MARCEL DUBOIS et al.
TOWN OF ARUNDEL et al.
Submitted On Briefs: November 28, 2018
Dubois, appellant pro se Sol Fedder, appellant pro se
B. Rachin, Esq., and Benjamin T. McCall, Esq., Bergen &
Parkinson, LLC, Kennebunk, for appellees Town of Arundel et
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, HJELM, and
Marcel Dubois and Sol Fedder appeal from an order of the
Superior Court (York County, O'Neil, J.)
granting the Town of Arundels motion to dismiss their
complaint and imposing sanctions on Dubois and Fedder. We
affirm the order dismissing Dubois and Fedders complaint, but
vacate the order of sanctions and remand to the Superior
This appeal relates to the Town of Arundel Planning Boards
denial of an application to renew a conditional use permit
submitted by Dubois Livestock, Inc. Dubois and Fedder were not
listed as the applicants for the renewal permit, were not
listed as the property owners, and were not listed as the
authorized agents of Dubois Livestock. Dubois Livestocks
application was denied by the Town of Arundel Planning Board
on July 21, 2017, during a public hearing that was not
attended by any representative of Dubois Livestock. Dubois and
Fedder did not participate in the public hearing in any
On September 18, 2017, Dubois and Fedder filed a complaint
against the Town of Arundel, individual members of the
Planning Board, and the Arundel Town Planner. Dubois and
Fedders complaint alleged that a memorandum drafted by the
town planner and distributed to the members of the Planning
Board led to an illegal executive session or sessions.
Following the submission of briefs pursuant to a Rule 80B
Notice and Briefing Schedule, the Town of Arundel moved to
dismiss Dubois and Fedders complaint as untimely filed, for
lack of standing, and for failure to state a claim. On
February 1, 2018, the Superior Court granted the motion to
[T]he plaintiffs lack standing to bring the action, no
subject matter jurisdiction exists for the court to properly
review the matter, and plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under the [Freedom of Access
Act]. Defendants motion to dismiss is granted. Given the
significant problems with the present litigation, the court
also awards defendants reasonable attorneys fees and expenses
pursuant to Rule 11 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure
invitation of the Superior Court, the Town of Arundel
subsequently submitted an affidavit of attorney fees and
costs, seeking $5, 862.50 in attorney fees and $231.75 in
costs, which the court then determined was reasonable. Dubois
and Fedder moved for reconsideration and relief from the
Superior Courts judgment, but both motions were denied. This
timely appeal followed. See M.R. Civ. P. 80B(n);
M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1)-(2)(D).
It is unclear from the face of the complaint whether Dubois
and Fedder rely on the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), 1 M.R.S.
§§ 400-414 (2017), as the statutory avenue for
review under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80B, or if they
are asserting a separate cause of action pursuant to FOAA.
Nevertheless, the present appeal fails in either event
because Rule 80B is not the proper mechanism to assert a FOAA
claim, Dubois and Fedder lacked ...