties. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the counterclaim, finding that Belanger's allegations failed to plausibly allege any benefit he personally conferred on the United States and thus did not state a viable unjust enrichment claim under Maine law. The court also granted the motion to strike the joinder request, holding that the absent individuals were not required parties under Rule 19 because joint tortfeasors are merely permissive parties and Belanger remained free to pursue separate claims against them.
