# Boyden v. Michaud

> Superior Court of Maine · September 30, 2008

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809055

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Maine
- **Decided:** September 30, 2008
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Joseph M. Jabar
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809055

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding it "is not an efficient use of total court resources to report the case to the Law Court merely on the chance that its decision may turn out to be the one that finally disposes of the case"

## Opinion text

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. CV-07-276
and CV-07-331 _ ! I If
", r,'"'
c~· l.
~/'
L

STEVEN F. BOYDEN

Plaintiff

v. DECISION AND ORDER

RONALD N. MICHAUD,

and

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
BISHOP OF PORTLAND,

Defendants

WILLAIM J. PICHER,

Plaintiff

v.

REV. MSGR. J. JOSEPH FORD,
REV. JAMES M. MORRISON,
REV. MSGR. RENE T. MATHIEU
SR. RITA-MAE BISSONNETTE,
and
JOHN DOE,

Defendants

In front of the court in the Boyden case are two M.R. Civ. P. 12(c) motions for

judgment on the pleadings brought by The Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland (the

Bishop) and plaintiff's motion to strike the Bishop's second motion for judgment on the

pleadings. In front of the court in the Picher case is defendants, Ford, Morrison,

Mathieu and Bissonnette's M.R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Because the Picher motion for judgment on the pleadings raises identical legal issues to
2

the Bishop's second motion for judgment on the pleadings in Boyden, the court discusses

them together.

Facts

A. Boyden v. Michaud

Plaintiff alleges defendant Michaud molested him between 1983 and 1985 while

Michaud was a priest and plaintiff was a member of Michaud's parish. Plaintiff was

born December 4, 1969.

B. Picher v. Ford, et al.

Plaintiff was molested by Raymond P. Melville between 1986 and 1989 while

Melville was a priest at the St. Mary's School and plaintiff was a student. Plaintiff was

born January 29, 1974. Plaintiff originally sued Melville and the Bishop in Ken Doc. CV­

07-57. Melville was defaulted for failure to respond. The Bishop filed a motion for

summary judgment in that case based on a charitable immunity defense, which was

granted by the court on December 10, 2007, final judgment being entered January 24,

2008. The current action is brought against defendants who were employees of the

Bishop with supervisory roles with relation to Melville.

Standard of Review:

"A defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is the equivalent of a

defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." MacKerron v. MacKerron, 571

A.2d 810, 813 (1990), citing 1 FIELD, McKuSICK & WROTH, MAINE CIVIL PRACTICE, § 12.14

at 253 (2d ed. 1970). See also, Burke v. Hamilton Beach Division, Etc., 424 A.2d 145, 148

(Me. 1981). Both a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion for

judgment on the pleadings "test[] the legal sufficiency of the complaint." MacKerron,571

A.2d at 813. See also, 1 FIELD, McKuSICK & WROTH, § 12.11 at 248.
3

Discussion

A. Defendant, the Bishop's, first motion for judgment on the pleadings in Boyden

In 1985, the Maine legislature enacted 14 M.R.S.A. § 752-C, effective September

19, 1985, providing:

Actions based upon sexual intercourse or a sexual act, as defined in Title 17-A,
chapter 11, with a person under the age of majority shall be commenced within 6
years after the cause of action accrues.

In 1989, the legislature amended § 752-C, effective September 30, 1989, adding a

discovery period:

Actions based upon sexual intercourse or a sexual act, as defined in Title 17-A,
chapter 11, with a person under the age of majority shall be commenced within 6
years after the cause of action accrues, or within 3 years of the time the person
discovers or reasonably should have discovered the harm, whichever occurs
later.

In 1991, § 752-C was again amended:

Actions based upon sexual intercourse or a sexual act, as defined in Title 17-A,
chapter 11, with a person under the age of majority sl:ttiR must be commenced
within e 12 years after the cause of action accrues, or within J Qyears of the time
the person discovers or reasonably should have discovered the harm, whichever
occurs later.

As to the application of these changes the amendments provided:

Sec. 2. Application. This Act applies to the following actions based upon
sexual intercourse or a sexual act with a person under the age of majority:

1. All actions based upon sexual intercourse or a sexual act occurring
after the effective date of this Act; and
2. All actions for which the claim has not yet been barred by the previous
statute of limitations in force on the effective date of this Act.

In 1993, the legislature did nothing to change the statute of limitations period,

but did change"sexual intercourse, as defined in Ti tle 17-A, chapter 11" to "sexual

intercourse, as defined in Title 17- A, section 556, subsection 1- B."
4

Finally in 1999, effective August 11,2000, the legislature removed the statute of

limitations, such that today 14 M.R.S.A. § 752-C reads:

§ 752-C. Sexual acts towards minors

1. No limitation. Actions based upon sexual acts toward minors may be
commenced at any time.
2. Sexual acts toward minors defined. As used in this section, "sexual acts
toward minors" means the following acts that are committed against or engaged
in with a person under the age of majority;
A. Sexual act, as defined in Title 17-A, section 251, subsection I,
paragraph C; or
B. Sexual contact, as defined in Title 17-A, section 251, subsection I,
paragraph D.
Sec. 2. Application. This Act applies to the following actions based upon a
sexual act or sexual contact occurring on or after the effective date of this Act;
and
1. All actions based on a sexual act or sexual contact occurring on or after
the effective date of this Act; and
2. All actions for which the claim has not yet been barred by the previous
statute of limitations in force on the effective date of this Act.

Also quite important to determination of whether plaintiff's claims are time

barred is 14 M.R.S.A. § 853, "If a person entitled to bring any action under

section[] ... 752-C .. .is a minor...when the cause of action accrues, the action may be

brought within the times limited herein after the disability is removed." Plaintiff

turned 18 on December 4, 1987. CPl.'s Cmpl. <IT 1.)

Based on the statutory scheme above, defendant's argument is that the six year

limitations period in existence at the time of the abuse was tolled by § 853 until plaintiff

reached the age of 18, it began to run at that point but was extended to 12 years by the

1991 amendment and thus ran 12 years after plaintiff's 18th birthday on December 4,

1999. The elimination of the statutory period did not become effective until August II,

2000, at which point the statutory period of limitations for plaintiff's claim had elapsed.

Thus, defendant argues, the elimination of a statute of limitations period was not
5

applicable to plaintiff's claim. This analysis is the same offered by the Federal District

Court in Guptill v. Martin, 228 F.R.D. 62, 64-65 (D. Me. 2005).

Plaintiff argues that the statute was effectively tolled for several reasons. 1 First of

which is the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act. The Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act

(SCRA), 50 USc. App. § 526(a) provides:

(a) Tolling of statutes of limitations during military service.

The period of a servicemember's military service may not be included in
computing any period limited by law, regulation, or order for the bringing of any
action or proceeding in court, or in any board, bureau, commission, department,
or other agency of a state (or political subdivision of a state) or the United States
by or against the servicemember or the servicemember's heirs, executors,
administrators or assigns.

