Smith v. Mozeleski

STATE OF MAINE BUSINESS & CONSUMER DOCKET
CUMBERLAND, ss. LOCATION: PORTLAND
DOCKET NO.: BCD-CV-2020-00033

-PETER AMES SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BRIAN MOZELESKI, et al., ) AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
Defendant and PII. )

This case has been pending for nearly three years, and it has not gotten better with age. It

commenced on June 15, 2020, with a simple two count Complaint seeking dissolution and

inspection of records. The parties started off optimistically, asking for early mediation and a

Judicial Settlement Conference before litigating in earnest. Early efforts at dispute resolution,
• I

however, did not have the desired effect. On March 1, 2021; the Court issued a Scheduling Order.

Since then discovery has been extended tliree times, and the case rolls on.

As established in the Scheduling Order, the deadline for amending the pleadings was
- .
August 2, 2021. Notwithstanding the historicity of that date, on March 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (the "Motion"). As Exhibit A to the Motion,

Plaintiff attached his proffered Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint adds two new

counts, for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and doubles the length of the original

Complaint. The Amended Complaint would constitute a major expansion of the litigation, coming
r ,

1
r
nearly three years after its modest origins. The Motion is significantly untimely, deviates from th

Scheduling Order, and is denied for that reason. See M.R. Civ. P. 132(b).

Plaintiff defends the tardiness of his Motion by. asserting that certain information only

recently became known through the course of depositions, and Plaintiff could not have sought ·

amendment sooner. The Court is not persuaded. An inspection of the original Complaint reveals

that facts sufficient to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment were alleged

in June 2020, and include many.of the details now alleged in the Amended Complaint. Compare

Pl.'s Compl. ,111-19 with Pl.'s Am.. Compl. ,, 44-60 of th Amended Complaint. Under the

circumstances, including undue delay, justice does not require leave being freely given to amend.

See M.R. Civ. P. lS(a). Defendant and the party-in-interest argue they would be prejudiced by,

inter alia, \he staleness of evidence that accrues after the passage of years. The Court agrees, and

for these additional reasons denies the Motion.

Sq Ordered.

Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is instructed to incorporate this Order by reference

on the docket for this case.

Date: 1-2 - ·Z-J Mi hael A. Duddy
Judge, Business and Co

Entered on the d'ocket: 04/26/2023

2