Opening Moves

Sun 2.9.20

       In the continuing saga of Lorraine Saint Pierre v. Management X.  The court hearing was held, in attendance was opposing attorney, Ms. Stephanie Albert.  She brought with her the vice president of administration at Management X and the coordinator who was responsible for handing me the written permission to have my gazebo in the yard.  This was a hearing to which I sought a preliminary injunction to stop X from taking down the gazebo, but they’d already done it.   Ms. Albert said, let’s move on, the question is now moot.  But actually it’s not.  The mootness doctrine has exceptions, one of which under the heading of, Capable of Repetition, yet Evading Review, i.e. X would take down the gazebo if I put it up again, and the action which I seek to prevent is of short duration and the court cannot rule on it in time to stop them dismantling it.  It was applied in the Roe v. Wade case where Roe had since, either had an abortion or had the baby by the time her case reached the Supreme Court.  But it could happen again.  Judge had also to decide on a motion I made to amend my petition which as you can see in https://www.luhrenloup.com/pro-se is not much, I’m just trying to stop X from taking down the gazebo.  Judge was not impressed with my reasons for seeking to file an amended petition so I was given 10 days to see if I can do better.

      With the mootness question settled we moved on to a trial.  I don’t know what I expected; I was thinking in terms of NYC hearings in which you and the opposition approach the judge’s bench and it’s settled right there.  Thankfully I brought along my amended petition thinking with the judge’s permission I could serve Ms. Albert right there and save the hunk of change I would deposit with the P.O. to get the petition, a weighted package with many, many printed pictures and exhibits.

      I scored some points; Albert scored some point.  Coordinator, we should give her a name, how about Amy?  That sounds good.  Amy lied on the stand and the judge had the evidence I gave her to prove it.  X is trying to say that I tricked them into that permission, that what she viewed and approved was not what the finished product looked like.  I pointed out that the whole thing was tied together so it was all completed except for the canopy top when Amy gave permission.  Actually, Amy doesn’t have that power.  She got permission from her superior.  At any rate, Judge hearing this looked at a picture they had submitted which only shows part of the gazebo and sent it over to me asking, Is that the floor of the gazebo in the picture?  YES.  If the floor was in quite obviously the gazebo was up! So, a score for me.  Mr. Vice President had no answers for why other people on the premises were allowed to create all types of structures but not me.

      Ms. Albert scored a few points too which I don’t want to get into to give her any help here.  She’s an NPC, never bothered to greet me or introduce herself before the proceedings.  She saw me as a pushover easily gulled. She wants to WIN!  The way I look at it, I’m putting my best effort, but it’s in the hands of a higher power.  I did serve opposing attorney, in court, my motion to compel her to answer the demands I made about management and landlord, etcetera.

     Judge will render her decision on the preliminary injunction by mail.  I haven’t heard yet, thinking she’s waiting the 10 days for my filing of a reasonable justification to for the expanded petition.  Below is my justification:

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED PETITION AND

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

INTRODUCTION:

Petitioner Lorraine Saint Pierre respectfully moves the court, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to file an AMENDED PETITION.  The new complaint maintains the counts and allegations against the same Respondents from the original complaint, but accounts for the significant factual and procedural developments that have occurred since the original complaint was filed.  1) consummation of action sought by Petitioner in its motion for preliminary injunction has occurred. 2) Petitioner’s property within the gazebo was seized. 3) Rules initiated to enhance owner’s property but limiting what tenants choose to enjoy in front of their apartments that were not included in original plaint.  4) Violation of Petitioner’s 4th  amendment rights to privacy in the curtilage of her home.

STATEMENT OF FACT:

On July 10, 2019 Petitioner filed an Order To Show Cause and a motion for a Preliminary Injunction to prevent Respondent from dismantling a gazebo installed in front of Petitioner’s apartment, alleging that Respondent had permitted, in writing, the installation of gazebo, thus breaching lease.  Before the matter could be properly adjudicated Respondent took down the gazebo, and appropriated Petitioner’s property within the gazebo, tools, furniture, storage bins, soil, flooring, bricks, stones, concrete blocks, outdoor temperature thermometer, etcetera, which face Petitioner’s home. This area is used solely by Petitioner and is associated with Saint Pierre’s apartment.  Therefore, it’s an unreasonable intrusion and a 4th  amendment violation on the curtilage of her home and a theft of her property.

ARGUMENT

The interests of justice and judicial economy will undoubtedly be served by having all allegations properly before the Court as set forth in Petitioner’s proposed amended complaint. The amendments are narrowly tailored to reflect the present circumstances and Plaintiff’s present understanding of the case. In so doing, the action can more effectively proceed on the merits.

Respondent will not suffer any undue prejudice by virtue of the Court’s allowance of the proposed amendment. The determination of whether prejudice would occur often includes assessing whether allowing an amendment would result in additional discovery, cost, and preparation to defend against new facts or new theories. Defendants cannot be prejudiced, or caught off guard, by the new facts alleged by the Commission in the proposed amendment, since the Defendants have first-hand knowledge of the roles that they played in the transaction at issue and the proceedings described therein.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the proposed amended complaint. The grant of this motion is particularly appropriate here, given the clear absence of any substantial reason to deny leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons identified above, Petitioner requests that the Court grant motion for leave to file the proposed amended complaint, and that together with such other and further relief to which this Court deems just, proper and equitable

 Dated: Portland Maine

January 28, 2020,

                                                                                                 Respectfully submitted,

The favorite essay this month has been, Nagual