Though it is not part of the pleadings, Boyden claims he was enlisted in the Air

Force in July 1987 prior to reaching the age of 18 and thus prior to the conclusion of the

§ 853 tolling, and was in active duty thereafter until April 1994 when he was honorably

discharged. He served during this time three tours outside of the United States, 6

months in Panama in 1988; two years in Korea in 1989 and 1990; and ten months in

Saudi Arabia in 1991. "The tolling of the statute is unconditional. The only critical

factor is military service; once that circumstance is shown, the period of limitations is

automatically tolled for the duration of the service ... " Ricard v. Birch, 529 F.2d 214, 216

(4th Cir. 1975).

Defendant argues, assuming December 31, 1985 as the last act of abuse in accordance

with the pleadings, plaintiff had until December 31, 1991 to bring suit. However, the

legislature changed the six-year statute of limitations to 12 years on October 9, 1991.

Thus, according to defendant, the 1991 amendments gave plaintiff until January I, 1998

1 Other theories addressed are tolling due to fraudulent concealment, continuous tort, or Michaud being
out of the country. The court does not address these because it believes that 1) the SCRA tolling will be
dispositive with the caveat discussed below; and 2) these theories would also require resolution of
matters outside of the pleadings.
6

to bring his claim (12 years and a day from last alleged action). Defendant argues the

1999 statutory amendment did not apply to plaintiff's claim because the statute of

limitations had run on January 1, 1998. Thus the 1999 statute made irrelevant federal

tolling because it took out any statutory limitations period.

The court does not agree with defendant's analysis. Assuming the truth of

plaintiff's memorandum, the end of his service was 1994. The statute of limitations

period in effect in 1994 was twelve years. Twelve years after 1994 is 2006. During this

twelve year period, the statute of limitations was fully eliminated. The court sees no

reason SCRA should be interpreted not to apply because of subsequent amendment to §

752-C, especially given that subsequent amendment would erode the effect of the

SCRA. Plaintiff should not be denied the benefit of SCRA's tolling simply because

during that tolling period the statute of limitations was eliminated.

If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are
presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for
summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall
be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a
motion by Rule 56. M.R. Civ. P. 12(c).

While defendant seemed not to deny plaintiff's military service2, and its denial

would merely create an issue of material fact justifying denial of defendant's motion

given the above legal analysis, the court nonetheless finds that it must provide a

"reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by

Rule 56." M.R. Civ. P. 12(c). The only indication that the court currently has in the

record that plaintiff served in the military is plaintiff's opposition to defendant's first

motion for judgment on the pleadings. An affidavit indicating likewise would establish

a material fact for M.R. Civ. P. 56 purposes. The plaintiff and defendant are hereby

2 As evidenced by its reply to the plaintiff's opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, its
response to plaintiff's motion to strike the second motion for judgment on the pleadings, its rationale for
filing the second motion for judgment on the pleadings, and its conduct at a hearing on the motions.
7

given the opportunity to provide materials on this question. The parties will have

fourteen days to do so.

B. Plaintiff Boyden's motion to strike defendant, the Bishop's, second motion for
judgment on the pleadings

Defendant filed a second motion for judgment on the pleadings. While the first

dealt with § 752-C's statute of limitations assuming § 752-C's application to plaintiff's

cause of action, the second deals with the question whether § 752-C applies

substantively to plaintiff's cause of action. Plaintiff moved to strike this second motion

for its failure to be brought in the first motion. The court sees no reason to strike

defendant's second motion. No prejudice has occurred and no effect on judicial

economy or efficiency is incurred, especially given the need for this court to deal with

the identical argument in the Picher case. Accordingly plaintiff's motion to strike is

denied.

C. Defendant, the Bishop's, second motion for judgment on the pleadings in
Boyden and defendants, Ford, Morrison, Mathieu and Bissonnette's motion for
judgment on the pleadings

The legal question posed by these motions is whether § 752-C or § 752 applies to

the plaintiffs' causes of action. If § 752 and not § 752-C applies, both plaintiffs' causes of

action would be barred by § 752's statute of limitations. 3

§ 752-C is applicable to "[a]ctions based upon sexual acts ..." The question and

the two meritorious positions on whether § 752-C is applicable to claims against parties

other than the perpetrator of the sexual acts were previously brought before the Federal

District Court for the District of Maine in Allen v. Forest, 257 F. Supp. 2d 276 (D. Me.

2003).

3 "All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not
afterwards ..." 14 M.R.S.A. § 752.
8

The approach argued by the defendant in that case, as here, focused on the

conduct of the perpetrator. The approach argued by the plaintiff in that case, as here,

focused instead on the policy behind the elimination of the statute of limitations, to give

added relief to the victims of sexual abuse. In Allen both parties cited a cavalcade of

cases from foreign jurisdictions in support of their positions, the same exact cases cited

here. See Allen, 257 F. Supp. at 278-280 (citing Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.!.

1996); Debbie Reynolds Protl Rehearsal Studios v. Johnson, 25 Cal.App. 4 th 222 (Cal. App.

1994; Almonte v. New York Med. Coll., 851 F. Supp. 34 (D. Conn. 1994); Werre v. David, 913

P.2d 625 (Mont. 1996); Lourim v. Swensen, 977 P.2d 1157 (Or. 1999); and erC v.

Corporation of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 985 P.2d 262 (Wash. 1999)).4

The District Court found that //[t]he language of each of the state statutes

construed in these cases differed form that of section 752-C.// Allen, 257 F. Supp. 2d at

279. It also pointed out that //[t]he courts in Kelly and ere reached opposite results in

construing essentially identical language." Id. Therefore //[u]nder the circumstances

none of these opinions provides persuasive authority for interpretation of section 752­

c." Id. Ultimately, because the District Court was //unable to predict the path of Maine
law in regard to claims against non-perpetrator defendants with respect to 14 M.R.S.A.

§ 752-C' and certified the question whether § 752-C is //applicable to claims against

parties other than the perpetrator of the sexual acts toward minors that provide the

factual basis for those claims" to the Law Court. Id. Unfortunately for this court, Allen

settled before the Law Court had opportunity to opine on the certified question. This

court suggested to the parties, given the reasons expressed in Allen, reporting this

4 This court notes also the existence of Sandoval v. The Archdiocese of Denver, 8 P.3d 598 (Colo. Ct. App.
2000) and Delonga v. Diocese of Sioux Falls, 329 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (D. S.D. 2004).
9

question to the Law Court per M.R. App. P. 24(a) might be prudent. However, not all

parties appearing agreed. M.R. App. P. 24(a).

Though the question is razor thin, this court finds more compelling the rationale

of cases like CrC out of Washington, Delonga out of South Dakota, and Almonte out of

Connecticut. Both Washington and South Dakota's statutes utilize the phrase "based

on."S "Based on" means "the starting point or foundation of the claim." CrC, 985 P.2d

at 267 (citing WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 180 (1986)). In CrC

the Court held that the plain meaning of "based on" encompassed all actions arising

from intentional conduct. Delonga, whose analysis the District Court in Allen did not

have the benefit, provided a bridge from Alamonte's policy analysis to CrC's broad

interpretation of the phrase "based on." The Delonga court focused on "actions flowing

from a particular type of harm[,]" rather than a particular defendant. It quoted Almonte

at length:

In recognizing that it may take years for a victim to come to terms with the
sexual abuse, the Legislature implicitly understood that it may take as much time
to identify those responsible for the abuse: It is only logical that the abuse and
the abuser must be identified before the chain of responsibility can be
discovered. Thus were the [Connecticut sex abuse statute of limitations] limited
to actions against perpetrators only, many if not most non-offender prospective
defendants would, for all practical purposes, be rendered immune from suit.
Such a result is both contrary to public policy and inconsistent with the
Legislature's intent to broaden remedies available to victims of sexual abuse
through the extended limitations period. Delonga, 329 F. Supp. 2d at 1103-04
(quoting Almonte, 851 F. Supp. at 37-38).

