ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
the court is defendant Michael Waxman's motion for
summary judgment and plaintiff Robert Goguen's motion for
summary judgment. For the following reasons, defendant's
motion is granted and plaintiff's motion is denied.
background of this case derives from defendant's
statement of material fact. Some of plaintiff's opposing
statements of material fact do not include record citations
in violation of Rule 56(h)(2). M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(2).
"Facts contained in supporting or opposing statement of
material facts, if supported by record citations as required
by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly
controverted." M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). Plaintiff's
record citations include his declaration or his 137-paragraph
supplement. (See, e.g., Opp'g S.M.F.
Robert Goguen filed a civil rights lawsuit on a pro se basis
against several corrections officers at Somerset County Jail
in 2011 and alleged civil rights violations. (Def.'s
S.M.F.¶ 2.) The case was removed to federal court on
February 6, 2012. (Def.'s S.M.F.¶ 3.) The initial
discovery deadline was July 26, 2012. (Def.'s S.M.F.
¶ 4.) The deadline was extended to March 7, 2013, the
final extension. (Def.'s S.M.F. ¶ 6.) Defendant
Waxman is an attorney in good standing in the State of Maine.
(Def.'s S.M.F. ¶ 1.) He filed a notice of appearance
on behalf of Goguen on July 5, 2013, four months after the
discovery deadline. (Def.'s S.M.F. ¶¶ 8-9.)
survived a motion for summary judgment in the civil rights
suit based on a report and recommended decision by a
magistrate. (Def.'s S.M.F. ¶ 7.) Defendant Waxman
responded to the objection to the report and decision filed
in the civil rights suit. (Def.'s S.M.F. ¶ 10.)
Defendants in the civil rights case appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the appeal
was denied. (Def.'s S.M.F. ¶¶ 11-12.)
trial in the case was held in the United States District
Court for the District of Maine before a magistrate on
October 6, 2015 through October 9, 2015. (Def.'s
S.M.F.¶ 13.) Judgment was entered in favor of defendants
and against plaintiff Goguen. Goguen v. Gilblair,
No. 1:12-cv-00048-JCN, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16539 (D. Me.
Feb. 1, 2018).
March 13, 2017, plaintiff Goguen filed his complaint for
legal malpractice based on defendant's representation of
plaintiff in the civil rights suit. (Compl.) Plaintiff
alleges that the parties argued over the direction of the
case, introduction of certain evidence, and whether
additional discovery was required in the civil rights case.
(Compl.¶¶ 8, 10, 12-19.)
February 16, 2018, defendant's motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint and plaintiff's first motion to
amend the complaint were denied. On June 7, 2018,
plaintiff's second motion to amend complaint was denied.
On December 20, 2018, plaintiff's third motion to amend
complaint, filed on June 18, 2018, was denied.
19, 2018 defendant moved for summary judgment, supported by a
statement of material facts. Plaintiff filed his opposition
to summary judgment on July 2, 2018 and complained that
defendant had not responded to plaintiff's discovery
requests. After a conference call, on November 28, 2018, the
court ordered defendant to provide certain discovery and
extended the deadline for plaintiff to file any supplemental
response to defendant's motion for summary judgment.
December 7, 2018, plaintiff filed an amendment to the
pleadings of the complaint. On December 12, 2018, plaintiff
filed a motion for summary judgment. On December 20, 2018,
those motions were denied. On December 26, 2018,
plaintiff's request to extend the deadline to file a
supplemental response to defendant's motion for summary
judgment was granted and the deadline was extended to January
11, 2018. On December 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration or clarification of the court's order
denying amendments. On January 10, 2019, that motion was
January 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a "Request for Summary
Judgment." On the same date, plaintiff filed an opposing
statement of material fact, a declaration, and a
"Supplement to Plaintiff's Opposition of Summary
Judgment." In support of his motion for summary
judgment, plaintiff relies on his opposing statement of
material fact, which, as stated, does not include record
citations in violation of Rule 56(h)(2). Defendant filed no
response to those filings.
judgment is proper where there is "no genuine issue as
to any material fact" and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Stanley v. Hancock County
Comm'rs,2004 ME 157, ¶ 13, 864 A.2d 169; M.R.
Civ. P. 56(c). "Summary judgment is appropriate ... if
the non-moving party rests merely upon conclusory
allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported