Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Robert Spickler and Olive Spickler v. Roger Dube
July 11, 1994644 A.2d 465
Summary
The court affirmed summary judgment barring the Spicklers’ shareholder and assignee claims because a prior federal dismissal for want of prosecution was a valid final judgment involving the same cause of action and sufficiently identical parties or privies. It also upheld a prefiling injunction because the defendants demonstrated a pattern of abusive and frivolous litigation and the screening requirement was no broader than necessary.
Holding
- Res judicata. The prior federal dismissal for want of prosecution was a valid final judgment on the merits, and res judicata barred the subsequent claims because they involved the same cause of action and sufficiently identical parties or privies. The close identity of interests between the sole investor, the other shareholder, and the closely held corporation made the prior judgment conclusive against the corporation and the Spicklers in their shareholder and assignee capacities.
- Prefiling injunction. The Superior Court acted within its discretion by enjoining the Spicklers and their corporation from filing future complaints concerning the land transaction or related litigation without first satisfying a Superior Court justice that the proposed action presented at least a prima facie case.
Cited authorities
- Rule 60(b)(3)
Cited by
- Robert Graham v. Dr. Kyl Smith
- Darling’s, D/b/a Darling’s Honda/nissan, Plaintiff v. Nissan Motor Corp., Defendant
- Jay A. Van Houten v. Harco Construction, Inc. and Continental Insurance Company
- In Re Richard B. Slosberg, Debtor. Dennis H. McAlister, Plaintiff v. Richard B. Slosberg, Defendant
- International Paper Company v. Town of Jay
- Deborah H. Neudek v. Arthur O. Neudek
- Federal National Mortgage Association v. Patricia W. Deschaine
- Federal National Mortgage Association v. Patricia W. Deschaine