The opinion
STATE OF MAINE oF) 2 SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss. Ron yee SE CIVIL ACTION
oo DOCKET NO. CV-00-013
MAIETTA CONSTRUCTION, INC3 37 7:4 *U! BEC CUM CS Spee]
Plaintiff
Vv. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR
STEVE ROMAN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Maietta Construction is a company engaged primarily in the
excavation business. Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts (“PSMF”) J 1. Michael
Maietta, son of Maietta Construction’s principal owner and president, was a
supervisor/foreman during the relevant time period. Id. He has never been an
owner, Officer or director of the company. Id. Defendant Steve Roman worked for
Maietta Construction from October or November of 1987 through June of 1995. Id.
2.
Roman and Michael Maietta, both long-time stock car racing enthusiasts,
became acquainted at the Beechridge Speedway in Scarborough. Id. 7 3. Beginning
in 1985, Roman served as the crew chief of Michael Maietta’s stock car racing team.
Id. | 5. As a member of the crew, Roman worked on Michael Maietta’s stock cars
during the week and served as crew chief at the race track on weekends. Id.;
Defendant's Statement of Material Facts (“DSMF”) { 3.
In August of 1994, Roman sustained a work-related injury. DSMF { 6.
Roman consulted the law firm of Fontaine & Beal for help with his workers’
compensation claim. Id. { 7. Donald Fontaine, one of Roman’s attorneys, first
examined the question of how much Roman was entitled to receive in back pay for
overtime hours that he had worked in exchange for “comp time.” Id. {7 9. On June
29, 1995, Fontaine sent a letter to Maietta as notice of his intent to pursue a wage
claim on behalf of Roman. Id. { 12.
On July 11, 1995, Fontaine wrote to Barry Zimmerman, counsel to Maietta,
and outlined the claim as one for overtime wages from July 5, 1992 to July 5, 1995
plus a statutory penalty plus attorney’s fees. Id. J 13. The letter asserted that Roman
was willing to make a compromise, but the “settlement must reflect the reasonable
value of the various exposures.” Id. ¥ 13 & Tab 2. Also on July 11, 1995,
Zimmerman wrote a letter to Fontaine, stating that Maietta was willing to pay
Roman for one-half time for 113.5 overtime hours because he had already been paid
straight time for those hours. DSMF { 14 & Tab 3.
On July 13, 1995, Fontaine sent a letter stating that the claim for overtime was
for $1,400 (175 hours at $8 per hour) and advising Maietta that it should pay that
amount right away or, if it disagreed, should pay whatever it thought was due and
the parties would discuss any remaining balance later. DSMF 4 15. Maietta never
paid any undisputed amount before the lawsuit was filed. Id. { 16.
After reviewing the payroll records in the spring of 1996 and considering all
the facts, Fontaine advised Roman to pursue overtime claims for the time he spent
working on Michael Maietta’s stock cars both in the shop and at the race track. Id.
QQ 11, 17-18, 29. By letter dated April 29, 1996, Roman demanded $40,000 plus
reasonable legal fees to settle all of the claims before suit. Id. ] 19 & Tab 5. Through
counsel, Maietta responded by acknowledging that the company owed Roman for
1.5 hours of work and completely disavowed any obligation to pay for the time spent
on the race cars. DSMF { 20. Maietta offered to discuss settling the “other claim”
and expressed optimism that the parties could reconcile the differences in hours. Id.
The letter did not mention any statutory penalties or attorney’s fees and did not
include an offer of settlement. Id.
Roman filed a lawsuit against Maietta in the United States District Court for
the District of Maine in August of 1996. Id. {{ 1, 21. The central issue in the case
was whether work that Roman performed on Michael Maietta’s stock cars was part
of Roman’s job, entitling him to overtime and back pay under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the comparable Maine statute. Id. J 2. After a bench
trial, United States Magistrate Judge Cohen found that Roman was entitled to back
pay for hours spent working on the stock cars on the Maietta premises during work
hours in the amount of $2,436.00 but that he was not entitled to receive pay for time
he spent serving as crew chief at the race track on weekends. Id. ({ 2-4 & Tab A.
After the First Circuit affirmed the decision on appeal, Roman filed an
application for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. DSMF { 27. Roman was
awarded $1,528.25 in costs. Id. q 28 & Tab C. The Magistrate Judge reduced the
amount of attorneys’ fees sought on the basis of “reasonableness” of the time spent,
and awarded Roman $9,560.00. DSMF § 28 & Tab C. The reduction represented the
Magistrate Judge’s estimation of the portion of the total claims in the case on which
Roman succeeded. DSMF { 28. Roman’s ultimate award, including attorneys’ fees,
costs and the award on the wage claim, totalled $13,524.25. Id. q 4.
’Maietta Construction has now sued Roman alleging wrongful use of civil
proceedings in Roman’s filing and prosecuting the federal case. Id. 9 1. Steve
Roman seeks summary judgment on the complaint arguing that he had probable
cause to file and prosecute the federal case and that the federal case did not
terminate in Maietta’s favor. For the following reasons, the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted.
DISCUSSION
To prevail on his claim of wrongful use of civil proceedings, the Plaintiff
must prove that (1) Roman initiated, continued or procured civil proceedings
without probable cause, (2) with a primary purpose other than securing the proper
adjudication of the claim upon which the proceedings were based, and (3) those
proceedings were terminated in favor of Maietta. See Pepperell Trust Co. v.
Mountain Heir Financial Corp., 1998 ME 46, J 15, 708 A.2d 651, 656. The Plaintiff's
failure to establish a favorable termination in the underlying suit is fatal to its claim.
The issue of whether a party may assert a wrongful use of civil proceedings
claim when that party prevailed only partially in the underlying case is one of first
impression in Maine. Where the situation arises that the original defendant wins
only a portion of the underlying case, other jurisdictions have adopted the approach
that the original defendant may only sue for wrongful use of civil proceedings if the
underlying claims were severable. See, e.g., Brin v. Stutzman, 951 P.2d 291, 298-99
(Wash. Ct. App. 1998); Paramount Gen. Hosp. Co. v. Jay, 261 Cal. Rptr. 723, 728
(1989); Brown v. Monticello State Bank, 360 N.W.2d 81, 86 (Iowa 1984).
‘Because the United States District Court for the District of Maine entered
judgment in favor of Roman on his overtime claim for the hours he spent working
on the stock cars on the Maietta premises, Maietta could only have received a
favorable termination in the underlying suit if Roman’s claim for hours spent at the
race track was not inextricably intertwined with the overtime claim. The issue of
Maietta’s favorable termination is therefore dependent upon the two claims’
severability.
The Plaintiff argues that its July 11, 1995 offer to settle the compensatory time
claim (one-half time for 113.5 overtime hours) is evidence of severability as there
would not have been a lawsuit if that had been Roman’s only claim. This offer does
not establish the severability of the claims, however. The claim for wages for the
hours Roman spent at the race track and the claim for compensatory time were
inextricably intertwined because a later action would have been barred through the
operation of res judicata. See Newfound/Owatonna v. Harrison, 1998 ME 20, { 11,
705 A.2d 1109, 1113 (“Claim preclusion bars the relitigation of a claim ‘if: (1) the same
parties or their privies are involved in both actions; (2) a valid final judgment was
entered in the prior action; and (3) the matters presented for decision in the second
action were, or might have been litigated in the first action.’ ” (citation omitted)).
A later cause of action would clearly have presented the same “aggregate of
connected operative facts.” Id. The two federal court claims involved the same type
of work, entailed the same evidence and witnesses, covered the same time period
and the authority for both claims was the Fair Labor Standards Act. Because res
judicata would have barred a later action, the two claims were not severable.
Maietta therefore did not prevail in the underlying proceeding.
The entry is
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Dated at Portland, Maine is fh day of June, 2001.
L flu,
‘Robert E. Crowley.
Justice, Superior Court
Docket No. __ ©¥~00-013
County
Action DAMAGES
MAIETTA CONSTRUCTION, INC. STEVE ROMAN
VS.
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant’s Attorney
TIMOTHY H. NORTON, ESQ. 775-1020 WENDELL LARGE ESQ 774-7474
PO BOX 597, PORTLAND, ME 04112 PO BOX 9545
PORTLAND ME 04112-9545
Date of
Entry