HARPER et al v. TAVENNER

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LINDA HARPER and 	)
ANTHONY HARPER, 	)
)
Plaintiffs 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:24-cv-00094-NT
)
THOMAS TAVENNER, JR., 	)
)
Defendant 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The instant case arises from a collision between the plaintiff Linda Harper’s
boat and the defendant Thomas Tavenner, Jr.’s boat. 	See Complaint (ECF No. 1).
Linda seeks damages for the personal injuries she allegedly sustained in the collision
and her husband, the plaintiff Anthony Harper, seeks damages for the loss of
consortium and loss of earnings he allegedly incurred while caring for his wife during
her recovery. 	Id. Tavenner seeks to dismiss count three of the Harpers’ complaint,
which presents a standalone claim of punitive damages for his alleged negligence.
See Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) at 1; Complaint at 7-8. For the following reasons,
I recommend that the Court deny Tavenner’s motion.
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts are authorized to
dismiss a complaint on motion for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 	A complaint will survive such a motion only if it
alleges “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Case 2:24-cv-00094-JAW Document 13 Filed 11/19/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The parties’ briefing centers on whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient
to establish a cognizable claim for punitive damages under Maine law and general
maritime law. 	See Motion to Dismiss at 3-7; Opposition (ECF No. 9) at 2-7;
Reply (ECF No. 10) at 1-4. 	I need not reach the merits of the parties’ arguments,
however, because punitive damages are not a claim of relief within the meaning of
Rule 8(a)(2), but a remedy recoverable only through a “separate cause of action.”
South Port Marine, LLC v. Gulf Oil Ltd. P’ship, 234 F.3d 58, 64 (1st Cir. 2000);
see also Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 11–23323–CIV, 2012 WL 920675,
at *2, 5-6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2012) (denying a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s “claim”
for punitive damages because “punitive damages is merely one form of relief that the
plaintiff may be entitled to if she prevails on her [negligence] claim,” and while
Rule 8(a)(2) requires the complaint to contain a statement of a claim showing that
the plaintiff is legally entitled to relief, subsection (a)(3) requires only that the
complaint provide a demand for the relief sought, which “suggests that the facts
underlying the claim for punitive damages need not be specifically pled”).
Consequently, 	it 	is 	neither 	necessary 	nor 	appropriate 	to 	adjudicate 	by
Rule 12(b)(6) motion whether punitive damages are recoverable, and I therefore
recommend that the Court decline to resolve the issue at this stage of litigation.1
See Lane v. City of Rockland, No. 2:22-cv-00058-JAW, 2023 WL 1319566, at *6
(D. Me. Jan. 31, 2023) (rec. dec.), aff’d, 2023 WL 2326247 (D. Me. Mar. 2, 2023);
1 “[T]he facts as they develop in this case will alone determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to
punitive damages.” Doe, 2012 WL 920675, at *5. It follows, then, that the defendant would not be
precluded from later testing the sufficiency of those facts in a summary judgment motion. Id. at *6.
Case 2:24-cv-00094-JAW Document 13 Filed 11/19/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
see also D'Pergo Custom Guitars, Inc., v. Sweetwater Sound, Inc., No. 17-cv-747-LM,
2018 WL 6519070, at *6 (D.N.H. Dec. 11, 2018) (declining to dismiss a plaintiff's
“request for punitive damages” because “whether punitive damages are recoverable
is not a proper subject for adjudication in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion” (cleaned up)).
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DENY Thomas’s motion to dismiss.
NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated: November 19, 2024
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00094-JAW Document 13 Filed 11/19/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>