This court finds from the plain meaning of the phrase "based upon" and "the

focus of the statute at hand, as gleaned from the language, is on actions flowing from a

particular type of harm, not on the nature of the party or parties causing the harm." Id.

5 § 752-C utilizes the phrase "based upon" rather than "based on." Upon means "on." WEBSTER'S II NEW
RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 1268 (1984). Therefore, there is no meaningful distinction between the
use of "based upon" and "based on."
10

at 1104. As stated in Almonte, this is a "harm-based approach". Almonte, 851 F. Supp at

39.

For the reasons stated above, the court finds and concludes that the plaintiffs'

claims are "based upon sexual acts towards minors"; therefore, § 752-C is applicable to

those claims. The defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings contesting the

substantive application of § 752-C are dismissed. 6

The entry is

Plaintiff Boyden's motion to strike defendant, the Bishop's second motion
for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

Defendant, the Bishop's second motion for judgment on the pleadings is
DENIED.

Defendants Ford, Morrison, Mathieu and Bissonnette's motion for
judgment on the pleadings is DENIED

The court reserves judgment on defendant, the Bishop's first motion for
judgment on the pleadings according to this decisiolL.----_

May ('1, 2008

6 This court is also not deaf to the argument made by the defendants that § 752-C is distinguishable from
the statutes of other states because it fully eliminates the statute of limitations period. Thus defendants'
argue the Legislature could not have intended to render them liable for negligence in perpetuity.
Defendants' argument, while raising interesting and valid policy concerns, would require a strange form
of statutory interpretation. The court interprets the plain language of "based upon" broadly. The "based
upon" language did not come into existence at the time the Legislature eliminated the statute of
limitations period. Quite the contrary, it was in the statute in 1985 when the Legislature first enacted 14
M.R.S.A. § 752-C and the statute of limitations period was six years, stayed in tact when the Legislature
amended the statute to include a three year discovery period in 1989, was unchanged when the
legislature expanded the original statutory period to twelve years and the discovery period to six years in
1991, and finally was unchanged when the Legislature drastically changed the statute to create no
limitations period in 1999. It would be strange for this court to interpret the meaning of language that, to
this court, plainly encompassed the defendants in 1985, 1989, and 1991 to suddenly halt from doing so
when it remained unchanged. Were it the intent of the Legislature to narrow the scope of "based upon"
to accord with its elimination of the statute of limitations period, it would have done so. Defendants
essentially ask this court to defy the plain meaning of words framed in 1985, because of an amendment
occurring in 1999, without any change to those words.
STEVEN F BOYDEN - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT
1077B NORTH VANWERT ROAD KENNEBEC, ss.
VILLA RICA GA 30180 Docket No AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
Attorney for: STEVEN F BOYDEN
SUMNER LIPMAN - RETAINED 09/19/2007
LIPMAN & KATZ & MCKEE, PA DOCKET RECORD
227 WATER STREET
PO BOX 1051
AUGUSTA ME 04332-1051

vs
RONALD N MICHAUD - DEFENDANT
18 TOWNSEND STREET, APT. 5
AUGUSTA ME 04330
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
GERALD F PETRUCCELLI - RETAINED
PETRUCCELLI, MARTIN & HADDOW, LLP
50 MONUMENT SQUARE
PO BOX 17555
PORTLAND ME 04112-8555

Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: ASSAULT/BATTERY
Filing Date: 09/19/2007

Docket Events:
09/20/2007 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 09/19/2007

09/20/2007 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 09/19/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: SUMNER LIPMAN

09/20/2007 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION - CASE FILE NOTICE SENT ON 09/20/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: SUMNER LIPMAN
MAILED TO ATTY. OF RECORD.

10/04/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE FILED ON 10/01/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

10/04/2007 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 10/01/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

10/15/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 10/15/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED
TO PLT AND DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLANDSFIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO PLT SERVED ON WALTER MCKEE ON OCT.11 2007

10/15/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 10/15/2007
page 1 of 5 Printed on: 05/19/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
DOCKET RECORD

Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

10/15/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 10/15/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW, DRAFT ORDER, NOTICE OF HEARING

11/07/2007 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 11/05/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: SUMNER LIPMAN
PLTF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

11/09/2007 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 11/07/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
BHISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SERVED ON GERALD F. PETRUCCELLI, ESQ.
ON 11/6/07.

11/16/2007 Party(s): RONALD N MICHAUD,ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 11/13/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
WITH PROPOSED ORDER.

11/20/2007 Party(s): RONALD N MICHAUD,ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 11/16/2007
DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL ORDERED THAT
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING A REPLY TO THE
OPPOSITION IS HEREBY EXTENDED UNTIL WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 28, 2007.

11/27/2007 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 11/21/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT MICHAUD WITH PROPOSED.

11/27/2007 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - RESPONSE FILED ON 11/21/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.

12/04/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 11/28/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
RESPONSE TO PLTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, DEF'S ANSWER TO INTERROG. SERVED ON
WALTER MCKEE, ESQ., ON 11/27/07.

12/21/2007 party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 12/17/2007
Page 2 of 5 Printed on: 05/19/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
DOCKET RECORD

Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PLT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST
REQUEST OF DOCUEMTNS SERVED ON ATTY PETRUCCELLI ON 12/17/07 AND FILED 12/20/07.

01/24/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION SERVICE BY PUBLICATION FILED WITH AFFIDAVIT ON 01/23/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: BENJAMIN J SMITH
PROPOSED ORDER

01/24/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 01/14/2008
NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PLAINTIFF HAS
UNTIL 4/14/08 TO SERVE DEFENDANT RONALD MICHAUD.

01/28/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 01/24/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PLT'S UNSIGNED ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
PORTLAND SERVED ON ATT PETRUCCELLI ON 1/23/08.

02/12/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 02/08/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW, DRAFT ORDER, NOTICE OF HEARING

02/25/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 02/25/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PLT'S SIGNED ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
PORTLAND SERVED ON ATTY PETRUCCELLI ON 2/22/08.

02/28/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION SERVICE BY PUBLICATION GRANTED ON 02/25/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

02/28/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/28/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
TO DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S SECOND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS.

02/28/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION TO STRIKE FILED ON 02/28/2008
plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER

02/29/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS SCHEDULED FOR 04/10/2008 @ 1:00 in Room No. 1
MOTION FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION AMENDED ORDER
(3/5/07)

03/10/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 03/07/2008
Page 3 of 5 Printed on: 05/19/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
DOCKET RECORD

Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.

