Case law

ESTRELLA

District Court, D. Maine · Feb 19, 2026

Estrella fails to allege the debt she undertook as an LLC qualifies as a consumer transaction under the statute. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ms. … The amended complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by presenting each claim separately, clearly, and concisely and alleging sufficient non-conclusory facts supporting each cause of action

NOLL v. FLOWERS FOODS INC

District Court, D. Maine · Jan 29, 2020

On a weekly basis, Defendants “settle” accounts for each Plaintiff based on the margin established by the prices at which Defendants sell products to Plaintiffs and the sale price established for the products at the … To escape FLSA liability based on the MCA exemption, an employer must show it qualifies for the exemption. Timberline, 925 F.3d at 850.

FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF MAINE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 3, 2019

Plaintiffs also explain why they and many in the medical establishment believe the Final Rule is wrongheaded. Id. ¶¶ 142-152. … Despite Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary, application of the Rust standard does not “immunize [the Rule] from constitutional scrutiny.” Pls. Mem. 31.

FOX v. MAKIN

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 10, 2025

Paulding’s expert opinions do not comport with the well-established rules governing federal practice and warrant exclusion. In particular, the Court concludes that Dr. … Paulding clearly conceded at his deposition that Attorney Whiting drafted the expert report, and Dr. Paulding merely agreed with the report as drafted.

International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge No. 1821 v. Verso Corp.

153 F. Supp. 3d 419 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 14, 2015

The Plaintiffs maintain that the district court in Vantico recognized “the established precedents that hold that acquisition of a competitor’s debt can Violate antitrust laws.” Id. … establish that it is an unreasonable restraint of trade.”

Solutran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp

291 F. Supp. 3d 877 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 27, 2017

The moving party bears the burden of establishing a lack of genuine issue of fact, Celotex Corp. v. … Solutran concedes that "present law does not clearly establish" that the doctrine of estoppel applies to bar US Bank from reasserting its § 101 argument here. ( See Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n at 8 & n.10 [Doc. No. 194].)

ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION US v. MERIMIL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

District Court, D. Maine · Feb 24, 2022

However, it is not clearly inconsistent for a party to Having concluded that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim, I turn to consider the other preliminary-injunction criteria. … This evidence does not establish that the specific operational changes proposed by the C.

Penobscot Nation v. Mills

151 F. Supp. 3d 181 · District Court, D. Maine · Dec 16, 2015

Local Rule 56 calls for “separate, short, and concise” statements' that may be readily admitted, denied or qualified by the opposing side. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(b)&(c). … By way of example, the Court notes that factual assertions sup^ ported only by a citation to an. unsworn expert report are hearsay and do not qualify as admissible evidence. See, e.g., Pls.

MAINE MEDICAL CENTER INC v. GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 21, 2022

The Policies state in relevant part: This insurance applies to losses paid by the Insured as a qualified self‐ insurer under the Workers Compensation Law for bodily injury by accident or bodily … The Policies apply the $500,000 retention either per accident or per employee for disease, and they clearly do not apply on a per injury basis.

FALMOUTH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT v. MR AND MRS DOE

District Court, D. Maine · Feb 17, 2023

Ultimately, the prevailing party seeking an award of attorneys’ fees bears the burden of establishing a reasonable fee award. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. … Plaintiff Falmouth School Department (“Falmouth”) does not dispute that the Does are a prevailing party and qualify for a fee award.

BRYAN C v. LAMBREW

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 4, 2021

burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore v. … The “professional judgment” standard demands that a reviewing court “show deference to the judgment exercised by a qualified professional.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 322.

Nilsen v. York County

400 F. Supp. 2d 266 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 10, 2005

See Order 12-13 (lawyers were “highly qualified and experienced,” “effective and thorough,” and “advocated zealously and capably for the plaintiffs”). … Stat. § 768.28 (8) (2005) (limit of 25% upon contingency fees charged pursuant to a claim under slate waiver of sovereign immunity); Cal.

In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation

269 F.R.D. 80 · District Court, D. Maine · Aug 17, 2010

September 29, 2008 to $1.29 CAD/$1.00 USD on October 27, 2008. 53 At the hearing in May 2010, the plaintiffs urged me to take judicial notice of these changes and argued that for a time, the higher “currency exchange rates clearly … Antitrust Litig.), 317 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.2003), the Second Circuit held that a district court had jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement entered into before the court had decided whether the defendants were entitled to immunity

PINES CHURCH v. HERMON SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 31, 2024

City of Fall River that local officials sued in their individual capacity were not entitled to legislative immunity. See Bogan, 523 U.S. at 46. … Second, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from making “law[s] respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I.

BARRETTE OUTDOOR LIVING INC v. INTEGRITY COMPOSITES LLC

District Court, D. Maine · Mar 31, 2023

Federal Rule of Evidence 701 permits a witness to testify to his or her opinion to the extent it is “rationally based on the witness’s perception,” “helpful to clearly understanding [their] testimony or to determining … The party must also admit, deny, or qualify the statement. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(e). Accordingly, in keeping with the Local Rule, I do not consider Integrity’s requests.

FINN v. CUP 4 CUP LLC

District Court, D. Maine · Nov 21, 2023

The Defendants, however, suggest these two cases establish that 26 M.R.S. … to qualify for new positions by training without pay” (emphasis supplied)).

OFFICEMAX INC. v. Sousa

773 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 24, 2011

Pi’s Steele SMF ¶ 12 (providing that OfficeMax “will establish sales quotas and margin quotas for each participant”). … Steele that the Compensation Plan has an Alice In Wonderland quality to it. 25 For purposes of the Compensation Plan, OfficeMax is clearly the master of the meaning of the words.

MAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIA v. HOLTRACHEM MFG CO

District Court, D. Maine · Oct 11, 2022

The Remediation Trust and its Trustee shall not take any actions that would cause the Remediation Trust to fail to qualify as a QSF or fail to take any actions necessary to cause the Remediation Trust to qualify as a QSF … Mallinckrodt shall notify the Trustee and other Beneficiaries if a proposed project qualifies as a Restoration Project.

In Re Perry

272 F. Supp. 73 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 20, 1967

As this court decided in a decision rendered on December 11, 1965, Section 1209 does not provide complete immunity against the rigors of the small loan law, since only “lawful” premiums or costs for credit insurance can be … But in sweeping language this section also denies licensees the right to make any additional charges whatsoever, even though such charges might be allowed under the principles of law as bona fide expenses, clearly distinguishable

GRENDELL v. STATE OF MAINE

District Court, D. Maine · Jul 10, 2020

For reasons I will explain, precedent firmly establishes that he cannot. … Finally, the Maine Civil Rights Act’s protections and immunities are generally “coextensive with those afforded by 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” Estate of Bennett v.