RICHARD E. CRANSTON, Plaintiff
NEW ENGLAND FIBERGLASS, INC. and JOSEPH DAVID HOAR,
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Mills Justice, Superior Court.
the court is defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint. For the following reasons, the
motion is denied. I.
to plaintiff Richard Cranston's Complaint, plaintiff owns
a 1989 Pursuit Cuddy 2000 outboard motorboat. In September
2014, plaintiff brought the boat to defendant New England
Fiberglass, Inc. (NEF) for repairs. There, plaintiff spoke
with defendant Hoar. Plaintiff contends that defendant Hoar
told plaintiff that for $1, 500.00, defendant Hoar would
"perform cosmetic repairs to the entire hull, filling
every visible hole, scratch and ding, wax and polish the boat
and otherwise put the Boat in excellent cosmetic
condition." (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 6). Plaintiff
alleges that he authorized that work, as well as repair to
the Boat's forward hatch, bow pulpit, rod holders,
battery boxes, and bow eye. In December 2014, plaintiff
alleges that he received an invoice from NEF for $10, 480.00.
The work had not been completed. Plaintiff paid the full
amount of the invoice.
January 2015, NEF closed its doors and defendant Hoar ceased
repairing the boat. Defendant Hoar moved the boat to his new
employer, Portland Yacht Services, and abandoned it outside.
Plaintiff complains that defendants never performed the
contracted for work and that the boat filled with water and
leaves and became moldy and dirty. Plaintiff attests that the
defendants caused damage to the steering cable, the hatch,
and the forward deck hatch.
complaint, plaintiff pleads a breach of contract by defendant
NEF, a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act by
both defendants, personal liability on the part of defendant
Hoar for defendant NEF's actions, and fraud on the part
of defendant Hoar. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's
Standard of Review
review of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
the court accepts the facts alleged in plaintiffs'
complaint as admitted. Saunders v. Tisher, 2006 ME
94, ¶ 8, 902 A.2d 830. The court "examine[s] the
complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff to
determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action
or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief
pursuant to some legal theory." Doe v. Graham,
2009 ME 88, ¶ 2, 977 A.2d 391 (quoting
Saunders, 2006 ME 94, ¶ 8). "For a court
to properly dismiss a claim for failure to state a cause of
action, it must appear 'beyond doubt that [the] plaintiff
is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that might be
proven in support of the claim.'" Dragomir v.
Spring Harbor Hosp.. 2009 ME 51, ¶ 15, 970 A.2d 310
(quoting Plimpton v. Gerrard. 668 A.2d 882, 885 (Me.
move the court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to name the proper party and for insufficient service
of process. M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (4), (5). The court has
granted plaintiff's motion to amend to add New England
Fiberglass Co. as a defendant. The amended complaint will be
served pursuant to Rule 5. M.R. Civ. P. 15(a), 5.
Breach of Contract
NEF moves the court to dismiss plaintiff's claim for
breach of contract for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendant NEF
argues that plaintiff did not plead specifics of the contract
sufficient to make out a claim for breach thereof. See
Me. Energy Recovery Co. v. United Steel Structures.
Inc.. 1999 ME 31, 5 7, 724 A.2d 1248. Plaintiff alleges
that the parties agreed NEF would "perform cosmetic
repairs to the entire hull, filling every visible hole,
scratch and ding, wax and polish the boat and otherwise put
the boat in excellent cosmetic condition" in exchange
for $1500. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 6). Plaintiff alleges
further that he paid $10, 480.00 to defendants, the
contracted for work was not completed, the work that was done
was of poor quality, and the boat was damaged. Plaintiff has
pleaded sufficient facts to survive defendant NEF's
motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim.
Maine Unfair ...