03/10/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 03/07/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
IN SUPPORT OF ITS SECOND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

03/13/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS NOTICE SENT ON 03/13/2008

03/13/2008 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED ON 03/10/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

03/24/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 03/24/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PL'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON ATTY PETRUCCELLI, ON 3/21/08

04/02/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 03/31/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: BENJAMIN J SMITH
WITHIN WHICH EFFECTUATE SERVICE BY PUBLICATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER.

04/03/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 04/03/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL THE TIME PERIOD
IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFFMUST SERVED DEFENDANT RONALS N. MICHAUD THROUGH PUBLICATION IS
ENLARGED BY A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OR UNTIL MAY 14, 2008.

04/11/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS HELD ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
PETER DERTROY, ESQ.

04/11/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE

04/11/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION TO STRIKE MADE ORALLY ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE

04/11/2008 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE

04/22/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 04/22/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
Page 4 of 5 Printed on: 05/19/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
DOCKET RECORD

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

05/01/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 04/29/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

05/19/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 ORDER - COURT ORDER COPY TO REPOSITORIES ON 05/19/2008

A TRUE COpy
ATTEST:
Clerk

Page 5 of 5 Printed on: 05/19/2008
WILLIAM J PICHER - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss.
Attorney for: WILLIAM J PICHER Docket No AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
KEITH R VARNER - RETAINED 11/07/2007
LIPMAN & KATZ & MCKEE, PA
227 WATER STREET DOCKET RECORD
PO BOX 1051
AUGUSTA ME 04332-1051

vs
REV MSGR J J FORD - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: REV MSGR J J FORD
GERARD P CONLEY JR - RETAINED
CLOUTIER BARRETT CLOUTIER & CONLEY
465 CONGRESS ST
PORTLAND ME 04101

JAMES MORRISON - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: JAMES MORRISON
PETER DETROY - RETAINED
NORMAN HANSON & DETROY
415 CONGRESS ST
PO BOX 4600
PORTLAND ME 04112

RENE MATHIEU - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: RENE MATHIEU
PETER DETROY - RETAINED
NORMAN HANSON & DETROY
415 CONGRESS ST
PO BOX 4600
PORTLAND ME 04112

RITA-MAE BISSONETTE - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
GERALD F PETRUCCELLI - RETAINED
PETRUCCELLI, MARTIN & HADDOW, LLP
50 MONUMENT SQUARE
PO BOX 17555
PORTLAND ME 04112-8555

JOHN DOE - DEFENDANT

Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: OTHER PERSONAL INJURY TORT
Filing Date: 11/14/2007

Docket Events:
11/15/2007 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 11/14/2007

12/26/2007 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
Page 1 of 4 Printed on: 05/19/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
DOCKET RECORD

SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SERVED ON 12/11/2007
SERVICE MADE ON PETER DETROY ON BEHALF OF MSGR. RENE MATHIEU.

12/26/2007 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SERVED ON 12/11/2007
SERVICE MADE ON PETER DETROY ON BEHALF OF REV. JAMES MORRISON.

12/26/2007 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SERVED ON 12/08/2007
SERVICE MADE ON GERALD PETRUCELLI ON BEHALF OF RITA-MAE BISSONNETTE.

12/26/2007 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/13/2007
Defendant's Attorney: PETER DETROY

12/26/2007 Party(s): RENE MATHIEU
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/13/2007
Defendant's Attorney: PETER DETROY

12/26/2007 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/13/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

12/29/2007 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 12/26/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

12/29/2007 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 12/26/2007
Defendant's Attorney: JOHN R VEILLEUX

12/29/2007 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SERVED ON 12/13/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR

12/29/2007 party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/27/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR

01/04/2008 party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 01/03/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
S/CLOUTIER, ESQ.

01/28/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 01/22/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
SR RITA-MAE BISSONNETTE'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS SERVED ON ATTY MCKEE ON 1/18/08.

02/06/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/04/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
Page 2 of 4 Printed on: 05/19/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
DOCKET RECORD

DEFENDANT BISSONNETTE'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE.

02/07/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 02/07/2008
DEFENDANT MORRISON'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, DEFENDANT MATHIEU'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON SUMNER LIPMAN, ESQ. ON 2/4/08.

02/11/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/08/2008
Defendant's Attorney: PETER DETROY
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

02/11/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 02/08/2008
Defendant's Attorney: PETER DETROY
WITH PROPOSED ORDER AND REQEUEST FOR HEARING

02/11/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/11/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE.

02/12/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 02/07/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW, DRAFT ORDER, NOTICE OF HEARING

02/25/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 02/19/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
PROPOSED ORDER AND REQUEST FOR HEARING.

02/29/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS SCHEDULED FOR 04/10/2008 @ 1:00 in Room No. 1

03/10/2008 party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED ON 03/10/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

03/10/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 03/10/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

03/11/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD,JAMES MORRISON
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - RESPONSE FILED ON 03/11/2007
Defendant's Attorney: JOHN R VEILLEUX
REPLY TO PLT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.

03/13/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS NOTICE SENT ON 03/13/2008

03/13/2008 Party(s): WILLIAM J PICHER
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 11/07/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
Page 3 of 4 Printed on: 05/19/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
DOCKET RECORD

03/18/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 03/17/2008
Defendant's Attorney: JOHN R VEILLEUX
DEF REV JAMES MORRISON'S ANSWERS TO PLT'S INTERROGATORIES SERVED ON ATTY LIPMAN, VARNER
AND MCKEE ON 3/13/08.

03/19/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - RESPONSE FILED ON 03/19/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
DEF REV MSGR JR JOSEPH FORD'S REPLY TO PLT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
PLEADINGS.

04/11/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS HELD ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER

05/19/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

A TRUE COPY
ATTEST:
Clerk

Page 4 of 4 Printed on: 05/19/2008
1

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. CV-07-276
and CV-07-331· ~

STEVENF. BOYDEN

Plaintiff

v. DECISION AND ORDER

RONALD N. MICHAUD,

and

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
BISHOP OF PORTLAND,

Defendants

WILLAIMJ. PICHER,

Plaintiff

v.

REV. MSGR. J. JOSEPH FORD,
REV. JAMES M. MORRISON,
REV. MSGR. RENE T. MATHIEU
SR. RITA-MAE BISSONNETTE,
and
JOHN DOE,

Defendants

Before this court in the Boyden case is defendant The Roman Catholic Bishop of

Portland (The Bishop)'s M.R. App. P. 24(c) motion to report to the Law Court. In the

Picher case, each named defendant has filed a motion to report. Because the Picher and

Boyden motions raise identical legal issues, the court discusses them together.

A. Boyden v. Michaud
2

This action commenced pursuant to a complaint on September 20, 2007, in which

plaintiff alleged that defendant Ronald M. Michaud, l a Roman Catholic priest, molested

him between 1983 and 1985, while plaintiff was a member of Michaud's parish.

Plaintiff's complaint also included claims against The Bishop for negligent supervision,

breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. In its answer, The Bishop asserted nine affirmative

defenses, including that plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. See 14

M.R.S. § 752 (2007).

