|
University of New England v. Weinstein
Download as PDF
Back to the Opinions page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2001 ME 108
Docket: Cum-00-569
Submitted
on Briefs: June 25, 2001
Decided: July 18, 2001
Panel:WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and
CALKINS, JJ.
UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND
v.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN
WATHEN, C.J.
[¶1] Defendant Harvey Weinstein appeals from entries of summary
judgment (Cumberland County, Mills, J.) in favor of plaintiff University of
New England (UNE) on UNE's claim and Weinstein's counterclaim.
Weinstein argues that the court erred (1) in failing to consider the defenses
raised in his statement of material facts in opposition to UNE's claim for
collection of two promissory notes; (2) in failing to consider his statement of
material facts and affidavit on his counterclaim for breach of contract,
wrongful dismissal, and denial of due process; and (3) in denying his motion
to compel discovery. Contrary to Weinstein's arguments, we find no error
and affirm.
[¶2] Weinstein's statement of material facts in opposition to UNE's
motion on its claim contained no references to the record pursuant to M.R.
Civ. P. 7(d)(2). His 54-page, 68-paragraph statement of material facts in
opposition to UNE's motion on Weinstein's counterclaim also failed to
comply with M.R. Civ. P. 7(d)(2) (requiring the opposing party to file a
"short and concise statement of the material facts"). Further, his affidavit
supporting the statement failed to comply with M.R. Civ. P. 56(e) (requiring
an affidavit supporting or opposing a motion for a summary judgment to be
made on personal knowledge, to set forth such facts as would be admissible
in evidence, and to show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify
to the matters stated therein). Thus, both statements are disregarded.
Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, ¶ 9, 770 A.2d 653. Accordingly,
because the facts contained in UNE's statements of material facts are not
properly controverted, they are deemed admitted pursuant to M.R. Civ. P.
7(d)(2). Prescott v. State Tax Assessor, 1998 ME 250, ¶ 6, 721 A.2d 169.
Based on these facts, the court did not err in determining that UNE is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on two promissory notes and on
Weinstein's breach of contract, wrongful dismissal and due process claims.
Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 1997 ME 99, ¶ 8, 694 A.2d 924 (citation omitted).
Further, contrary to Weinstein's argument, the court did not abuse its
discretion when it declined to rule on his motion to compel the production
of documents prior to ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See
Moscone v. Andrews, 600 A.2d 107, 108 (Me. 1991).
The entry is:
Judgments affirmed.
Attorney for plaintiff:
Jon A. Haddow, Esq.
P O Box 738
Farrell, Rosenblatt & Russell
Bangor, ME 04402-0738
For defendant:
Harvey Weinstein
79 Caleb Street
Portland, ME 04102
|