The opinion
j
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO: CV06-354
I',: 3Cjr f~/)" -'
PETER THROUMOULOS
Plaintiff
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT and PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO QUASH
v.
STATE OF MAINE OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL and
rvncHAEL PULIRE
Defendants
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary
judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56(c) and Plaintiff's motion to quash the
summary judgment motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Peter Throumoulos ("Throumoulos") filed a complaint in June
2006 against the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Maine ("AG' s
Office") and Detective Michael Pulire ("Pulire"), who works for the AG's Office.
He raised various tort claims, including malicious prosecution and defamation,
as well as civil rights and due process violations. Throumoulos also amended
the complaint twice in August 2006 to add intentional infliction of emotional
distress and fraud claims. Apparently, the basis of his lawsuit is that Pulire
interrogated him on May 22,2006, shortly before the June 13 primary election, in
which Throumoulos sought to be the Republican candidate for State Senate. This
alleged interview lasted two and one-half hours. Ultimately, a grand jury
1
indicted Throumoulos for alleged criminal conduct unspecified in this complaint,
resulting in a trial, conviction, and sentencing, all of which was reported in the
Portland Press Herald and other newspapers. Throumoulos contends that the
timing of the investigation and release of information was intended to sabotage
his candidacy.
In response to the complaint, the AG's Office and Pulire raised numerous
affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Maine Tort Claims
Act ("MTCA"), insufficient service of process, Eleventh Amendment immunity,
and qualified or absolute privilege, among others. Pulire and the AG's Office
now move for summary judgment on the basis that Throumoulos failed to
provide MTCA notice of his tort claims and failed to cite any authority to
support his constitutional and civil rights claims. Throumoulos moves to quash
the motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
1. Summary Judgment Standard.
Summary judgment is proper where there exist no genuine issues of
material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, <]I 4, 770
A.2d 653, 655. A genuine issue is raised "when sufficient evidence requires a
fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the truth at trial." Parrish v.
Wright, 2003 ME 90, <]I 8, 828 A.2d 778, 781. A material fact is a fact that has "the
potential to affect the outcome of the suit." Burdzel v. Sobus, 2000 ME 84, <]I 6, 750
A.2d 573, 575. When a defendant seeks summary judgment, a "plaintiff must
establish a prima facie case for each element of her cause of action." Champagne
2
v. Mid-Maine Med. Ctr., 1998 ME 87, <}[ 9, 711 A.2d 842, 845. At this stage, the facts
are reviewed "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Lightfoot v.
Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24, <JI 6, 816 A.2d 63, 65. Facts asserted in a
statement of material facts that are not appropriately denied or qualified are
deemed admitted. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4).
2. Is Summary Iudgment Warranted on the Basis of Failure to Comply
with MTCA Notice Requirements?
The Maine Tort Claims Act provides "governmental entities" immunity
from tort-based lawsuits, except as provided by the Act. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8103
(2006). When the Act removes immunity, litigants must follow specific
procedures for bringing tort claims against governmental entities. Id. One basic
component of the MTCA is the requirement that notice of a claim be filed
"[w ]ithin 180 days after any claim or cause of action permitted by this chapter
accrues." Id. § 8107(1). This notice must include "[t]he name and address of the
claimant" and his or her attorney, if applicable; "[a] concise statement of the basis
of the claim, including the date, time, place and circumstances of the act,
omission, or occurrence complained of;" the name of and contact information for
"any governmental employee involved;" a brief explanation of the "nature and
extent" of the harm suffered; and the amount of damages sought. Id.
When the lawsuit is against the State or a State employee, the notice must
be served upon the department or agency alleged to be involved, as well as upon
the Attorney General. Id. § 8107(3)(A). A party may not file a lawsuit in a Maine
court until he or she has "substantially complied" with these notice provisions.
Id. § 8017(4). Absent such compliance, a tort claim is barred. Pepperman v.
Barrett, 661 A.2d 1124, 1126 (Me. 1995). The legislature's clear intent in
3
establishing these notice requirements was to conserve resources by promptly
advising governmental entities of tort claims, and to promote the settlement of
those claims before a formal lawsuit is filed. Id.
Here, the AG's Office and Pulire filed an uncontroverted statement of
material facts, establishing that neither defendant ever received notice of
Throumoupolos' claim before he filed a lawsuit. Throumoupolos failed to
provide MTCA notice to either the AG's Office or Pulire as required by § 8107;
instead, he filed a complaint in this Court. Because Throumoupolos did not
comply with the MTCA, and did not properly contest the statement of material
facts filed by both defendants, summary judgment must be granted on all tort
claims listed in the complaint and amendments.
The defendants' summary judgment motion regarding the alleged civil
rights and constitutional violations also is granted, as Throumoupolos did not
cite a specific constitutional or statutory provision that would afford him the
right to recover.! The circumstances underlying these allegations are unclear and
cannot, as stated, provide a legal basis for relief. His motion to quash is denied.
The entry is:
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Judgment is entered for Defendants on all claims. Plaintiff's
motion to quash is denied.
The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference
pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
! In the complaint, Throumoupolos cited no specific constitutional or statutory authority to
support his allegations. In his motion to quash, he referred to ME. CONST. ART.!, § 6 and to the
"Declaration of Rights" in § 6-a in relation to the questioning by Pulire, but did not demonstrate
how his rights under these provisions were violated. If he had cognizable civil rights claims, he
would have had to bring them under the Maine Civil Rights Act.
4
5
· COURTS
1d County
lX 287
e 04112-0287
WILLIAM FISHER AAG
6 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA ME 04333
: COURTS
ld County
)X 287
e 04112-0287
PETER THROUMOULOS
133 PORTLAND AVENUE APT 23
OLD ORCHARD BEACH ME 04064