Subsequently, The Bishop brought two consecutive motions for judgment on the

pleadings. See M.R. Civ. P. 12(c). The first of these motions asserted that plaintiff's

claims were barred by subsequent amendments to Maine's statute of limitations for

sexual acts toward minors, 14 M.R.S. § 752-C, and certain provisions of the

Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act, 50 U.s.c. App. § 526(a). The Bishop's second motion

argued that plaintiff's claims were barred by Maine's general statute of limitations. 14

M.R.S. § 752. By Order dated May 14, 2008, this court denied both motions, finding

section 752-C applicable to the plaintiff's claims. See Boyden v. Michaud, CV-07-276 &

CV-07-331 (Me. Super. Ct., Ken. Cty., May 14, 2008) (Jabar, J.). On June 5, 2008, The

Bishop filed a notice of appeal and, pursuant to M.R. App. P. 24(c), a motion to report to

the Law Court.

B. Picher v. Ford, et al.

This action commenced 2 pursuant to a complaint on or about December 3, 2007,

wherein plaintiff alleged that defendant Raymond P. Melville,3 a Roman Catholic priest,

IBecause Michaud failed to file an answer, default judgment was entered against him on June 9, 2008.
2Plaintiff also brought an earlier complaint against Melville and The Bishop in Kennebec County
Superior Court (Docket No. CV-07-57). The Bishop filed a motion for summary judgment in that case
based on a charitable immunity defense, which was granted on December 10, 2007, final judgment being
3

molested him between 1986 and 1989, while plaintiff was a student at St. Mary's School.

Also named in the complaint were four defendants-Sr. Rita-Mae Bissonnette, Rev.

Msgr. Rene T. Mathieu, Rev. James J. Morrison, and Rev. Msgr. J. Joseph Ford-that

hold (or have held) supervisory positions within the administration of The Bishop.

In December 2007, each of the defendants in Picher filed answers asserting, as an

affirmative defense, that plaintiff's claims were barred by the general statute of

limitations. See 14 M.R.S. § 752. Each defendant subsequently filed a motion for

judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the statute of limitations barred plaintiff's

claims. After this court denied the defendants' motions pursuant to the May 14 th Order,

see Michaud, CV-07-276 & CV-07-331, each defendant filed a notice of appeal and

motion to report to the Law Court.

Along with the notice of appeal, the defendants' in Boyden and Picher moved the

Law Court to remand the case solely for the purpose of deciding the motions to report,

and asked the Law Court to stay further proceedings pending this court's decision. On

July 16, 2008, the Law Court dismissed the defendants' appeals as interlocutory, and

denied the motions for limited remand and stay of proceedings.

Discussion

The moving defendants in Boyden and Picher, pursuant to M.R. App. P. 24(c),

seek to report this case to the Law Court to decide whether 14 M.R.S. § 752 bars the

plaintiffs' claims in each case. Because all parties have not agreed to the motion to

report, see M.R. App. P. 24(a), the applicable provision, Maine Rule of Appellate

Procedure 24(c), provides:

entered January 24, 2008. Plaintiff's appeal of the court's decision is pending before the Law Court. A
motion to consolidate these cases was denied.
3 Default judgment was entered against Melville for failure to respond.
4

If the trial court is of the opinion that a question of law involved in an
interlocutory order or ruling made by it ought to be determined by the
Law Court before any further proceedings are taken, it may on motion of
the aggrieved party report the case to the Law Court for that purpose and
stay all further proceedings except such as are necessary to preserve the
rights of the parties without making any decision therein.

Although the Law Court clearly has ultimate discretion as to whether to accept

or reject a report, see Toussaint v. Perreault, 388 A.2d 918, 920 (Me. 1978), in making a

preliminary determination of the propriety of a report this court observes the guidelines

utilized by the Law Court. See, ~ Morris v. Sloan, 1997 ME 179, <JI 7, 698 A.2d 1038,

1040-41; Cobb v. Allstate Ins. Co., 663 A.2d 38,40 (Me. 1995); Knox v. Combined Ins.

Co., 542 A.2d 363, 365 (Me. 1988). Thus, in evaluating whether a case meets all the M.R.

App. P. 24(c) requirements to justify a report to the Law Court, this court assesses

whether the question of law reported is "of sufficient importance and
doubt to outweigh the policy against piecemeal litigation." We also
consider whether "a question raised on report might not have reached the
Law Court in the normal course of the appellate process" -- that is,
whether the issue might not have to be decided at all because of other
possible dispositions. Although Rule 72(c) does not require us to do so,
we may take into account whether "our decision will in at least one
alternative dispose of the action ...." Finally, in the interests of the
judicial economy and the preservation of our appellate function, we must
consider whether our involvement in a case prior to the entry of a final
judgment will encourage piecemeal litigation in cases involving similar
circumstances.

Sloan, 1997 ME 179, <JI 7,698 A.2d 1038, 1041 (citations omitted).4 A report pursuant to

M.R. App. P. 24 is an exception to the final judgment rule that "should be used

sparingly." Luhr v. Bickford, 661 A.2d 1141, 1142 (Me. 1995).

The court on the record indicated that it would grant the defendants' motion to

report the case to the Law Court. However, after reviewing the prevailing law in this

area, the court is not persuaded that this case should be reported to the Law Court. The

4 Although this language refers to "Rule 72(c)," the text of M.R. Civ. P. Rule 72(c) was abrogated effective
December 31,2001. Appeals filed on or after January 1,2001 are governed by M.R. App. P. 24, which
"tracks very closely M.R. Civ. P. 72 ...." M.R. App. P. Advisory Notes ETH 2001.
5

legal question posed is whether section 752-C or section 752 applies to the plaintiffs'

causes of action. See 14 NLRS. §§ 752, 752-C If section 752, rather than section 752-C,

applies, both plaintiffs' causes of action would likely be barred by section 752's six-year

statute of limitations. s This question-whether section 752-C is applicable to claims

against parties other than the perpetrator of the sexual acts-was previously brought

before the Federal District Court for the District of Maine in Allen v. Forest, 257 F. Supp.

2d 276 (D. Me. 2003).

Regarding the issue of section 752-C's applicability, the approach argued by the

defendant in Allen, as here, focused on the conduct of the perpetrator. Allen, 257 F.

Supp. 2d at 278. The approach argued by the plaintiff in Allen, as here, focused instead

on the policy behind the elimination of the statute of limitations, to give added relief to

the victims of sexual abuse. Id. at 279. Both parties cited numerous cases from foreign

jurisdictions in support of their positions; the same cases relied upon by the parties

here. See id. at 278-280 (citing Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (RI. 1996); Debbie

Reynolds ProfI Rehearsal Studios v. Iohnson, 25 Cal. App. 4th 222 (Cal. App. 1994);

Almonte v. New York Med. ColI., 851 F. Supp. 34 (D. Conn. 1994); Werre v. David, 913

P.2d 625 (Mont. 1996); Lourim v. Swensen, 977 P.2d 1157 (Or. 1999); and CLC v.

