FOR PLAINTIFF: DANAE PRESCOTT, PRESCOTT JAMIESON NELSON & MURPHY LLC, SACO ME.
FOR DEFENDANT: GENE LIBBY, TYLER SMITH, LIBBY O'BRIEN KINGSLEY & CHAMPION LLC, KENNEBUNK ME.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
John O'Neil, Jr.,
Plaintiff brings this action for damages resulting from incidents of alleged domestic violence. Plaintiff brings a claim pursuant to the Maine Civil Rights Act 5 M.R.S. § 4682 and a claim for punitive damages. Defendant moves the court to dismiss Plaintiff's claims.
II. Standard of Review
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to determine the legal sufficiency of the pleading. Livonia v. Town of Rome, 707 A.2d 83, 85 (Me. 1998). The court will review the motion in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, taking the facts as stated in the pleading to be true. Id. The court will grant a motion to dismiss only where " it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claims." McMee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994) (citations omitted).
Defendant moves the court to dismiss Plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to the Maine Civil Rights act arguing that the substantive law of New Hampshire should apply, not that of Maine. Defendant contends that many of the alleged incidents of domestic violence occurred in New Hampshire. Defendant argues, that according to choice of law doctrine, because so many of the alleged incidents occurred in New Hampshire, New Hampshire Law should apply. Further, Defendant argues that because New Hampshire law does not allow for punitive damages, and Defendant contends that New Hampshire substantive law applies, Plaintiffs count of punitive damages should also be dismissed.
Maine is the forum state; therefore the Maine rules on conflict of laws apply with regards to which substantive law is applied. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Koshy, 2010 ME 44, ¶ 21, 995 A.2d 651. Maine caselaw dictates that the law of the state with the " most significant contacts and relationships" applies. Flaherty v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 ME 72, ¶ 16, 822 A.2d 1159. Maine has adopted section 146 of the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, which holds that in personal injury actions, in the absence of a more significant relationship with another state as determined by the factors found in § 6, the court should apply the substantive law of the state in which the injury occurred. Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 146. The court looks to those factors in conjunction with the factors set out in case law, as follows:
(a) the place where the injury occurred,
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred,
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of the parties, and
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the ...