California Anti-SLAPP Project


Maine: Statutes and Cases

[Updated July 5, 2004]


Statutes

14 Maine Revised Statutes § 556

Section 556, enacted in 1995, provides for a special motion to dismiss claims that arise from exercise of the right of petition under the United States and Maine constitutions.


Cases

Maietta Construction, Inc. et al. v. Wainwright, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, April 2004 (2004 ME 53))

Wainwright sold 150 acres to the City of South Portland and Maietta Construction was awarded a contract to develop the property. When Wainwright visited the property he became convinced that Maietta was removing loam in violation of the city's contract. Wainwright made his charges public and there ensued several newspaper articles and TV news reports about the dispute. Maietta sued for damages, alleging a variety of causes, including defamation. Wainwright filed a statutory anti-SLAPP motion, which was granted by the trial court. The court, however, did not award attorney fees to Wainwright. The Supreme Court affirms the ruling on the motion to dismiss; at issue was whether Maietta suffered actual damages. The court also affirms the denial of attorney fees on the grounds that the court has discretion to award or not award fees and in this case did not abuse its discretion. The state's anti-SLAPP statute states, "If the court grants a special motion to dismiss, the court may award the moving party costs and reasonable attorney fees." (14 M.R.S.A. § 556, emphasis added.)

Morse Bros. Inc. et al. v. Webster et al., 2001 (2001 ME 70, 772 A.2d 842)

Morse Bros. planned to move its bark mulching facility next to parcels owned by Webster and another party. After necessary permits were granted, Webster appealed the decisions to the Superior Court in three successive lawsuits. Morse Bros. then filed this action against Webster for abuse of process. Webster filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the state's anti-SLAPP statute. The Superior Court denied the motion and the Supreme Court reverses in its first opinion on the state's anti-SLAPP statute. Among other issues is whether a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is immediately appealable. The court holds that it is: "... we allow a limited exception to the finaljudgment rule for denials of special motions to dismiss pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 556."