Corporation of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 985 P.2d 262 (Wash. 1999)).6

The District Court found that "[t]he language of each of the state statutes

construed in these cases differed from that of section 752-C" Allen, 257 F. Supp. 2d at

279. It also noted that "[t]he courts in Kelly and Cr.C reached opposite results in

construing essentially identical language." Id. Therefore, the District Court found that

5 "All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards
...." 14 M.R.S.A. § 752. Section 752-C is applicable to "[a]ctions based upon sexual acts ...." rd. at §
752-C.
6 This court notes also the existence of Sandoval v. The Archdiocese of Denver, 8 P.3d 598 (Colo. Ct. App.
2000) and Delonga v. Diocese of Sioux Falls. 329 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (D. S.D. 2004).
6

"[u]nder the circumstances none of these opinions provides persuasive authority for

interpretation of section 752-C." Id. Ultimately, because the District Court was "unable

to predict the path of Maine law in regard to claims against non-perpetrator defendants

with respect to 14 M.R.S.A. § 752-C/' the District Court certified the question of whether

section 752-C is "applicable to claims against parties other than the perpetrator of the

sexual acts toward minors that provide the factual basis for those claims" to the Law

Court. Id.

The parties in Allen settled before the Law Court had an opportunity to opine on

the certified question. That question, however, is presented again in both Boyden and

Picher. Like in Allen, resolution of this question will be, at least in one alternative,

determinative of the case. If the Law Court determines that section 752-C does not

apply to claims against parties other than the perpetrator, and instead section 752 is the

applicable provision, plaintiffs' claims against the moving defendants are likely barred. 7

However, if, instead, the Law Court finds section 752-C applies, the decision

would not dispose of the action, and the case would likely return to this court for

further proceedings, including the merits of the defendants' remaining eight affirmative

defenses. Such a consideration weighs heavily against granting a motion to report. See

Sloan, 1997 ME 179, <]I 7, 698 A.2d at 1041 (finding a report improvidently granted partly

because the issue "might not have to be decided at all because of other possible

dispositions"); State v. Placzek, 380 A.2d 1010, 1013 (Me. 1977) (finding it "is not an

efficient use of total court resources to report the case to the Law Court merely on the

chance that its decision may turn out to be the one that finally disposes of the case"); d.

United States, Dep't of Agric., Rural Hous. Servo V. Carter, 2002 ME 103, <]I 13, 799 A.2d

7 Plaintiffs argue that even if section 752 applies, they must be given the opportunity to conduct discovery
to determine whether the statute of limitations period was tolled. Because this factual issue would
require remand, the plaintiffs argue, the motion to report is inappropriate.
7

1232, 1236 (finding the judicial economy exception applies "only when a decision on ...

appeal ... regardless of what it is, would effectively dispose of the entire case").8

Moreover, this case may be disposed of in the normal course of litigation without

the legal issue reaching the Law Court. For instance, the legal issue addressed by the

Law Court in Swanson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 1997 ME 63, 692 A.2d

441-whether a claim of negligent supervision may be brought against a church9­

raises serious questions and hurdles for the plaintiff that most likely will be resolved in

subsequent motions for summary judgment. Without deciding the issue prematurely,

where, as here, the case may be disposed of on other grounds, granting a motion to

report is inadvisable, particularly considering the strong policy against piecemeal

appellate review. See Meiners v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 663 A.2d 6,8 (Me. 1995).

For these reasons, the court herby denies the defendants' motion to report to the

Law Court.

The entry is:

The defendants' motion to report pursuant to M.R. App. P. 24(c) is
DENIED.

September-2c2 2008

8 It does not go unnoticed that the Law Court dismissed defendants' appeal as interlocutory.
9 In Swanson, the Law Court held that:

on the facts of this case, imposing a secular duty of supervision on the church and
enforcing that duty through civil liability would restrict its freedom to interact with its
clergy in the manner deemed proper by ecclesiastical authorities and would not serve a
societal interest sufficient to overcome the religious freedoms inhibited.

Swanson, 1997 ME 63, «j[ 13, 692 A.2d at 445. Swanson, however, did not establish blanket tort immunity
for religious organizations, nor was the decision the final word on the subject. See Fortin v. Roman
Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2005 ME 57, «j[ 23,871 A.2d 1208, 1217.
WILLIAM J PICHER - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss.
Attorney for: WILLIAM J PICHER Docket No AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
KEITH R VARNER - RETAINED 11/07/2007
LIPMAN & KATZ & MCKEE, PA
227 WATER STREET DOCKET RECORD
PO BOX 1051
AUGUSTA ME 04332-1051

vs
REV MSGR J J FORD - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: REV MSGR J J FORD
GERARD P CONLEY JR - RETAINED
CLOUTIER BARRETT CLOUTIER & CONLEY
465 CONGRESS ST
PORTLAND ME 04101

JAMES MORRISON - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: JAMES MORRISON
PETER DETROY - RETAINED
NORMAN HANSON & DE TROY
415 CONGRESS ST
PO BOX 4600
PORTLAND ME 04112

RENE MATHIEU - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: RENE MATHIEU
PETER DETROY - RETAINED
NORMAN HANSON & DE TROY
415 CONGRESS ST
PO BOX 4600
PORTLAND ME 04112

RITA-MAE BISSONETTE - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
GERALD F PETRUCCELLI - RETAINED
PETRUCCELLI, MARTIN & HADDOW, LLP
50 MONUMENT SQUARE
PO BOX 17555
PORTLAND ME 04112-8555

Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: OTHER PERSONAL INJURY TORT
Filing Date: 11/14/2007

Docket Events:
11/15/2007 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 11/14/2007

12/26/2007 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SERVED ON 12/11/2007
SERVICE MADE ON PETER DETROY ON BEHALF OF MSGR. RENE MATHIEU.
Page 1 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
DOCKET RECORD

12/26/2007 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SERVED ON 12/11/2007
SERVICE MADE ON PETER DETROY ON BEHALF OF REV. JAMES MORRISON.

12/26/2007 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SERVED ON 12/08/2007
SERVICE MADE ON GERALD PETRUCELLI ON BEHALF OF RITA-MAE BISSONNETTE.

12/26/2007 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/13/2007
Defendant's Attorney: PETER DETROY

12/26/2007 Party(s): RENE MATHIEU
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/13/2007
Defendant's Attorney: PETER DETROY

12/26/2007 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/13/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

12/29/2007 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 12/26/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

12/29/2007 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON, RENE MATHIEU
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 12/26/2007
Defendant's Attorney: JOHN R VEILLEUX

12/29/2007 party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SERVED ON 12/13/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR

12/29/2007 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/27/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR

01/04/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
RESPONSIVE PLEADING ­ ANSWER FILED ON 01/03/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
S/CLOUTIER, ESQ.

01/28/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 01/22/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
SR RITA-MAE BISSONNETTE'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS SERVED ON ATTY MCKEE ON 1/18/08.

02/06/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/04/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
DEFENDANT BISSONNETTE'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE.

Page 2 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
DOCKET RECORD

02/07/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 02/07/2008
DEFENDANT MORRISON'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS, DEFENDANT MATHIEU'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON SUMNER LIPMAN, ESQ. ON 2/4/08.

02/11/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/08/2008
Defendant's Attorney: PETER DETROY
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

02/11/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 02/08/2008
Defendant's Attorney: PETER DETROY
WITH PROPOSED ORDER AND REQEUEST FOR HEARING

02/11/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/11/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE.

02/12/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 02/07/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW, DRAFT ORDER, NOTICE OF HEARING

02/25/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 02/19/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
PROPOSED ORDER AND REQUEST FOR HEARING.

02/29/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS SCHEDULED FOR 04/10/2008 @ 1:00 in Room No. 1

03/10/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED ON 03/10/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

03/10/2008 party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 03/10/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

03/11/2008 party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD,JAMES MORRISON
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - RESPONSE FILED ON 03/11/2007
Defendant's Attorney: JOHN R VEILLEUX
REPLY TO PLT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.

03/13/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS NOTICE SENT ON 03/13/2008

03/13/2008 Party(s): WILLIAM J PICHER
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 11/07/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER

03/18/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
Page 3 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
DOCKET RECORD

DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 03/17/2008
Defendant's Attorney: JOHN R VEILLEUX
DEF REV JAMES MORRISON'S ANSWERS TO PLT'S INTERROGATORIES SERVED ON ATTY LIPMAN, VARNER
AND MCKEE ON 3/13/08.

03/19/2008 party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - RESPONSE FILED ON 03/19/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
DEF REV MSGR JR JOSEPH FORD'S REPLY TO PLT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
PLEADINGS.

04/11/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS HELD ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER

05/19/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

OS/29/2008 DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON OS/28/2008
Defendant's Attorney: JOHN R VEILLEUX
DEF REV RENE MATHIEU'S RESPONSE TO PLT'S REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND DEF REV MORRISON'S
RESPONSES TO PLT'S REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS SERVED ON ATTY LIPMAN, VARNER AND MCKEE ON
5/23/08.

06/10/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
APPEAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED ON 06/06/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
ATTESTED COPY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOCKET SHEET AND RECEIPT OF FILING MAILED TO MATTHEW
POLLACK, CLERK OF THE LAW COURT. COPIES MAILED TO ATTYS. OF
RECORD. (MAILED 6/18/08)

06/10/2008 party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED ON 06/06/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT, PROPOSED ORDER AND REQUEST FOR HEARING.

06/10/2008 party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
APPEAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED ON 06/09/2008
Defendant's Attorney: JOHN R VEILLEUX
ATTESTED COPY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOCKET SHEETS AND RECEIPT OF FILING FEE MAILED TO
Page 4 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
DOCKET RECORD

MATTHEW POLLACK, CLERK OF THE LAW COURT. COPIES MAILED TO ATTYS.
OF RECORD. (MAILED 6/18/08)

06/10/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED ON 06/09/2008
Defendant's Attorney: JOHN R VEILLEUX
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT AND PROPOSED ORDER.

06/13/2008 Party(s}: REV MSGR J J FORD
APPEAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED ON 06/11/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
ATTESTED COPIES OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOCKET SHEETS AND RECEIPT OF FILING FEE MAILED TO
ATTYS. OF RECORD. (MAILED 6/18/08) COPIES MALIED TO ATTYS. OF
RECORD.

06/13/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED ON 06/11/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT WITH PROPOSED ORDER.

06/26/2008 Party(s): WILLIAM J PICHER
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 06/25/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REPORT TO LAW COURT.

06/26/2008 APPEAL - RECORD ON APPEAL DUE IN LAW COURT ON 06/27/2008
NOTICE FROM LAW COURT. CASE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY JUNE 27, 2008, DOCKET NUMBE ASSIGNED IS
KEN-08-341

07/03/2008 party(s}: JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 07/02/2008
Defendant's Attorney: PETER DETROY
DEF'S REV JAMES MORRISON'S AND REV RENE MATHIEU'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIRMOTION TO
REPORT TO THE LAW COURT.

07/07/2008 Party(s}: REV MSGR J J FORD
OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 07/02/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
DEF MSGR J JOSEPH FORD'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO REPORT TO LAW COURT.

07/09/2008 Party(s}: RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 07/01/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
DEFENDANT SR. RITA MAE BISSONNETTE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW
COURT.

07/14/2008 HEARING - OTHER MOTION SCHEDULED FOR 08/05/2008 @ 9:00 in Room No. 2
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT

07/14/2008 HEARING - OTHER MOTION NOTICE SENT ON 07/09/2008
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT

07/21/2008 ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 07/21/2008
Page 5 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00331
DOCKET RECORD

LEIGH I SAUFLEY , SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE
THE MOTONS FOR LIMITED REMAND AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS ARE DENIED. MR. PICHER'S MOTION TO
DISMISS IS GRANTED. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS INTERLOCUTORY.

08/12/2008 HEARING - OTHER MOTION HELD ON 08/05/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
Defendant's Attorney: GERARD P CONLEY JR
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT ALSO PRESENT
GERALD PETRUCELLI, ESQ.

08/12/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
MOTION - OTHER MOTION UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 08/05/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT WITH PROPOSED ORDER.

08/12/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
MOTION - OTHER MOTION UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 08/05/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT AND PROPOSED ORDER.

08/12/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
MOTION - OTHER MOTION UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 08/05/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT, PROPOSED ORDER AND REQUEST FOR HEARING.

09/30/2008 Party(s): REV MSGR J J FORD
MOTION - OTHER MOTION DENIED ON 09/30/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT WITH PROPOSED ORDER.

09/30/2008 Party(s): JAMES MORRISON,RENE MATHIEU
MOTION - OTHER MOTION DENIED ON 09/30/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT AND PROPOSED ORDER.

09/30/2008 Party(s): RITA-MAE BISSONETTE
MOTION - OTHER MOTION DENIED ON 09/30/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT, PROPOSED ORDER AND REQUEST FOR HEARING.

09/30/2008 ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 09/30/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REPORT PURSUANT TO M.R.APP.P. 24(C) IS DENIED. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL

A TRUE COPY
ATTEST:
Clerk

Page 6 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
STEVEN F BOYDEN - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT
1077B NORTH VANWERT ROAD KENNEBEC, ss.
VILLA RICA GA 30180 Docket No AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
Attorney for: STEVEN F BOYDEN
SUMNER LIPMAN - RETAINED 09/19/2007
LIPMAN & KATZ & MCKEE, PA DOCKET RECORD
227 WATER STREET
PO BOX 1051
AUGUSTA ME 04332-1051

vs
RONALD N MICHAUD - DEFENDANT
18 TOWNSEND STREET, APT. 5
AUGUSTA ME 04330
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND - DEFENDANT

Attorney for: ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
GERALD F PETRUCCELLI - RETAINED
PETRUCCELLI, MARTIN & HADDOW, LLP
50 MONUMENT SQUARE
PO BOX 17555
PORTLAND ME 04112-8555

Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: ASSAULT/BATTERY
Filing Date: 09/19/2007

Docket Events:
09/20/2007 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 09/19/2007

09/20/2007 party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 09/19/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: SUMNER LIPMAN

09/20/2007 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION - CASE FILE NOTICE SENT ON 09/20/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: SUMNER LIPMAN
MAILED TO ATTY. OF RECORD.

10/04/2007 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE FILED ON 10/01/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

10/04/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 10/01/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

10/15/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 10/15/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED
TO PLT AND DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLANDSFIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO PLT SERVED ON WALTER MCKEE ON OCT.11 2007

10/15/2007 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 10/15/2007
Page 1 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
DOCKET RECORD

Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

10/15/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 10/15/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW, DRAFT ORDER, NOTICE OF HEARING

11/07/2007 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 11/05/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: SUMNER LIPMAN
PLTF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

11/09/2007 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 11/07/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
BHISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES SERVED ON GERALD F. PETRUCCELLI, ESQ.
ON 11/6/07.

11/16/2007 Party(s): RONALD N MICHAUD,ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 11/13/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
WITH PROPOSED ORDER.

11/20/2007 Party(s): RONALD N MICHAUD,ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 11/16/2007
DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL ORDERED THAT
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED. THE DEADLINE FOR FILING A REPLY TO THE
OPPOSITION IS HEREBY EXTENDED UNTIL WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 28, 2007.

11/27/2007 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 11/21/2007
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
WITHIN WHICH TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT MICHAUD WITH PROPOSED.

11/27/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
RESPONSIVE PLEADING - RESPONSE FILED ON 11/21/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.

12/04/2007 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 11/28/2007
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
RESPONSE TO PLTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, DEF'S ANSWER TO INTERROG. SERVED ON
WALTER MCKEE, ESQ., ON 11/27/07.

12/21/2007 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 12/17/2007
Page 2 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
DOCKET RECORD

Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PLT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST
REQUEST OF DOCUEMTNS SERVED ON ATTY PETRUCCELLI ON 12/17/07 AND FILED 12/20/07.

01/24/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION SERVICE BY PUBLICATION FILED WITH AFFIDAVIT ON 01/23/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: BENJAMIN J SMITH
PROPOSED ORDER

01/24/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 01/14/2008
NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PLAINTIFF HAS
UNTIL 4/14/08 TO SERVE DEFENDANT RONALD MICHAUD.

01/28/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 01/24/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PLT'S UNSIGNED ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
PORTLAND SERVED ON ATT PETRUCCELLI ON 1/23/08.

02/12/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS FILED ON 02/08/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW, DRAFT ORDER, NOTICE OF HEARING

02/25/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 02/25/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PLT'S SIGNED ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
PORTLAND SERVED ON ATTY PETRUCCELLI ON 2/22/08.

02/28/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION SERVICE BY PUBLICATION GRANTED ON 02/25/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

02/28/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/28/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
TO DEFENDANT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S SECOND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS.

02/28/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION TO STRIKE FILED ON 02/28/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER

02/29/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS SCHEDULED FOR 04/10/2008 @ 1:00 in Room No. 1
MOTION FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION AMENDED ORDER
(3/5/07)

03/10/2008 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 03/07/2008
Page 3 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
DOCKET RECORD

Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.

03/10/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 03/07/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
IN SUPPORT OF ITS SECOND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

03/13/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS NOTICE SENT ON 03/13/2008

03/13/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED ON 03/10/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI

03/24/2008 party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
DISCOVERY FILING - NOTIFICATION DISCOVERY SERVICE FILED ON 03/24/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: WALTER MCKEE
PL'S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND'S FIRST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON ATTY PETRUCCELLI, ON 3/21/08

04/02/2008 party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 03/31/2008
plaintiff's Attorney: BENJAMIN J SMITH
WITHIN WHICH EFFECTUATE SERVICE BY PUBLICATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER.

04/03/2008 party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 04/03/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL THE TIME PERIOD
IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFFMUST SERVED DEFENDANT RONALS N. MICHAUD THROUGH PUBLICATION IS
ENLARGED BY A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OR UNTIL MAY 14, 2008.

04/11/2008 HEARING - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS HELD ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
PETER DERTROY, ESQ.

04/11/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE

04/11/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
MOTION - MOTION TO STRIKE MADE ORALLY ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE

04/11/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 04/10/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE

04/22/2008 party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 04/22/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
Page 4 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
DOCKET RECORD

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

05/01/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 04/29/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

05/19/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - MOTION JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS DENIED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 05/14/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL

05/19/2008 ORDER - COURT ORDER COPY TO REPOSITORIES ON 05/19/2008

05/19/2008 Party(s): RONALD N MICHAUD
MOTION - AFFID & REQUEST DEFAULT/JUDG FILED ON 04/19/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER

05/30/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - AFFIDAVIT FILED ON OS/29/2008
AFFIDAVIT OF ATTY. MCKEE WITH REGARD TO PLT'S ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY SERVICE

06/09/2008 Party(s): RONALD N MICHAUD
ORDER - DEFAULT ENTERED ON 06/09/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
CASE TO BE SET FOR HEARING ON DAMAGES RULE 55() (2) OPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL

06/10/2008 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED ON 06/05/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT, REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PROPOSED ORDER.

06/10/2008 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
APPEAL - NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED ON 06/05/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
ATTESTED COPY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, DOCKET SHEETS AND RECEIPT OF FILING FEE MAILED TO
MATTHEW POLLACK, CLERK OF THE LAW COURT. COPIES MAILED TO ATTYS.
OF RECORD. (MAILED 6/18/08)

06/26/2008 Party(s): STEVEN F BOYDEN
OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 06/25/2008
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
page 5 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008
AUGSC-CV-2007-00276
DOCKET RECORD

TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT.

06/26/2008 APPEAL - RECORD ON APPEAL DUE IN LAW COURT ON 06/27/2008
NOTICE FROM LAW COURT. CASE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY JUNE 27, 2008, DOCKET NUMBER ASSIGNED IS
KEN-08-342

07/09/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 07/01/2008
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
DEFENDANT ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT.

07/14/2008 HEARING - OTHER MOTION SCHEDULED FOR 08/05/2008 @ 9:00 in Room No. 2
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT.

07/14/2008 HEARING - OTHER MOTION NOTICE SENT ON 07/09/2008
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT.

08/12/2008 HEARING - OTHER MOTION HELD ON 08/05/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
Defendant's Attorney: GERALD F PETRUCCELLI
Plaintiff's Attorney: KEITH R VARNER
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT.

08/12/2008 party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - OTHER MOTION UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 08/05/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT, REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PROPOSED ORDER.

09/30/2008 Party(s): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PORTLAND
MOTION - OTHER MOTION DENIED ON 09/30/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
MOTION TO REPORT TO THE LAW COURT, REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PROPOSED ORDER.

09/30/2008 ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 09/30/2008
JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE
ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO
PARTIES/COUNSEL

09/30/2008 ORDER - COURT ORDER COpy TO REPOSITORIES ON 09/30/2008

A TRUE COPY
ATTEST:
Clerk

Page 6 of 6 Printed on: 09/30/2008

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809055. Public record. Not legal advice.